Japan Today
politics

Nagasaki holds off inviting Israel to peace ceremony

108 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2024 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

108 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

The Israeli ambassador to Japan has not yet been invited to Nagasaki's annual peace ceremony, said city officials who instead sent the embassy a letter calling for a Gaza ceasefire.

Well done Nagasaki! No need to invite genocider to peace ceremony.

Occupier can claim whatever they want but people can judge what they really do.

https://www.tiktok.com/discover/Isaac-herzog-we-are-peace-seekers

3 ( +30 / -27 )

Good decision Nagasaki.

18 ( +35 / -17 )

Israel is a nuclear power and whose members of Parliament have called for the nuclear destruction of Gaza.

Israel also operates as a military state when Palestinians are involved.

Israel is a belligerent state that occupies Palestinian land contrary to International Law and many, many UN determinations.

So why should that war state be invited to a memorial that commemorates a tragedy of war and the need for peace.

15 ( +30 / -15 )

Inevitable, the situation would have made the whole ceremony a Joke if an invitation was given to Israel right now. Unfortunately Hiroshima is not yet on the same train.

1 ( +18 / -17 )

Good. Hiroshima is where Kishida is from. Don't expect much.

9 ( +17 / -8 )

Should have invited them and then made a speech right in front of them and all other attendees decrying all forms of war "including the genocide of the Gazans by Israel".

6 ( +15 / -9 )

How do we know if they report the real number of Palestinians killed when in the Quoran 5.89 they are permitted to lie and the Hamas tunnels are accessed through their hospitals? It means their highest health officials are complicit.

-5 ( +12 / -17 )

But it still invites the US? not only were they actively engaged in coups,etc, but they are the ones that nuked the Japanese cities. Why does the us get a pass?

-2 ( +14 / -16 )

And if I may say, if the Palestinian envoy is Hamas, that's a terrible move. Gonna invite Syria or North Korea next?

-8 ( +11 / -19 )

""The Israeli ambassador to Japan has not yet been invited to Nagasaki's annual peace ceremony, said city officials who instead sent the embassy a letter calling for a Gaza ceasefire.""

Yes, Yes , and thank you Nagasaki for being on the right side of History.

Israel can NO Longer be a partner in peace for as long as this war continues.

May Peace Prevail In Gaza, Ukraine, and all over the world.

7 ( +16 / -9 )

Isn’t that an Anti-Semitic gesture by Western standards?

-13 ( +8 / -21 )

The Palestinian envoy has been invited to the ceremony in Nagasaki

Does this envoy consist of member from the PA or Hamas? I couldn’t find anything online specifying which.

-4 ( +9 / -13 )

So the Palestinians, the aggressors, are invited, but Israel, the victim, is not? Nagasaki needs to read a newspaper and do the right thing.

-8 ( +13 / -21 )

It seems to me that a cease-fire is overdue. Lately, all we read is that 4 (3 here, 5 there) more hostages found. . .dead. If the hostages are not part of the bigger picture then the war is to blame for more deaths than the figures show. I don't care if it all goes back to what's happening or not, but the hostages seem to have become a non-issue. Pretty soon it will be, " 25 hostages found. . .dead." Then 30, then 40 and so on. Get 'em out of there.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

But it still invites the US? not only were they actively engaged in coups,etc, but they are the ones that nuked the Japanese cities. Why does the us get a pass

Ok good point but it just goes to show how independent a country Jaoan truly is...in other words there was never any choice regarding this.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

""The Palestinian envoy has been invited to the ceremony in Nagasaki, local officials told AFP on Tuesday. Japanese media said that both sides are usually invited.

Nagasaki has instead sent a letter to the Israeli embassy in which "we call for an immediate ceasefire", Suzuki said.""

And thank you again, Mr. Netanyahu keeps on insisting of killing as many innocent Palestinians as possible in the name of Self Defense while he knows damn well that Hamas is there to STAY.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

"" Isn’t that an Anti-Semitic gesture by Western standards? ""

Arabs and the Palestinians are Semitic too, so this card is getting too old, try a new one.

