That people are stupid because they don't have access to knowledge.
Natural selection "asks" this question all the time. What you see around you are the different answers ;)
Maybe their just trying to get you to spend more time with your family and friends?
The Israeli institution formally accepted the UN resolution that gave part of the land to the Jewish state and part of it to the Palestinians.
And yes, it happened in 1947, before Israel was formally declared.
And yes, the Palestinians rejected it and declared a war on Israel, stating that they "will push all the Jews to the sea".
BTW, what is bantustan?
You misunderstood me. Saying that Hamas should get out of the kitchen means that Hamas should not build their military infrastructure in civilian areas, prevent the population from evacuating, and then cry when there are inevitable civilian losses when Israel attacks Hamas. I did not mean to imply that attacking civilians is ok, it is not. I meant that attacking Hamas is the only current option left for Israel, and that if civilians are there, there will be civilian deaths.
About the quotes, I meant that evacuating a war zone is not ethnic cleansing. This is also the current situation in southern Israel, because of Hamas rockets and because some places attacked by Hamas were not yet rebuilt. This is also the current situation in southern Lebanon and northern Israel. You don't seem to be complaining about the ethnic cleansing of jews in the north of Israel, and rightly so, because evacuating a war zone is a very responsible thing to do. It only becomes ethnic cleansing in hindsight, when the war ends, if they are not allowed to return.
Also, why is ethnic cleansing part of genocide? These are two different crimes. They could come together, but can't ethnic cleansing be committed without committing genocide?
They are being ordered to evacuate a war zone that Hamas chose. Hamas chose to use them as human shields. Israel is trying to get them out of the warzone.
Would you prefer they were not "ethnically cleansed" to shelters in the south? Would you prefer they die when the IDF attacks Hamas infrastructure and militants in the active warzones in the strip?
Or is it just that you would prefer that Israel doesn't attack Hamas and leave them ruling Gaza and preparing for their next attack?
What was genocidal about my comment? Implying that Hamas is responsible for this war? Or is it that I'm implying that Hamas can end it any minute?
1947 called, it says you're misinformed, or worse.
You don't seem to know much about this conflict and about the area. There is a lot of Hamas in the west bank. Look at the pictures of the killed militants from the past weeks in the west bank, a majority of them are draped in Hamas funeral flags, only a minority are PLO militants.
Secondly, Israel already accepted the validity of the Palestinian claims for the west bank and Gaza in multiple peace offers. They were not accepted by the Palestinians because they are not willing to accept Israel's right to exist.
If you have any other way of removing Hamas, let's hear it. If not, would you prefer the civilians were not evacuated?
Israel has many many Arabs in it, with equal rights. Hamas is the one that has in its charter the "cleansing of Palestine of the Jewish filth".
Hamas chose this to be a war zone by firing rockets from there and building tunnels there and holding hostages there.
IDF didn't choose Gaza to be the battlefield, Hamas chose it.
If Hamas can't stand the heat, maybe they should step out of the kitchen.
Actually, its part if a Palestinian campaign to destroy Israel. Israel did offer a two state solution multiple times. Its the Palestinians that reject the right of Israel to exist, not the other way around.
Sacrificing their own population to gain support doesn't make them right.
There is no genocide. Speaking of it as if it was a proven fact is a mean rhetoric trick.
With the current situation in Israel we might see ethnic cleansing in a few years but we're not there yet.
Do you know what will prevent a future genocide? Finding a better way for Israel to protect itself against Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists. That will also be the only way to get Israel to exit the west bank.
I'm just here to say that any country that uses its civilians to protect its army can't complain about genocide, especially when the opposing army is giving them a chance to move away from the battlefield in advance.
Nope, what you'll get is more import, and strategic dependency on food producing countries.
Didn't the US stop doing this 20 years ago?
Besides, it's still better than Iran, and Russia. Fewer dead. Less economic strife, much much less injustice.
It's called symbiosis. They both profit from it.
How do I know? Because it evolved. Why did it evolve? Because it gives them an advantage.
I think it is quite obvious: to destroy the Hamas infrastructure and to kill as many Hamas militants as possible, while minimising Israeli casualties.
If you have a better suggestion for how to destroy Hamas' ability to continue to attack Israel I'm sure they would love to hear it.
That is the same guilty rate as Israel's internal convictions and is caused by police not bothering with anything that is not an easy win.
The administrative detention also has judicial checks and limitations. Also, these are not random people picked off the streets, these are terrorists or would be terrorists where, for the most part, the evidence for detaining them is too sensitive from intelligence point of view to share in a trial.
Hamas surrender would PREVENT Israel from occupying Gaza. If Hamas wouldn't have taken the hostages in the first place Israel wouldn't have attacked Gaza.
Is the current Hamas strategy working for the Gazans civilians?
So yes, if you want to support Gazans civilians, and prevent Israel from occupying Gaza, you should push Hamas to surrender and return the hostages.