mwguy

You know that's something the Brotherhood should have considered when they decided to commit the atrocities.

So you think attaching hospitals is wrong then? Read the news from today. Not a bomb for this one, but an attack nonetheless.

Yes attaching your military infrastructure to hospitals is wrong, it's a war crime and it's what Hamas is currently doing. It's asking for it to be attacked.

Strange there are so many dead Palestinians each year from Israeli actions if they are not aggressive.

Are they from military actions or are they civil disputes. Every year Palestinians take pot shots at soldiers, fire a few rockets towards Israel,get lucky and kill some people. But that's generally not the converted effort of it's government.

Israel did not seek a peaceful solution.istael has never been at peace with it's neighbours.

This is an objectively false statement.

You're correct it's 750M not billion. Phone typo on my part.

How many people will die in the next conflict though? Or do we just expect Israel to regularly have thousands of citizens murdered and hundreds taken hostage as a regular course of business?

Nobody likes the human casualties. But at this point, the Taliban could take control in Gaza and do a better and more peaceful job.

Because that's what was negotiated.

How is it irrelevant? It directly caused Egypt's current policies.

So maybe Egypt should treat them like they’re all criminals?

You don't remember what happened do you? Can you name one atrocity that the brotherhood did in Egypt?

It really shouldn't be that complex. Adam Smith, considered the Father of Capitalism, published The Wealth of Nations in 1776. So even if you argue that someone in power got a copy an implemented immediately; blaming Capitalism for things that happened before them is as backwards as blaming failures in Collectivism that happened before 1867 (Publishing of Das Kapital by Marx).

I agree with you though, we definitely need better economic education in the US and likely the rest of the West too.

Yes but they were in Mercantilism systems not Capitalist ones.

Did you even read the definition you linked to. " not discriminating or discerning; lacking in care, judgment, selectivity, etc "

Yes and have you been paying attention to this war? They e avoided hitting hospitals that Hamas is operating out of. Every strike is balanced against their generic goal. There are reports from on the ground of them delaying strikes to ensure that the maximum number of civilians can get evacuated. It's very clear they're not indiscriminately bombing. It's very clear they're being selective in where they bomb.

Your next point is that Israel by virtue of having firepower greater than Palestine is good by virtue of not already being on a bloody rampage. We don't reward a murderer for eating in the prison canteen without murdering the other inmates. Your argument is absurd.

I never claimed "good", you called Israel aggressive. But they're definitely not aggressive. To keep your metaphor going, if the 4' guy keeps trying to rape the 7' guy in the shower and keeps getting knocked in the teeth, the 7' guy isn't "aggressive" for that. Of one day the 4' guy brings a bat and then gets beat up severely that's still on the 4' guy.

I said war conventions, you changed the goalposts and said rules of war. That's a sneaky way to try and undermine my point, which is valid.

Not being sneaky. The conventions on war define the rules of war. They're one and the same. Nothinf sneaky there, just a lack of knowledge on your part.

What justification could you possibly have for the annexation of the folan heights and other areas in the west bank that shows Israel seeking a peaceful solution, which the majority of the international community sees as a two state solution. Israel is purposely undermining that effort in contravention of international law for decades.

They've not annexed the Golan Heights that's still disputed between them and the Rump state of Syria, similarly to the territory that's in the middle of the Hezbollah/Lebanon stuff.

Israel pulled out of Gaza seeking a peaceful solution. Gazans and Palestinians mistook their desire for peace as a sign of weakness and have been attacking ever since.

And last I checked Palestinians rejected a two state solution deal that had 99% of the '67 borders, no settlers and land swaps to give Palestinians more land than they had in 1967.

Their last ceasefire was in 2018 IIRC.

Could it have something to do with Israel funding and propping them up?

Maybe, but Israel providing funds to the West Bank and Gaza is something that has been demanded by the international community for decades.

Israel needs to pull out of the West Bank and allow Gaza control of their own utilities and trade.

Gaza has control of it's utilities and trade. Israel only has control in the reality that they provide heavily discounted utilities to the strip as a form of aid. Gaza has received and continues to receive billions of dollars so that it can control it's own utilities and trade but; it chooses to spend that money on war fighting instead of self control and self reliance.

So if pulling out of Gaza in 2004 didn't lead to peace and self reliance by the strip and instead has led to a decay in Gaza's economic well being; why would they subject the much larger West Bank to the same problem?