9 ( +14 / -5 )

Good decision Nagasaki.

I'll second that

-14 ( +7 / -21 )

Hamas attacked Israel hoping they would respond with massive force in order to get the International Community behind Hamas as some sort of victim. I have little sympathy for Hamas since they knew Israel would respond as it has. All the Gaza sympathizers should be blaming Hamas not Israel.

0 ( +12 / -12 )

Israel needs to destroy Hamas. This invitation is trivial. However, it is a shame that Nagasaki has invited the aggressors who largely support terrorism.

-1 ( +12 / -13 )

The casualty numbers in Gaza are reported by Hamas. The numbers are unverified and they do not separate combatants from civilians.

-3 ( +11 / -14 )

The criticism of Israel reminds me of a quote:

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

H. L. Mencken

1 ( +10 / -9 )

Gullible and misinformed: The City of Hiroshima. Does anyone have any idea what the stated goal of Hamas is in their charter and how they are intentionally martyring their own people. Did City of Hiroshima invite Iran and other sponsors of terror? Is the goal to really promote peace? This is an extremely sad day for Peace and for Japan.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Of course the RS of the USA will be invited, all they did was drop atomic bombs on Japan and start numerous illegal wars.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Does this envoy consist of member from the PA or Hamas? I couldn’t find anything online specifying which.

Doensn't matter. What matters is the Israelis are not invited due to their sadistic nature.

-5 ( +9 / -14 )

Doensn't matter.

It does matter. Inviting terrorists like Hamas while disinviting Israel would be an extremely gross decision

-4 ( +10 / -14 )

Good on Nagasaki! Officials from Israeli should be disinvited sine die (until they have erected a Gaza Holocaust memorial and museum?)

The Hamas attack on October 7 resulted in the death of 1,194 people in Israel, most of them civilians, according to an AFP tally based on official Israeli figures.

The above quote shows that after 8 months of watching Israelis slaughtering civilians in Gaza we now get to see that the language describing the death toll on and around October 7 has changed from "Hamas killed...", but I'm waiting to read "the IDF killed x number of Israeli civilians based on official Israeli figures" (and the "Hannibal directive"). Sister city in victimhood, Hiroshima, should get with the program asap.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

It does matter. Inviting terrorists like Hamas while disinviting Israel would be an extremely gross decision

They didn't invite the terrorists

Nagasaki holds off inviting Israel to peace ceremony

-2 ( +10 / -12 )

They didn't invite the terrorists

If they invited Hamas, then yes they did

-6 ( +9 / -15 )

Actions speak louder than words.

So if actions speak louder than words then you’d agree Israel has no intention of having settlements in Gaza based on their actions which are:

Previously removing settlements from Gaza

Having no official policy of having settlements in Gaza

Preventing Israeli settlers from moving into Gaza

Are these not actions?

and by the way, I don't agree with your premise

If historical actions dictate what a country will do, then wouldn’t Israel’s most recent action in Gaza (removing the settlements)

that's not Israel's most recent action in gaza. their most recent action is genocide. the settlements were removed over 2 decades ago.

You’re cherry picking historical events to argue what they’ll do next while ignoring the most recent historical events

See?? That's EXACTLY what you did with the above incorrect statement

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

They didn't invite the terrorists

If they invited Hamas, then yes they did

They didn't invite Israel so they didn't invite the terrorists

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

Israel's law makers have called on the military to Nuke Gaza, Nagasaki city a victim of a nuke bomb did exactly what any Anti War, Anti Nuke human would do.

Israel has hidden it's nuke capabilities and never acknowledge it but the fact that it's war mongers are calling for Nuking Gaza is Disgusting and a Disgrace.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Keep on winning the popular vote Israel!

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

So the Palestinians, the aggressors, are invited, but Israel, the victim, is not? Nagasaki needs to read a newspaper and do the right thing.

Or maybe you need to read a real newspaper about who the real aggressor has been over the decades.

