JoeHill

“Anyone well familiar with the history of the conflict” doesn’t describe the vast majority of opinions I’ve found on the internet so I felt it was important to clarify since the headline is misleading at best.

Secondly, I think the calculus has changed. Netanyahu used to have no problem propping up Hamas. So, sure, trade Yahya Sinwar and a thousand other prisoners for Gilad Shalit. In Netanyahu’s mind, that will only help destabilize the PA and allow him to keep building settlements in the West Bank. That strategy came home to roost on October 7.

Headline is wrong. The article makes it clear that it’s in exchange for prisoners in Israeli jails PLUS a truce.

Last week there was an effort from the Qatari brothers to release the enemy captives from women and children, in return for the release of 200 Palestinian children and 75 women detained by the enemy" Abu Ubaida, the spokesman for the armed wing of Hamas, al-Qassam Brigades, said in an audio recording posted on the group’s Telegram channel.

“The truce should include a complete ceasefire and allow aid and humanitarian relief everywhere in the Gaza Strip,” he said.

The 405 is certainly a parking structure.

It’s the literal pre mandatory Palestine border.

Please show me that map. Otherwise I have things to do and am not going to continue this conversation.

We’re not going to agree and I have other things I need to do today. We’ll have to respectfully disagree that unnatural deaths alone constitute genocide.

1. Intent, which is what I’ve been trying to explain. “Kill the buffalo, kill the Indian”.
2. Population has dramatically increased since ‘67. Hard to argue that it’s “destr[uction]” when the population is markedly higher. Compare that to the plains Indians after the deliberate destruction of the buffalo.

Denial of national aspirations is not the same thing as genocide, and to conflate the two does the Palestinian cause no favors.

I’m not accusing of anything. You’re claiming that borders exist that never existed. Put up or shut up.

Please show a map that shows your point.

That’s like saying if the US collapsed that the existence of former states of Washington, Oregon and half of a state called California proves that there is now a country called “Washoregfornia” even though nobody ever called themselves Washoregfornians when the US existed and nobody governed themselves according to those borders. You’re inverting your logic.

“Just subdivided into three states”.

Thank you. Like I said, those administrative borders never existed. It’s a British colonial construct.