Doubtful but the most important thing at this moment is to stop the killing and destruction and solve the humanitarian crisis. Once that is done then a solution can be worked on, though frankly I am pessimistic due to the level of anger and hate at the moment.
That’s the thing. Nobody wants to propose an actual solution. Letting Hamas regroup and smuggle in more weapons just returns things to the status que that got us into this situation in the first place.
That’s the thing. Nobody wants to propose an actual solution. Letting Israel continue its slow motion genocide and cause more brutal oppression and deaths over decades returns things to the status que that got us into this situation in the first place.
The only way there can be peace is for Israel to be dismantled and Netanyahu trialed at the Hague for crimes against humanity.
I didn’t know how else to interpret the dismantling of Israel because they specified punitive actions against the government of Israel separate from the dismantling of Israel.
This implies Israel should cease existing as a nation. Which implies its people would be at the whims of whomever can conquer the land. Which implies the potential scattering of people from their homes. Which is a genocide.
If preventing the Palestinian people from having a proper government, leaving them at the mercy of their nation-state neighbors, is wrong, then dismantling Israel and leaving them to the same fate is also wrong.
Then you are not somebody to be taken seriously. Live your dream and move to a failed state where anarchy reigns, die from dysentery, and stay out of geopolitical conversations.
You do realize that all ceasefires between Palestinian resistance (not Hamas because the one you're thinking of was with PIJ) and Israel are just return to the status quo ante bellum? Both Israel and the other party agree to just do things as usual for the time being. Gazans sure as hell were being bombed before October 7th.
Don’t have any idea where you’re getting misled from but there were quite a few ceasefires between Hamas and Israel and the last one was mediated by Egypt in 2021 and was broken by Hamas on the morning of October 7th. Also, if you guys think Hamas cares one iota about any of the Palestinian civilians, can you explain why they wasted millions of dollars building tunnels to shelter their terrorist leaders instead of one single shelter for any civilian? Please stop getting your news from social media and sites telling you what to think.
And did Israel stop bombing Gazans during that ceasefire? Did they lift the blockade? (Hint: The answer is no) If no it's worthless. That's why I said these "ceasefires" are returns to the status quo ante bellum.
A blockade is the act of actively preventing a country or region from receiving or sending out food, supplies, weapons, or communications, and sometimes people, by military force. A blockade differs from an embargo or sanction, which are legal barriers to trade rather than physical barriers. It is also distinct from a siege in that a blockade is usually directed at an entire country or region, rather than a fortress or city and the objective may not always be to conquer the area.
A blockading power can seek to cut off all maritime transport from and to the blockaded country; although stopping all land transport to and from an area may also be considered a blockade. Blockades restrict the trading rights of neutrals, who must submit for inspection for contraband, which the blockading power may define narrowly or broadly, sometimes including food and medicine. In the 20th century, air power has also been used to enhance the effectiveness of the blockade by halting air traffic within the blockaded airspace.
Close patrol of hostile ports, in order to prevent naval forces from putting to sea, is also referred to as a blockade. When coastal cities or fortresses were besieged from the landward side, the besiegers would often blockade the seaward side as well. Most recently, blockades have sometimes included cutting off electronic communications by jamming radio signals and severing undersea cables. Blockades often result in the starvation of the civilian population, notably during the blockade of Germany during World War I and the blockade of Biafra during the Nigerian Civil War.[1]
According to modern international law, blockades are an act of war.[2] They are illegal as part of a war of aggression[3] or when used against a civilian population, instead of a military target.[4] In such case, they are a war crime and potentially a crime against humanity.[5][6]
I dont think the person you are responding to is the one who knows nothing about what they are saying.
Yikes, the citations on that last paragraph are scary bad. That’s why you never trust Wikipedia at face value, but rather check what sources it’s citing.
Heck, there is an entire section of the article that contradicts that paragraph.
blockade, an act of war whereby one party blocks entry to or departure from a defined part of an enemy’s territory, most often its coasts. Blockades are regulated by international law and custom and require advance warning to neutral states and impartial application.
Or Oxford public international law:
A blockade is a belligerent operation to prevent vessels and/or aircraft of all nations, enemy and neutral (Neutrality in Naval Warfare), from entering or exiting specified ports, airports, or coastal areas belonging to, occupied by, or under the control of an enemy nation. The purpose of establishing a blockade is to deny the enemy the use of enemy and neutral vessels or aircraft to transport personnel and goods to or from enemy territory (Transit of Goods over Foreign Territory).
Or are all these sources wrong and you just so happen to know better?
Well, you keep citing sources that don’t support the original statement. Both of these definitions mention blockades being used in wars, not that they themselves were an act of war
I misspoke. the ceasefire Egypt brokered between Hamas and Israel was on May 14th, 2023 and no, Israel did not bomb Gaza until their retaliation to Hamas breaking the ceasefire with their terrorist attack on the morning of October 7th. the blockade was not even mentioned in the ceasefire and I have no idea why you would think it was. There were quite a few ceasefires since Hamas rolled into town and to be honest ALL of them were necessary because Israel answered Hamas attacks.
no, Israel did not bomb Gaza until their retaliation to Hamas breaking the ceasefire with their terrorist attack on the morning of October 7th.
You know people can tell when you lie, right? Israel has never stopped bombing Gaza due to a ceasefire. Not in 2008, not in 2013, and sure as hell not in 2022 or 2023. Also the 2023 ceasefire was, as I said, between Israel and the PIJ, not Hamas.
the blockade was not even mentioned in the ceasefire and I have no idea why you would think it was.