-1 ( +10 / -11 )

Unlike the collectivists that live to signal to their group, Israel is not concerned with popularity Chabs. Carry on now ole chappo.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

They didn't invite Israel so they didn't invite the terrorists

If they invited Hamas then yes they did

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Until Japan officially addresses its own crimes, these victimhood peace ceremonies are farcical anyway.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

If they invited Hamas then yes they did

The Israelis are the terrorists .

1 ( +10 / -9 )

and by the way, I don't agree with your premise

Why not? You said actions speak louder than words. I stated actions and now you’re discounting actions. Which is it?

that's not Israel's most recent action in gaza. their most recent action is genocide. the settlements were removed over 2 decades ago.

When it comes to settlements in Gaza, the most recent actions are:

1) removing settlements

2) preventing settlers from entering Gaza

See?? That's EXACTLY what you did with the above incorrect statement

No I didn’t. I’m referencing historical precedent for settlements, which Israel has both: removed and prevented settlers. Do you deny that both of these happened?

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Israel is not concerned with popularity Chabs

Neither is North Korea

1 ( +7 / -6 )

The Israelis are the terrorists .

Hamas are terrorists. Do you disagree?

0 ( +10 / -10 )

Why not? You said actions speak louder than words. I stated actions and now you’re discounting actions. Which is it?

I don'tbelieve the actions the israelis are taking means that they aren't going to displace the palestinians

that's not Israel's most recent action in gaza. their most recent action is genocide. the settlements were removed over 2 decades ago.

When it comes to settlements in Gaza, the most recent actions are:

1) removing settlements

NO 。there have been no settlements for more than 20 years.

2) preventing settlers from entering Gaza

For their own safety as I have pointed out before.

See?? That's EXACTLY what you did with the above incorrect statement

No I didn’t. I’m referencing historical precedent for settlements, which Israel has both: removed and prevented settlers. Do you deny that both of these happened?

removed yes. prevented no.

What they are doing now is in preparation for settlement

0 ( +4 / -4 )

To all the intellectually honest fellow readers here, please read Noah Tishby's books on the situation with Israel and the middle east. What is really going on politically is that the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups want to derail the forthcoming Israel-Saudi peace deal. So one of the strong indications of real Peace happening is the Saudi revision of their textbooks with regards to "Palestine" and anything which is pro-violence and anti-peace. Again, the City of Hiroshima should be ashamed of themselves.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Hamas are terrorists. Do you disagree?

Hamas and their backing supporters are the real terrorists.

0 ( +13 / -13 )

Hamas is not invited and is not a country with an embassy. Anything else is just fake posts.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Japan lists Hamas as a terrorist organisation. One poster yesterday said one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

I don'tbelieve the actions the israelis are taking means that they aren't going to displace the palestinians

We’re talking about settlements and the actions Israel has taken when it comes to settlements in Gaza.

NO 。there have been no settlements for more than 20 years.

Yes, because they removed them

For their own safety as I have pointed out before.

You have no proof to believe that’s the case. There’s more evidence to show that they stopped them because they don’t want any settlements in Gaza, as proven by them removing. Do you have any proof that they prevented them from settling based purely on safety concerns?

prevented no.

Yes they did. IDF soldiers recently stopped settlers from breaking into Gaza

https://www.timesofisrael.com/far-right-activists-break-into-gaza-try-to-reestablish-israeli-settlement/amp/

What they are doing now is in preparation for settlement

Can you post a source stating this is their intention?

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

But it still invites the US? not only were they actively engaged in coups,etc, but they are the ones that nuked the Japanese cities. Why does the us get a pass?

And the US is also the one arming and supporting the current genocide in Gaza.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Good! Israel should be blacklisted and sanctioned until it learns to respect human rights!

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Hamas and their backing supporters are the real terrorists.

No, Hamas is the official ruling body of the Gaza enclave under siege by the Israelis and is also a resistance force against the Israeli Occupier under international law. All those governments supporting Israel feign ignorance of the law they claim to honor and respect, a risibly transparent stance that is as naked as Andersen's Emperor. The real terrorists we recognize by their deeds and not by their words. The disproportion in terrorist acts and the enormities committed by both sides during this 80-year conflict is so egregious that to deny the one-sidedness of the slaughter and suffering is pure gaslighting.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

We’re talking about settlements and the actions Israel has taken when it comes to settlements in Gaza.

