Guys, you can stop reporting CannonFodder. I trust the users to be able to figure out on their own who's talking sense in the conversation, and who's being ridiculous.
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025
10 points (91.7% liked)
Al Jazeera
88 readers
54 users here now
Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
top 22 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Hamas needs to surrender and release all the hostages. Their very existence gives Israel an excuse to keep doing their unconscionable shit in Gaza.
Israel need to end occupation
As as they've inched toward that in the past, Hamas built up and then attacked. Yes, Israel acts horribly, but Hamas make it impossible to find any peaceful solution unless they are eradicated.
Israel has the obligation to end settler colonialism unconditionally. A free palestine with an army will destroy hamas
I think you're a bit delusional there. The people of Gaza support Hamas.
And although I disparage recent settler activities by Israel, their entire existence could be seen as settler colonialism, just like the U.S. or almost all other countries if you go back far enough. So I don't think Israel has any obligation there.
If you think the people of Gaza would kick out Hamas if they could, why don't they welcome Israel to do the same?
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion delivered on July 19, 2024, which determined that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, is unlawful under international law. The ICJ ruled that Israel must end the occupation, dismantle settlements, pay reparations to the Palestinian people, and cease discriminatory policies
So why israel has to end occupation unconditionally
Well technically, Israel didn't sign the Rome Statute, so no. And there are a lot of parties in the area that aren't following the rules. You can't just pick one side and insist they get pummeled by following the rules when their adversaries don't. I would certainly wish Israel would take the moral high ground, but instead they seem to have decided to go down to the gutter and fight Hamas at its level - and I find that very regrettable and sad.
Well technically, Israel didn't sign the Rome Statute, so no.
Did Hamas?
Of course, the world is not a nice place. At the end of the day, Israel can do whatever they want to do with the territories they decided to occupy away from the people that lived there. But don't come in here all surprised about the reaction to it, or talking about "Israel" and "moral high ground" in the same sentence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeVy4SHJx8c
"It must have been a stray Palestinian bullet."
You just put 'moral high ground' and 'Israel' in the same sentence as much as I did.
I won't be surprised; both sides are stupidly stubborn and both side are evil and violent. Right now Isreal has the means to be more evil and more violent. In the past whether on their own volition or to secure international support, they have not gone full on to wipe out their adversaries so I think they did somewhat take the slightly less low road. They are taking a different approach now and it's horrible. I don't know if it will make the eventual response even more horrible, or if it will delay it enough that from Israel's perspective it will be worth it. I can only hope the current Israeli government gets kicked out of power and some sort of peace deal can be made.
why don't they welcome Israel to do the same?
Because israel is occupying them
You are dilusional genocide supporter. The people of gaza support anybody who retaliate to israeli terrorism so once occupation end hamas is done it will lose all support and will be fough by an palestinian army
Why are using dumb word like could everybody know building settlements in settler colonialism
Fuckin "inched towards" what?
Can I move my family into your house and attack family members of yours and drive them out whenever we want to take over an additional room, sending you to live in the basement now? Shoot your kids for sport even when you're in your own part? Set fire to parts of the house and take your belongings any time we want? And then say we're "inching towards" leaving you alone in the portion of the house that's left (while we wander through it at random at all times), and so you're not allowed to do anything to us in the meantime? Get the fuck out of here with all this fuckin' nonsense.
"I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" -David Ben-Gurion
There's been attempts toward peace in the past. The big one was when Gaza was given autonomy to elect their own government ... and they chose Hamas. Yes Israel generally acts horribly, but it's been both Palestinians and Israelis that have scuttled efforts to peace in the past,
What do you think Ben-Gurion's diagnosis would be, as to why attempts towards peace in the past have failed?
Dunno. He might support the current efforts, as you pointed out - he understood that Palestinians would never accept Israel's existence.
That's not what he said, although it's very similar. What was it about Israel's existence specifically that he identified as the problem? I'm not sure why you wouldn't know this, he was extremely specific about it and I just quoted it to you.
Edit: I'll give an even broader hint. If Israel existed in Africa, would that be okay with them? What about if Israel existed in Thailand? Would that be okay? So what is it specifically that the Palestinians have a problem with, about its existence, that makes it different from those specific scenarios?
Hamas has already agreed to any number of "ceasefires" which included phased release of hostages. If Hamas surrendered and released all the hostages unconditionally, Israel would just find some other way to promote a grouping that was willing to fill the role of "armed enemy," and keep right on doing what they're doing.
Doing the invasion on October 7th was clearly a vicious and catastrophic mistake, because it provided Israel a pretext to get started with all of this latest phase of their plan. But you can't blame Hamas for it any more than you can blame the nightly news anchor for lying on TV. That's the whole reason they have the job in the first place, it is a prerequisite.
You make it sound like the people of Gaza have no agency, that they're mindless pawns with predestined outcomes. If so, then so are the IDF soldiers and the politicians behind them. Where do you start making people responsible for their own decisions?
You make it sound like the people of Gaza have no agency
Correct. That is the physical reality. They have no food, no housing, no medical care, and they keep getting blown the fuck up. If they had any agency over their situation, the first thing they'd do with it is put a stop to any of that. They don't.
that they're mindless pawns with predestined outcomes
Not what I said at all. You need to reread, among other things, the first sentence of my comment.
Where do you start making people responsible for their own decisions?
Decisions?
I think I'm done with this conversation.
Hamas is not surrendering. They are still launching rockets at Israeli civilians. Hamas is the face of Gaza. Yes, it's their decision not to surrender. They have agency there.
I'm not defending Israel's actions nor their people for not revolting against their government. But I'm also not defending Hamas or the people of Gaza for not revolting against them.
They are still launching rockets at Israeli civilians.
Oh, is that the metric?
I mean, I'm sure you're right, and they should not be killing Israeli civilians, no. But at least they have some kind of reason and justification for it, beyond Israel's, which is "They keep fighting back when we shoot them and take their shit."