One of the principle issues since the second Intifada is Hamas has never offered to sit at the table and sue for peace on the matter of Israel and Gaza. There was never a counter offer on Camp David. There was never a negotiation once Israel left Gaza in 2005. The immediate aftermath of the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was 140 suicide bombs in 3 years.

And this was during a Left-ruling period in Israel where frankly peace was right there if the Palestinians wanted it. The Left's mission was 2 state. They worked over a decade to prepare the groundwork for it. And as soon as Israel left Gaza, the second Intifada hit. Imagine being the Israel voters, you're told for a decade that land for peace is the way out. "The solution is so close, just trust us". Land for peace begins, and 140 suicide bombs go off killing kids in discos and moms in supermarkets.

Again I've told you guys, the only reason any can find for the 140 bombs was Ariel Sharon visiting, the Temple Mount! What's the encore?

There's NEVER been a serious counterparty to peace here. Anyone telling you as much is lying. run through the chronology after 2005, you'll see it's just give an inch, take an arm (with a suicide bomb). And then when a wall is built to stop the suicide bombs people say "OPEN AIR PRISON".

Guys, history shows the sequence of events that sunk the left and lead to the wall. It's not hard to learn up on.

Populations don’t have to decline in order for a genocide to have occurred. Are you aware of that?

I wonder why the heads of a group don’t travel to a predetermined position while they are constantly being targeted for assassination

There were soooooo many points before that, and so many proxies to be used in those negotiations (just like the hostage negotiations today).

Negotiations require good faith actors. The Palestinian side has never had them. Even in the hostage release negotiations, the terms of every negotiation were violated. The cease fires were violated too.

You are allowed to be pro-Gazan and realize Hamas is a total circus. Just as I'm pro-Israel and realize Bibi is. There is more balance to these discussions if you're prepared to actually look at what's happening.

I'm aware that you are using a ridiculous definition of genocide.

If they were trying to kill as many Palestinians as possible, they could be killing even more than they are right now, and they could have been doing it constantly for the last 20 years.

And do you just ignore that the leadership of Palestine has genocide as a stated goal of their organization?
And that their supporters in the west explicitly support that goal?

What do you think "from the river to the sea" means? Just a recommendation for a nice day's walk?

So if Israel is operating in bad faith you agree that the negotiations are a farce

The aim of genocide is to destroy a people/group. Israel has never tried to destroy the existence of Palestinians. Just try to find a way to live beside them.

None of these things have to do with disproving Israeli genocide against Palestinians.

You don’t even understand what genocide is, clearly.

We have discussed this before. I use a reasonable definition. Under your definition the Palestinians are also guilty of genocide, but they're even worse at it.

You don't understand that when someone pledges genocide against you, you're going to put up a fight against them?

And all this coming from someone who seems to live his life hoping to someday be able to kill someone in self-defense.

I've been pretty careful to describe this as "ethnic cleansing" instead of "genocide," so try again. Also, if the population of Jews in Poland reaches pre-1930s levels, does that mean the Holocaust wasn't a genocide?

This is exactly what happened. Hamas is by far the least threatening of Israel's major worries. In the event of an attack by one of the larger threats in the area Israel would have responded in a way to discourage anyone else from joining in or attempting such an attack again. This means a lot of destructive power. Precision would not be the goal in such a show of force. An unguided bomb costs something like 5k USD. A precision bomb like a Jdam is closer to 30k. You can guess which one Israel was stocking up on for that scenario.

Since this began USA has been trying to send Israel the precision guided bombs to reduce civilian casualties, and also pressure them to keep casualties down in other ways. As bad as this situation is, it could be far worse. (I think there is an argument to be made that if Israel was not properly armed for this type of a mission then they should not have begun it however.)

There's a naive notion both here and in Ukraine that if USA just stopped giving aid then the conflicts would stop. No, they would be far more deadly and have far more indiscrimate killings.

That would mean that there it isn't currently a genocide happening.

Well yes, that's how the war started. But many Israeli leaders also think it is an opportunity to ethnically cleanse the territory. We shall see if they succeed.

That's also a Likud saying. What do you suppose they mean by that?

I’m marking you down as a “no.”

Saudi Arabia interested in Israel normalisation deal after war

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc...t-67922238.amp

You are confusing eradication and genocide.

You don’t know what genocide means.

You are not morally able to have constructive conversations because of your mental roadblocks.

I haven't heard them saying it, so I can't be certain but it likely means they want to continue to control all of the Palestine area, with Israeli citizens of all ethnicities continue to have full rights, and not be killed.

I now see the graphic you posted, which confirms my guess, thanks!

Below is the first definition that comes up on Google. How does yours differ?

I would say that Israel is not trying to destroy the Palestinians, based partially on the fact that 20% of their citizens are Palestinians with full rights.

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
gen·o·cide
noun
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
"a campaign of genocide"

Palestinians Israeli citizens do not have full rights

Like I said, you’re best ignored because you’re not morally able to converse due to your mental issues. They are many many many instances of Israeli politicians and senior military leaders saying they need to kill all Palestinians and that they are subhuman.

Also I want to teach you something. 20% of their citizens having full rights only means that 20% of their citizens have full rights. It does not mean they are not trying to kill the Palestinians.

If you wanted to show evidence of Israel not wanting to kill Palestinians you could post instances where Israel acts with an abundance of caution towards Palestinian life and then you could strengthen it by showing a overt concern for Palestinian life during the war.

What you’re doing is making up causation and then saying that’s the reason why they did something.

They certainly have the right to vote. Which rights do they not have?

heres one

You want to teach me something, when you don't even understand what the 20% was referring to?

And now you abandon your argument about the meaning of genocide. It's clear to me that according to the definition I gave, Hamas is guilty of genocide, while the government of Israel is not.

Well, I certainly don't support the actions of that quasi-governmental organization, and I believe the government shouldn't allow that rule.

That said, 20% of the citizenry being denied access to 13% of the land doesn't sound like the worst discrimination in the world, and definitely not as bad as what the surrounding Arab nations did by expelling their Jewish citizens.

Yes, this much is certain. I've not seen an intelligent historian argue the other side of this yet.