Yes and what I'm arguing is the destruction of Gaza is the precursor to building settlements there

3 ( +6 / -3 )

there have been no settlements for more than 20 years.

Yes, because they removed them

Yes over 20 years ago, not the most recent activity by the Israelis as you previously stated. their most recent action has been destruction of Gaza .

1 ( +4 / -3 )

You have no proof to believe that’s the case. There’s more evidence to show that they stopped them because they don’t want any settlements in Gaza, as proven by them removing.

Yes I do. The complete destruction of Gaza is proof.

Do you have any proof that they prevented them from settling based purely on safety concerns?

Sure. the fact that they are leveling Gaza to the ground. Had they prevented settlers during peacetime (even though Gaza has never had peace) you might have a point. More proof is what they are doing in other occupied territories

prevented no.

Yes they did. IDF soldiers recently stopped settlers from breaking into Gaza

for their own safety.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Can you post a source stating this is their intention?

Like I said yesterday, one would have to be stupid or think the Israelis to be so to think that they would actually announce this intention with the ICC and ICJ prosecuting the country and its leaders for war crimes

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Darn. What's Israel going to do now? Keep on keeping on, that's what! I'm sure no sleep will be lost. Nagasaki is getting quite full of itself and needs to remember that Japan got peace forced onto it.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Yes I do. The complete destruction of Gaza is proof.

That isn’t any proof of any intention to settle there. Destruction doesn’t always = settlements. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely destroyed. Were they settled?

Sure. the fact that they are leveling Gaza to the ground. Had they prevented settlers during peacetime (even though Gaza has never had peace) you might have a point. More proof is what they are doing in other occupied territories

They did prevent settlers from 2006 until today.

Yes over 20 years ago, not the most recent activity by the Israelis as you previously stated. their most recent action has been destruction of Gaza .

The most recent activity when it comes to settlers has been preventing them from going into Gaza. We’re talking about settlements so I don’t know why you keep conflating settlements and destruction as one thing.

Yes and what I'm arguing is the destruction of Gaza is the precursor to building settlements there

i understand that, and I’m saying there’s no evidence to suggest that’s the case and plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Like I said yesterday, one would have to be stupid or think the Israelis to be so to think that they would actually announce this intention with the ICC and ICJ prosecuting the country and its leaders for war crimes

Yes, to which you responded we need to look at actions not words. I pointed out that Israel’s most recent actions in regards to settlements in Gaza is

1)removing them

2)preventing settlers from moving in

Your “evidence” isn’t based on any leaked plan to resettle or any historical precedence of settlement in Gaza

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

More echo chamber signaling. It’s become like a never ending sport where nobody can ever possibly win. One side thinks having more members is the key to victory, the other one could care less and it’s all about core values, resolve and principal.

I keep coming back to the eternal collectivism vs individualism conundrum to try and understand and explain it. Maybe it is our biggest human deFAULT, one that may destroy us all in the end.

We will be dubbed, the polarized generation . Hope the next one can do better.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

But it still invites the US? not only were they actively engaged in coups,etc, but they are the ones that nuked the Japanese cities. Why does the us get a pass

Because there are over 20 of their military bases in Japan with over 50,000 soldiers. You have to have good relations with the US.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

That isn’t any proof of any intention to settle there. Destruction doesn’t always = settlements.

With Israel it does

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely destroyed. Were they settled?

Israel didn't attack japan.

They did prevent settlers from 2006 until today.

They didn't prevent settlers from other occupied territories. And now they are leveling Gaza to the ground. Since they are supporting settlers actively now in the West Bank, it goes to follow that they will do the same in Gaza. But they do have to displace the people there first. And they are doing precisely that.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The most recent activity when it comes to settlers has been preventing them from going into Gaza. We’re talking about settlements so I don’t know why you keep conflating settlements and destruction as one thing.

