Point 1: We can see from the get-go that the actions of Hamas here were not to get peace and prosperity in Gaza, not to build infrastructure, and not to receive an Arab state (in the conventional sense), rather it was to see a LACK OF A JEWISH STATE.
While their charter definitely wants the destruction of Israel, I interpret it more as they see the jews as an existential threat. IE as long as a jewish state exists in the area, they will always be under threat of that state attempting to expand, as Israel has done many times and continues to do. therefore his statement is false. It's not that they aren't looking to receive an arab state. They very much do. But they also see the existence of a jewish state as a existential threat to that state.
1. HISTORICAL RIGHTS TO THE LAND/ISRAEL STOLE IT
This one is a complicated point. Jews definitely lived there thousands of years ago. But there were very few jews living there for like 1000 years prior to Zionism. In my opinion, being absent for 1000 years removes much claim to the land. there are countless people in the world who have been displaced from their ancestral lands. If we said that all of them still had a right to those lands, the wars would be never ending. For example, the turks have lived in Anatolia and Europe for about 1000 years. So the people they displaced would have a similar claim to the removal of Turkey as the Jews do to the lands of Palestine. But I don't think anyone would support that.
I'm also not sure that there is evidence to support the idea that the jewish people living there now are actually descendants of the jewish people who lived there 1000's of years ago. Judaism is, of course, a religion, not an ethnicity. Just because jews lived there before, does not mean the people living there now have a claim to it. Lots of people from other areas of the world converted to Judaism, it doesn't mean those people have claims to Israel/Palestine.
2. JEWS DIDN'T GIVE ENOUGH LAND/PREVENTED AN ARAB STATE (PLEASE READ)
this is kind of a weird point to me. Jews didn't "give" land. The british were taking land and giving it to the jews. The palestinians got mad and did horrible, horrible things prompting the Jews to retaliate. In the resulting violence the jews ended up taking more land. And they are illegally taking more land year after year. They weren't originally trying to prevent an arab state, because the population of the area was arab when they arrived. Their goals shifted over time though and they definitely have been fighting to prevent an arab state for decades.
Point 3: Arabs have walked away from every single attempt to make an independent Arab State, so There cannot be any blame on the Jews for not giving up/stealing land from the Arabs.
arabs certainly share blame for the current mess. But just because you walk away from what you perceive to be a bad deal, does mean you lose all rights to a deal. And it certainly doesn't justify the other side illegally stealing your stuff, which the Israeli settlements do every year.
Point 4. Do not blame israel for the oppressive conditions in Gaza.
I would strongly disagree with this point. Israel wanted hamas in power. They took steps to make sure Hamas stayed in power. The idea of a palestian people unified under a peaceful and reasonable government is terrifying to Israel. Israel needed hamas because it justified Israel in blocking peace and continuing their militarist policies and illegal settlements.
Point 4: Israel did not expel all arabs from Palestine as a result of making the state. At most, arabs were displaced from the war waged by up to 7 other arab countries at a time. if not for these unprovoked wars, much less arabs would have been displaced. Furthermore, Arabs since the beginning have enjoyed full citizenry in israel, even having representatives in gov't. This disproves the Apartheid theory (look up the definition of Apartheid.)
It's true they didn't expel all arabs, just most of them. The statement seems to claim that Israel didn't expel them at all, that they were displaced by the war only, this is untrue. He says it can't be Apartheid because many of the arabs that remained in what became Israel got citizenship and to look up the definition. The definition I found is "a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race." The Palestinians certainly are discriminated against on grounds of race. Allowing some people to have citizenship and the right to vote doesn't negate an apartheid state. Besides, choosing to sort of accept a small chunk of a population doesn't mean you aren't engaging in apartheid against the rest of that population. There were some black people in apartheid south africa who did very well. They went to the best schools, served in government etc. Their existence doesn't negate how the government treated the rest of the black people.
To discuss the concept of a human shield and proportionate response, I really don't understand the current Opposition's stance. Throughout world history, and indeed in common sense, once an act of aggression is done towards a country, that country will respond in the way it deems fit.
this is REALLY, not true. There have always been rules to war. Those rules have shifted over time, but to say that once a country has an act of aggression done against it they are free to do what they want is wildly inaccurate. for example, WW 1 was caused by Austria over reacting to an act of aggression. Their heir to the throne was murdered. But Russia still intervened to stop them when they went too far in reacting to it. Another example could be the Vietnam war. Theoretically, the reason america got involved was the gulf of Tonkin incident, IE an act of aggression against america. That does not excuse them bombing villages and mass slaughtering civilians.
This means that Germany shouldn't have been attacked because of the civilians, Japan shouldn't have gotten 2 nuclear bombs after Pearl Harbor, and many other examples of retaliation that NO ONE IS PROTESTING ABOUT.
this seems straight up stupid. many people protested about the use of force on germany and Japan. It is pretty commonly held that the allies went too far in what they did to germany, the fire bombing of Dresden for example. But without the internet and freely available information, it was much less known and understood exactly how brutal it was. And the world has kind of moved on by the time that information was more widely available.
For the japanese, it's tougher. The allies' only 2 options were a conventional land invasion or using the bomb. It is plausible that a land invasion could have killed more japanese civilians than the bombs did. but we will never know.
If Hamas did not have their military operations near hospitals and schools and civilians, the IDF would not be shooting at them.
the counter point would be that the IDF is putting little, if any, effort into avoiding civilian targets. They have been freely bombing any target that might have hamas there. They don't bother checking if they are actually there. They don't care. If they were doing everything they could to avoid civilian casualties, then this might be a valid point. Civilians were going to die in the fighting no matter what. But the IDF is actively bombing civilian targets with little to no evidence that there are any hamas fighters in the area. They want to drive out the civilians so they can militarily occupy the area. The free fire on civilians isn't a flaw, it's the design.
Also, even if there were to be an argument for unnecessary civilian death, why is no one blaming hamas for putting their operations there? why is all the blame on israel? this shows something.
it shows desperation. Many, if not most groups engaging in asymmetrical warfare use tactics like this. If they didn't Israel would easily kill them all and then continue abusing the palestinian people anyway. I'm sure they would argue it is even more inhumane to allow Israel to easily win and then abuse their people freely with no chance of resisting them. But like I said, this argument would only be valid if Israel was actually trying to avoid civilian casualties, which they are not. they lose any moral high ground the moment they intentionally target civilians.