It's not. Therefore it's a return to the status quo ante bellum, not a ceasefire. Because the blockade is an act of war.
I mean I'm 100% sure I can find many since Israeli bombing of Gaza is a daily occurrence, but I've already stated that the 2023 "ceasefire" was between the PIJ and IDF. Hamas has nothing to do with it. Are you intentionally ignoring that part?
Actually, Documentary evidence outside of the New Testament is limited to put it mildly. Everything else is just second- or third-party claims from decades after he supposedly lived by a few Jewish and Roman scholars, most of which weren’t even alive at the time.
The false notion that there’s a credible secular consensus stems from a bunch of Christian historians (the concentration of which is higher than in every other specialty within history, for obvious reasons) agreeing with each other that of course their imaginary friend’s son who’s also his own dad and a disembodied spirit TOTALLY existed as a historical figure, nothing religious about believing so! 🙄
Limited, sure, but not absent. How much of the article you linked did you read? The second and further sections of that article make a fairly compelling case for there having been someone who fit most of the criteria, and it also specifically addresses your "bunch of Christian historians" bit.
“These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information,” Ehrman says. “But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases.”
Yeah, both you and Ehrman are taking a LOT on faith (yes, that was intended) that really isn’t borne out by any reliable sources, critically no contemporate ones.
If there really HAD been a man like that, don’t you think that just a few people would bother to notice and tell others about him?
All the supposed “evidence” is a bunch of cobbled together rumors that REEK of confirmation bias to a degree that it can’t possibly be taken as proof.
I think it is well beyond rumors when a historian four generations later writes about you. You're welcome to disagree though. That's the nice thing about opinions is that everybody gets to have their own.
Netanyahu told “Face the Nation” on Sunday that a hostage deal would delay the Rafah operation, but said Israel would still move ahead with the operation at a later time.
Lol you mean the ceasefire that was in place that Israel kept breaking constantly bombing, killing, and arresting thousands of Palestinians? And the one they keep breaking by building illegal settlements? Or are we just pretending that there was no history of apartheid violence in the 70 years before the 7th of October?
Unbelievable, but then again, who would have thought a gang would storm the capital and attempt a full blown coup here. Guess this is not out of the question here anymore either.
Ooff, that doesn’t sound like a good time. Haiti’s always been rather problematic, with the colonial history, dictators, extreme poverty, disasters, several coups, etc. Etc. In 2004, the UN also sent folks there to keep the peace. They were there until 2019 and accomplished…?
So now we’re back to another round of UN intervention probably. It really feels like Haiti will forever be incapable of proper self-governance. The people deserve better, but I doubt they’ll get it.
In 2004 the UN sent peacekeepers to solidify the US and French-backed coup d’état. It’s a mess, and the terrible series of natural disasters also hasn’t helped.
Man, I miss the peaceful world during the last pandemic.
My pet theory is some world leaders actually got covid brain fog and made stupid decisions after pandemics. E.g. Trump with January 6 (he got covid around late 2020). Maybe Putin got covid brain fog too and thought invading Ukraine was a good idea.
“Russian puppets and traitors” oh please…stop it already. Republicans are just asking questions about why and where all this money is going. They are completely united with stopping Russia, they just don’t want to funnel endless money to the cause.
Is it really accurate to call these groups gangs at this point? They are not gangs in the sense that people in the US or Europe would understand. They are not groups of criminals engaged primarily in economic crimes. They are basically armed autonomous militants. Their main activities are political and governmental. Most of the killing is for control of territory they oversee.
In essence Haiti has become a failed state and these groups are vying to control that power vacuum. The term gang is more misleading than clarifying and I have to wonder if there is some unconscious racial bias at play with media coverage.
I think it’s more trying to preemptively delegitimize any groups among them who could come to the fore while the UN policing response is still lacing their boots
Don’t want any of them to be able to claim they’re freedom fighters while the Kenyans are capturing the ones who cooperate and killing the ones who don’t
I don’t really see that as the role of the media. The media should inform people about what’s happening, not editorialize to support some hypothetical future military action.
Also, I mean, they are freedom fighters. That doesn’t mean I support them but they are violent radicals seeking the overthrow of the government. Freedom fighters is just how the media and governments refer to militants they want to make sound benign. You can argue that the Taliban were freedom fighters, as were the rebels in the US civil war. It’s kind of a nonsense term.
It should but it does not. The media demonizes the side that we want to kill and manufactures consent for you to do so. Then when you have been convinced that one side is good and the other one evil we can send in troops to coup the country and place a puppet regime.
Khadaffi was a great example of us killing a dictator and then leaving a power vacuum that was far worse.
If we actually cared about helping people not being killed we’d be stopping arms to israel by now.
Yes they’re definitely autonomous militias not gangs. There’s even been dust ups with the Dominican military which is substantially more armed and trained (by US forces) than their Haitian counterparts.
Haiti is such a tragedy, they try to stand on their own and then they get nuked by an earthquake and chorlera, they try at democracy and their president gets assasinated - the country just cant get a fuckin break. Everyone’s mostly too poor to escape and the DR closed their borders, which honestly I can’t blame them, everyone else is trapped in the meat grinder. It’s the ultimate example of why colonialism scars for generations even after the occupiers leave.
cbsnews.com
Oldest