Because in the case of Gaza, unlike the West Bank, they can't build settlements without the displacement of the people there. And the only way to do THAT is to destroy the whole area and make it unlivable so the people leave. Then they can build their settlements there.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

With Israel it does

No it doesn’t:

During the 1982 Lebanon war Israel conducted extensive military operations against Hezbollah and other groups but did not establish permanent settlements.

Israel has carried out multiple military operations in Gaza, including Operations Cast Lead (2008-2009), Pillar of Defense (2012), and Protective Edge (2014), aimed at weakening Hamas and other militant groups and didn’t establish settlements after those conflicts.

During the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt and later engaged in conflict during the Yom Kippur War in 1973. However, under the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt and did not establish permanent settlements there.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Yes, to which you responded we need to look at actions not words. I pointed out that Israel’s most recent actions in regards to settlements in Gaza is

1)removing them

2)preventing settlers from moving in

Your “evidence” isn’t based on any leaked plan to resettle or any historical precedence of settlement in Gaza

Of course, because they can't build settlements there until they destroy the place. The destruction of Gaza is the precursor to the building of settlements.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

They didn't prevent settlers from other occupied territories

They have though, as evidenced in my previous post

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The destruction of Gaza is the precursor to the building of settlements.

Historically this just isn’t the case, as evidenced by my previous post. We’ve seen multiple conflicts within Gaza since 2006 that didn’t result in settlements

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

They didn't prevent settlers from other occupied territories

They have though, as evidenced in my previous post

Settlements are being build in the West Bank with armed settlers

Golan heights is loaded with settlers.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Settlements are being build in the West Bank with armed settlers

We’re talking about Gaza though. If you want to point to the West Bank then fine, but you also have to then accept my examples of Israeli military conflicts that didn’t result in settlement establishment

If you want to talk about only Gaza then I’ve already shown that conflict within Gaza since 2006 hasn’t resulted in settlement establishment

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Historically this just isn’t the case, as evidenced by my previous post.

This level of destruction is not historically precedented either. This is on a new level.

We’ve seen multiple conflicts within Gaza since 2006 that didn’t result in settlements

Conflicts yes. But the wonton destruction of the whole strip has never occurred before. So this is different

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Settlements are being build in the West Bank with armed settlers

Why are the settlers armed? Is it because there is potential danger in their settlement? I thought the IDF prevented settlers from going into Gaza because it was dangerous. If danger was the reason for preventing settlers in Gaza, and the West Bank is so dangerous that the settlers are armed, why wouldn’t Israel prevent West Bank settlers in order to insure their safety?

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

We’re talking about Gaza though.

You have to establish a MO and see their actions in other areas to understand what's happening in Gaza. Its not happening in a vaccum

If you want to point to the West Bank then fine, but you also have to then accept my examples of Israeli military conflicts that didn’t result in settlement establishment

I'm sorry, but I don't accept the premise.

If you want to talk about only Gaza then I’ve already shown that conflict within Gaza since 2006 hasn’t resulted in settlement establishment

Previous conflicts in Gaza are not a precedent for what's happening today. This is different

1 ( +2 / -1 )

This level of destruction is not historically precedented either. This is on a new level.

Conflicts yes. But the wonton destruction of the whole strip has never occurred before. So this is different

Okay then if it’s new you can’t point to historical examples to claim that this is the typical route Israel takes prior to settlement. If my examples are null because this is historically new, then so are yours are they not?

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Why are the settlers armed? Is it because there is potential danger in their settlement?

No they are threatening and displacing the Palestinians there

I thought the IDF prevented settlers from going into Gaza because it was dangerous. If danger was the reason for preventing settlers in Gaza, and the West Bank is so dangerous that the settlers are armed, why wouldn’t Israel prevent West Bank settlers in order to insure their safety?

I don't accept the premise that they are armed because its dangerous

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

No they are threatening and displacing the Palestinians there 

I don't accept the premise that they are armed because its dangerous

But you just said that Palestinians in Gaza have already been displaced by Israel. If they’ve already been displaced why would Israel prevent them from settling?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

As the Ukraine situation has not changed, we are not inviting Russia or Belarus

As with Ukraine, Israel is not the instigator. If Russia and Belarus and Hamas would surrender, return stolen people and land and resources, and no longer engage in war crimes now or in the future, these criminals would have a future seat in Nagasaki.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Okay then if it’s new you can’t point to historical examples to claim that this is the typical route Israel takes prior to settlement. If my examples are null because this is historically new, then so are yours are they not?

No I don't think so. The route that Israel takes is to typically displace Palestinians to build settlements. this is nothing new and is happening now in Gaza.

What is unprecedented is the method of displacement. We've never seen them completely level a place to occupy it. That part is new.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

But you just said that Palestinians in Gaza have already been displaced by Israel. If they’ve already been displaced why would Israel prevent them from settling?

because there is still resistance from Hamas. And the bombing is STILL going on. That's not happening in the West Bank

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

You have to establish a MO and see their actions in other areas to understand what's happening in Gaza.

Which I did with my other historical examples of Israeli action that didn’t result in settlement

I'm sorry, but I don't accept the premise.

Why not?

Previous conflicts in Gaza are not a precedent for what's happening today. This is different

Then in that case you cannot make a solid claim that Israel is planning on settling Gaza, seeing as previous conflicts are not a precedent for what’s happening today.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

because there is still resistance from Hamas. And the bombing is STILL going on. That's not happening in the West Bank

There is resistance to settlers in the West Bank though

“From the cities to the countryside, armed resistance is spreading in the West Bank“

https://mondoweiss.net/2024/02/from-the-cities-to-the-countryside-armed-resistance-is-spreading-in-the-west-bank/

Also, if Israel’s precedent set forth in the West Bank is what they intend to do in Gaza, why wouldn’t they allow armed settlers in?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

No I don't think so. The route that Israel takes is to typically displace Palestinians to build settlements. this is nothing new and is happening now in Gaza.

This isn’t the case though.

During the 1982 Lebanon war Israel conducted extensive military operations against Hezbollah and other groups but did not establish permanent settlements.

Israel has carried out multiple military operations in Gaza, including Operations Cast Lead (2008-2009), Pillar of Defense (2012), and Protective Edge (2014), aimed at weakening Hamas and other militant groups and didn’t establish settlements after those conflicts. 

During the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt and later engaged in conflict during the Yom Kippur War in 1973. However, under the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt and did not establish permanent settlements there.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Which I did with my other historical examples of Israeli action that didn’t result in settlement

And I've shown you multiple examples of settlements being built as well

I'm sorry, but I don't accept the premise.

Why not?

The Palestinians in the West Bank are not armed and trained like Hamas. They don't pose anywhere near the same threat

Then in that case you cannot make a solid claim that Israel is planning on settling Gaza, seeing as previous conflicts are not a precedent for what’s happening today.

Like I previously said- their way is to displace then occupy.

Their method of displacement is different

2 ( +2 / -0 )

No I don't think so. The route that Israel takes is to typically displace Palestinians to build settlements. this is nothing new and is happening now in Gaza. 

What is unprecedented is the method of displacement. We've never seen them completely level a place to occupy it. That part is new

These are completely contradictory statements.

On one hand you’re stating that this is the typical MO of Israel in the past based on the circumstances we’re seeing

On the other hand you’re saying we can’t determine what Israel is going to do because this is a completely new scenario

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

There is resistance to settlers in the West Bank though

“From the cities to the countryside, armed resistance is spreading in the West Bank“

https://mondoweiss.net/2024/02/from-the-cities-to-the-countryside-armed-resistance-is-spreading-in-the-west-bank/

Yes but not to the level of Hamas

Also, if Israel’s precedent set forth in the West Bank is what they intend to do in Gaza, why wouldn’t they allow armed settlers in?

Because they have 350, 000 armed soldiers already there. Armed settlers would only be a liability for Israel if they were killed or captured

2 ( +2 / -0 )

These are completely contradictory statements.

No they are not. I explained it to you.

On one hand you’re stating that this is the typical MO of Israel in the past based on the circumstances we’re seeing

Yes the MO is displace then occupy.

On the other hand you’re saying we can’t determine what Israel is going to do because this is a completely new scenario

All I'm saying is that the method of displacement is different. That's all. But they still want to displace the people- they'Re just going about it differently

1 ( +2 / -1 )

And I've shown you multiple examples of settlements being built as well

If there are examples of both then you can’t solidly state there’s a plan for settlements then, can you?

The Palestinians in the West Bank are not armed and trained like Hamas. They don't pose anywhere near the same threat 

Hamas poses much less of a threat now than resistance fighters on the West Bank since they’ve been so heavily destroyed by Israel

Like I previously said- their way is to displace then occupy.

And like I said previously, there are numerous examples of them displacing and not occupying

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Well done Nagasaki...

0 ( +4 / -4 )

No they are not. I explained it to you.

No you didn’t

Yes the MO is displace then occupy.

No it isnt

During the 1982 Lebanon war Israel conducted extensive military operations against Hezbollah and other groups but did not establish permanent settlements.

Israel has carried out multiple military operations in Gaza, including Operations Cast Lead (2008-2009), Pillar of Defense (2012), and Protective Edge (2014), aimed at weakening Hamas and other militant groups and didn’t establish settlements after those conflicts. 

During the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt and later engaged in conflict during the Yom Kippur War in 1973. However, under the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt and did not establish permanent settlements there.

If their MO is displacement and occupation, why didn’t Israel occupy these places after displacement?

All I'm saying is that the method of displacement is different. That's all. But they still want to displace the people- they'Re just going about it differently

Okay that’s fine, but I’ve also shown that displacement doesn’t always equal settlement

I’ll break this down into a simple question to try to refocuse: Does displacement always equal settlement?

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Hamas poses much less of a threat now than resistance fighters on the West Bank since they’ve been so heavily destroyed by Israel

Not at all Hamas is still fighting and the IDF is taking heavy losses. They have even resurged in the North after Israel claimed they won there.

> And like I said previously, there are numerous examples of them displacing and not occupying

There are more examples of them displacing and occupying.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Hamas and their backing supporters are the real terrorists.

Same as MAGA gang, threatening a war if little Duce doesn't win in November...

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Because they have 350, 000 armed soldiers already there. Armed settlers would only be a liability for Israel if they were killed or captured

Israel previously had settlers in Gaza though and they weren’t “kicked out”, they left voluntarily. Settlement is possible in Gaza as proven by the previous settlements in Gaza

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Israel previously had settlers in Gaza though and they weren’t “kicked out”, they left voluntarily. Settlement is possible in Gaza as proven by the previous settlements in Gaza

that was before Hamas took over. No way are settlements possible now with over 2 million people and an armed resistance. Not the same thing.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

During the 1982 Lebanon war Israel conducted extensive military operations against Hezbollah and other groups but did not establish permanent settlements.

They established settlements. The reason they weren't permanent is because of armed resistance. Same goes for Egypt and Gaza. maybe THAT'S WHY They are doing what they are doing in Gaza today. They learned from their mistakes.

nt doesn’t always equal settlement

I’ll break this down into a simple question to try to refocuse: Does displacement always equal settlement?

If possible yes. I would contend that the only reason the above examples didn't end up in settlements is because of armed resistance- NOT because Israel didn't want to settle those places

2 ( +3 / -1 )

the US killed far more civilians in Japan than Israel has killed in Gaza...and America still occupies Japan. Have any US embassadors or politicians been invited?

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Geeter MckluskieToday 12:58 pm JST

the US killed far more civilians in Japan than Israel has killed in Gaza...and America still occupies Japan. Have any US embassadors or politicians been invited?

It was called World War 2. Perhaps in light of the 10 million killed in China, Japan should uninvite itself.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"It was called World War 2"

Oct 7 was a declaration of war

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

that was before Hamas took over. No way are settlements possible now with over 2 million people and an armed resistance. Not the same thing.

Hamas was a presence in Gaza since 1988 and has been significantly diminished as a result of the current conflict, arguably to a weaker point than before their election in 2007

They established settlements. The reason they weren't permanent is because of armed resistance. Same goes for Egypt and Gaza. maybe THAT'S WHY They are doing what they are doing in Gaza today. They learned from their mistakes.

No, Israel did not establish civilian settlements in Lebanon. During its military presence in southern Lebanon from 1982 until its withdrawal in 2000, Israel maintained a security zone aimed at preventing attacks from militant groups such as Hezbollah. This involved military control and collaboration with the South Lebanon Army (a local militia allied with Israel), but it did not include the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements. The focus was strictly on military objectives and security, not on civilian colonization or settlement.

If possible yes. I would contend that the only reason the above examples didn't end up in settlements is because of armed resistance- NOT because Israel didn't want to settle those places

There was very little resistance in the Sinai after Israel captured it. It was later returned to Egypt as a result of negotiations without any Israeli settlers

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Hamas was a presence in Gaza since 1988 and has been significantly diminished as a result of the current conflict, arguably to a weaker point than before their election in 2007

I would disagree with that. I think they are still going very strong.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

No, Israel did not establish civilian settlements in Lebanon. During its military presence in southern Lebanon from 1982 until its withdrawal in 2000, Israel maintained a security zone aimed at preventing attacks from militant groups such as Hezbollah. This involved military control and collaboration with the South Lebanon Army (a local militia allied with Israel), but it did not include the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements. The focus was strictly on military objectives and security, not on civilian colonization or settlement.

They were unable to do so due to Hezbollah- In an area without a military resistance like the Golan and West Bank, we see settlements there

0 ( +3 / -3 )

There was very little resistance in the Sinai after Israel captured it.

There were plenty of skirmishes there.

It was later returned to Egypt as a result of negotiations without any Israeli settlers

It was returned because Israel knew that as long as they held onto it, Egypt would continue to be a thorn in their side. One they wouldn't be able to contend with. They were smart about it.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Hamas is divided into two sections. Military and social or political. The political section cared for the Palestinian people. Making welfare payments and support. Making hospitals, schools and universities. These actions increased the support for Hamas including the military wing.

I would think the Palestinians have suffered too much in this war and would welcome an end to it. They don’t have the power to do that.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Saw an interview with former Israeli PM Bennett and the latter said that they have not killed any innocents in Gaza and that they should not be slowed down in their attempts to do a full-on incursion and kill everyone unless the hostages are freed immediately.

It's good that these war criminals were not invited, and I find it amusing that people support Israel carte blanche and then say it is to "stop terror".

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

I would think the Palestinians have suffered too much in this war and would welcome an end to it.

Oh man I hear you loud and clear on that one.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Bibi must be thinking, Today Nagasaki - Japan tomorrow the rest of the world.

Sir you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time, Netanyahu is exposed as a war criminal and he will have to live with this fact for the rest of his life.

I hope that the children of the victims on both sides will be able to bring him and his war mongers to justice the same way Jews hunted down Nazi war criminals and brought them to justice.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Doling out and withholding invites as if it were an Oscars or red carpet event? It's not about the victims anymore now, is it? It's about how the mayor feels.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Israel launched a blistering military offensive in Gaza nearly eight months ago, following an attack by Palestinian militant group Hamas on the country.

Not defending the Israelis here. But Hamas put a hurting on Israel. No doubt Hamas hit "em" hard. As I watched Schindler's list on Netflix for the first time. I wonder if Israel had forgotten their past with the Nazi party? It seems many want Israelis (Gews) wiped out over history. I think Israel wants to govern Gaza and their loathing for the Palestinians and distain has corrupted the current government. Come on Israel, have you not learned when your enemy is on its knees to extend a hand and make peace? Did you not lose enough of your own under the Nazi party? Show the world how peace is made. Hamas is decimated. But the Palestinian people are not. Make peace. You made your point with enough death.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Can someone explain how to save or reach any peace while excluding especially those who need the very most of inclusion at international meetings and talks for not turning even more isolated and violent?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Oct 7 was a declaration of war

Thats is correct. Israel will finish the war Hamas started and all the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth of terrorist sympathizers will not matter one bit.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites