RugbyRebels

And when the ceasefire comes in one group of small people goes back to being ethnically cleansed and are just supposed to sit there and take it

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
To nowhere, there isn't a plateau to be reached

And to repeat I'm no fan of Israel's actions in many instances, merely I'm no fan of Hamas either. Both sets of leadership are doing stupid things for bad reasons

Can you forget about the leaders for once and just compare the fate of the little people?

It’s no fun being under rocket or artillery bombardment. Whilst the Israelis have an advanced missile defence system that doesn’t mean those civilians under fire aren’t shitting themselves. Little people on both sides are being hurt. I think we can all acknowledge that.

Thankfully we have a likelihood of a ceasefire.

Quite, the people on both sides are under fire. And on one side more so because Hamas stage military ops out of hospitals, schools and the like

paddy no 11 wrote:And when the ceasefire comes in one group of small people goes back to being ethnically cleansed and are just supposed to sit there and take it

again though both sides will claim that for themselves. there perhaps isn't a solution trying to gain cooperation from both sides because failure is the norm in any endeavour, but there sure as hell isn't any workable solution in claiming it's a one sided affair with one lot acting unjustly and the other side having to 'take it'

Digby wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:And when the ceasefire comes in one group of small people goes back to being ethnically cleansed and are just supposed to sit there and take it

again though both sides will claim that for themselves. there perhaps isn't a solution trying to gain cooperation from both sides because failure is the norm in any endeavour, but there sure as hell isn't any workable solution in claiming it's a one sided affair with one lot acting unjustly and the other side having to 'take it'

Israel can't claim they are being ethnically cleansed. I mean, they possibly could, but not with a straight face. They are the ones currently forcibly displacing people of Arab descent from areas in order to replace them with people of Israeli descent. It's not happening the other way around.

It's not a completely one-sided affair, of course it's not, but the two sides are not evenly balanced or evenly at fault at the present time (historically is a different kettle of fish).

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:And when the ceasefire comes in one group of small people goes back to being ethnically cleansed and are just supposed to sit there and take it

again though both sides will claim that for themselves. there perhaps isn't a solution trying to gain cooperation from both sides because failure is the norm in any endeavour, but there sure as hell isn't any workable solution in claiming it's a one sided affair with one lot acting unjustly and the other side having to 'take it'

Israel can't claim they are being ethnically cleansed. I mean, they possibly could, but not with a straight face. They are the ones currently forcibly displacing people of Arab descent from areas in order to replace them with people of Israeli descent. It's not happening the other way around.

It's not a completely one-sided affair, of course it's not, but the two sides are not evenly balanced or evenly at fault at the present time (historically is a different kettle of fish).

Puja

The population in Gaza is up over 50% in recent decades, so they too would struggle to claim (with a straight face) they're being ethnically cleansed. Huge population increases not at any rate featuring in my understanding of ethnic cleansing.

Granted Israel has more power in the moment, but nobody has a thought on how to have Israel participate in this as we might like that doesn't make Israel worry for the next moment.

Is that because Gaza and the west bank have halved in size?

What is the quality of life for those people versus 25 years ago?

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
again though both sides will claim that for themselves. there perhaps isn't a solution trying to gain cooperation from both sides because failure is the norm in any endeavour, but there sure as hell isn't any workable solution in claiming it's a one sided affair with one lot acting unjustly and the other side having to 'take it'

Israel can't claim they are being ethnically cleansed. I mean, they possibly could, but not with a straight face. They are the ones currently forcibly displacing people of Arab descent from areas in order to replace them with people of Israeli descent. It's not happening the other way around.

It's not a completely one-sided affair, of course it's not, but the two sides are not evenly balanced or evenly at fault at the present time (historically is a different kettle of fish).

Puja

The population in Gaza is up over 50% in recent decades, so they too would struggle to claim (with a straight face) they're being ethnically cleansed. Huge population increases not at any rate featuring in my understanding of ethnic cleansing.

Granted Israel has more power in the moment, but nobody has a thought on how to have Israel participate in this as we might like that doesn't make Israel worry for the next moment.

Are you stupid or something? This violence is because they're being cleansed from East Jerusalem and other areas that Israel desires (read - desirable parts of Area C) and being moved TO ghettos like Gaza or West Bank Areas A/B.

Ethnic cleansing is the removal of an ethnic group FROM A GIVEN AREA. Don't mix it up with genocide.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
again though both sides will claim that for themselves. there perhaps isn't a solution trying to gain cooperation from both sides because failure is the norm in any endeavour, but there sure as hell isn't any workable solution in claiming it's a one sided affair with one lot acting unjustly and the other side having to 'take it'

Israel can't claim they are being ethnically cleansed. I mean, they possibly could, but not with a straight face. They are the ones currently forcibly displacing people of Arab descent from areas in order to replace them with people of Israeli descent. It's not happening the other way around.

It's not a completely one-sided affair, of course it's not, but the two sides are not evenly balanced or evenly at fault at the present time (historically is a different kettle of fish).

Puja

The population in Gaza is up over 50% in recent decades, so they too would struggle to claim (with a straight face) they're being ethnically cleansed. Huge population increases not at any rate featuring in my understanding of ethnic cleansing.

Granted Israel has more power in the moment, but nobody has a thought on how to have Israel participate in this as we might like that doesn't make Israel worry for the next moment.

It's not a huge population increase, it's a movement of the existing Palestinian population by forced displacement of Arab ethnicity people from parts of Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Puja

I can just imagine Digby in the early 1940s.

"I'd hardly say the Jews are being ethnically cleansed from Poland. In fact their population in Warsaw has increased!"

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote: Israel can't claim they are being ethnically cleansed. I mean, they possibly could, but not with a straight face. They are the ones currently forcibly displacing people of Arab descent from areas in order to replace them with people of Israeli descent. It's not happening the other way around.

It's not a completely one-sided affair, of course it's not, but the two sides are not evenly balanced or evenly at fault at the present time (historically is a different kettle of fish).

Puja

The population in Gaza is up over 50% in recent decades, so they too would struggle to claim (with a straight face) they're being ethnically cleansed. Huge population increases not at any rate featuring in my understanding of ethnic cleansing.

Granted Israel has more power in the moment, but nobody has a thought on how to have Israel participate in this as we might like that doesn't make Israel worry for the next moment.

It's not a huge population increase, it's a movement of the existing Palestinian population by forced displacement of Arab ethnicity people from parts of Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Puja

That is certainly a part, but again stands contrary to the notion there's a cleansing taking place. And that before a decent chunk of people living in Israel would identify as Palestinian

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

The population in Gaza is up over 50% in recent decades, so they too would struggle to claim (with a straight face) they're being ethnically cleansed. Huge population increases not at any rate featuring in my understanding of ethnic cleansing.

Granted Israel has more power in the moment, but nobody has a thought on how to have Israel participate in this as we might like that doesn't make Israel worry for the next moment.

It's not a huge population increase, it's a movement of the existing Palestinian population by forced displacement of Arab ethnicity people from parts of Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Puja

That is certainly a part, but again stands contrary to the notion there's a cleansing taking place. And that before a decent chunk of people living in Israel would identify as Palestinian

I think the issue here is of definition - I think you're seeing ethnic cleansing only in terms of the late stages of Nazi Germany terms, where people are removed from land with mass murder. However, the legally accepted definition is "the mass expulsion or killing of members of one ethnic or religious group in an area by those of another."

People of Arabic ethnicity are being moved out of valuable land and forcibly displaced into enclaves by the apparatus of the state. Then the state creates new settlements for people of Israeli ethnicity. There may not be mass murder happening (yet, although there's still a reasonable amount of murder amongst the police beatings), but it is a definition-perfect example of ethnic cleansing.

https://www.un.org/en/genocidepreventio ... sing.shtml

A United Nations Commission of Experts mandated to look into violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as "… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described ethnic cleansing as “… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”

The Commission of Experts also stated that the coercive practices used to remove the civilian population can include: murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, severe physical injury to civilians, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of property, robbery of personal property, ... among others.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
It's not a huge population increase, it's a movement of the existing Palestinian population by forced displacement of Arab ethnicity people from parts of Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Puja

That is certainly a part, but again stands contrary to the notion there's a cleansing taking place. And that before a decent chunk of people living in Israel would identify as Palestinian

I think the issue here is of definition - I think you're seeing ethnic cleansing only in terms of the late stages of Nazi Germany terms, where people are removed from land with mass murder. However, the legally accepted definition is "the mass expulsion or killing of members of one ethnic or religious group in an area by those of another."

People of Arabic ethnicity are being moved out of valuable land and forcibly displaced into enclaves by the apparatus of the state. Then the state creates new settlements for people of Israeli ethnicity. There may not be mass murder happening (yet, although there's still a reasonable amount of murder amongst the police beatings), but it is a definition-perfect example of ethnic cleansing.

https://www.un.org/en/genocidepreventio ... sing.shtml

A United Nations Commission of Experts mandated to look into violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as "… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described ethnic cleansing as “… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”

The Commission of Experts also stated that the coercive practices used to remove the civilian population can include: murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, severe physical injury to civilians, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of property, robbery of personal property, ... among others.

Puja

I wasn't even remotely thinking about Germany, I was more thinking we've got two sides killing each other albeit more at the behest of their lunatic leadership than any overwhelming demand by the respective populaces, and for as long as that cycle continues, albeit in unbalanced fashion, that cycle will continue.

What if anything the wider international community can do about the actions of Israel and Hamas isn't clear, nor when it comes to China, to Syria, to Russia, too...

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
That is certainly a part, but again stands contrary to the notion there's a cleansing taking place. And that before a decent chunk of people living in Israel would identify as Palestinian

I think the issue here is of definition - I think you're seeing ethnic cleansing only in terms of the late stages of Nazi Germany terms, where people are removed from land with mass murder. However, the legally accepted definition is "the mass expulsion or killing of members of one ethnic or religious group in an area by those of another."

People of Arabic ethnicity are being moved out of valuable land and forcibly displaced into enclaves by the apparatus of the state. Then the state creates new settlements for people of Israeli ethnicity. There may not be mass murder happening (yet, although there's still a reasonable amount of murder amongst the police beatings), but it is a definition-perfect example of ethnic cleansing.

https://www.un.org/en/genocidepreventio ... sing.shtml

A United Nations Commission of Experts mandated to look into violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as "… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described ethnic cleansing as “… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”

The Commission of Experts also stated that the coercive practices used to remove the civilian population can include: murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, severe physical injury to civilians, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of property, robbery of personal property, ... among others.

Puja

I wasn't even remotely thinking about Germany, I was more thinking we've got two sides killing each other albeit more at the behest of their lunatic leadership than any overwhelming demand by the respective populaces, and for as long as that cycle continues, albeit in unbalanced fashion, that cycle will continue.

What if anything the wider international community can do about the actions of Israel and Hamas isn't clear, nor when it comes to China, to Syria, to Russia, too...

But you still disagree that there's ethnic cleansing occurring?

Puja

Puja wrote:
But you still disagree that there's ethnic cleansing occurring?

Puja

Yes, because to me it suggests the mass killing of a populace, and that's incongruous with an increase in actual population over a significant period of time.

Which isn't to say what Israel is doing isn't wrong, both the seizure of lands and the killings it's enacted, just ethnic cleansing is the wrong abhorrent label for the actions, partly it seems wrong in itself, partly the term allows an argument over the use of the term and distracts from the actual events.

So you prefer your apartheid more sanitised then?

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
But you still disagree that there's ethnic cleansing occurring?

Puja

Yes, because to me it suggests the mass killing of a populace, and that's incongruous with an increase in actual population over a significant period of time.

Which isn't to say what Israel is doing isn't wrong, both the seizure of lands and the killings it's enacted, just ethnic cleansing is the wrong abhorrent label for the actions, partly it seems wrong in itself, partly the term allows an argument over the use of the term and distracts from the actual events.

Just to be clear, you are disagreeing both with the dictionary and the UN on the definition, as well as everyone else in the thread. Suggests that the problem is more with you than with any ambiguity over the term.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
But you still disagree that there's ethnic cleansing occurring?

Puja

Yes, because to me it suggests the mass killing of a populace, and that's incongruous with an increase in actual population over a significant period of time.

Which isn't to say what Israel is doing isn't wrong, both the seizure of lands and the killings it's enacted, just ethnic cleansing is the wrong abhorrent label for the actions, partly it seems wrong in itself, partly the term allows an argument over the use of the term and distracts from the actual events.

Just to be clear, you are disagreeing both with the dictionary and the UN on the definition, as well as everyone else in the thread. Suggests that the problem is more with you than with any ambiguity over the term.

Puja

Meh, were I obliged to accept such as the UN when they issue a position I'd also be down the path of accepting Boris were he to similarly speak on behalf of a respected global body such as the UK government. Yes one could of course say that's not a suitable equivalence because the UK government is something of an international joke, but you could easily argue the League of Nations V.2 is also a joke, and not a very funny one.

And I doubt I've done anything which suggests I've got a problem disagreeing with everyone in the thread. On this given the population of Gaza is expanding, given many Palestinians leave peaceably in Israel itself perhaps even voting in Israel (and Israel hasa big Arab party as part of their parliamentary body), if this is an ethic cleansing it's a fecking shambolic effort of one. Much of what Israel is doing I find disgusting, indeed left simply to me there wouldn't even be an Israel (so you can be cheered many Israelis would find me horribly anti-semitic), but I don't equate it with honest to god ethnic cleansing, that belongs to Yugoslavia, to Germany, to Rwanda, to Myanmar...

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
Yes, because to me it suggests the mass killing of a populace, and that's incongruous with an increase in actual population over a significant period of time.

Which isn't to say what Israel is doing isn't wrong, both the seizure of lands and the killings it's enacted, just ethnic cleansing is the wrong abhorrent label for the actions, partly it seems wrong in itself, partly the term allows an argument over the use of the term and distracts from the actual events.

Just to be clear, you are disagreeing both with the dictionary and the UN on the definition, as well as everyone else in the thread. Suggests that the problem is more with you than with any ambiguity over the term.

Puja

Meh, were I obliged to accept such as the UN when they issue a position I'd also be down the path of accepting Boris were he to similarly speak on behalf of a respected global body such as the UK government. Yes one could of course say that's not a suitable equivalence because the UK government is something of an international joke, but you could easily argue the League of Nations V.2 is also a joke, and not a very funny one.

And I doubt I've done anything which suggests I've got a problem disagreeing with everyone in the thread. On this given the population of Gaza is expanding, given many Palestinians leave peaceably in Israel itself perhaps even voting in Israel (and Israel hasa big Arab party as part of their parliamentary body), if this is an ethic cleansing it's a fecking shambolic effort of one. Much of what Israel is doing I find disgusting, indeed left simply to me there wouldn't even be an Israel (so you can be cheered many Israelis would find me horribly anti-semitic), but I don't equate it with honest to god ethnic cleansing, that belongs to Yugoslavia, to Germany, to Rwanda, to Myanmar...

You're saying it's not ethnic cleansing because you use a different definition of ethnic cleansing to everyone else. How do you define ethnic cleansing and how do you define genocide?

The situation regarding the occupied territories has been clear for the last 53 years. Israel is illegally occupying the land and should leave. Excuses relating to national security have been nonsensical for decades.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
Just to be clear, you are disagreeing both with the dictionary and the UN on the definition, as well as everyone else in the thread. Suggests that the problem is more with you than with any ambiguity over the term.

Puja

Meh, were I obliged to accept such as the UN when they issue a position I'd also be down the path of accepting Boris were he to similarly speak on behalf of a respected global body such as the UK government. Yes one could of course say that's not a suitable equivalence because the UK government is something of an international joke, but you could easily argue the League of Nations V.2 is also a joke, and not a very funny one.

And I doubt I've done anything which suggests I've got a problem disagreeing with everyone in the thread. On this given the population of Gaza is expanding, given many Palestinians leave peaceably in Israel itself perhaps even voting in Israel (and Israel hasa big Arab party as part of their parliamentary body), if this is an ethic cleansing it's a fecking shambolic effort of one. Much of what Israel is doing I find disgusting, indeed left simply to me there wouldn't even be an Israel (so you can be cheered many Israelis would find me horribly anti-semitic), but I don't equate it with honest to god ethnic cleansing, that belongs to Yugoslavia, to Germany, to Rwanda, to Myanmar...

You're saying it's not ethnic cleansing because you use a different definition of ethnic cleansing to everyone else. How do you define ethnic cleansing and how do you define genocide?

Ethnic cleaning just seems, in my estimation granted but I have no other, to be more serious again. And to repeat when there are Palestinians not simply increasing their numbers in the Gaza Strip but also living (and voting) mostly peaceably in Israel that seems distinct from an ethic cleansing.

If it's just me that thinks this way fine, it's not like I'm unused to supporting pointless positions (or the Lib Dems as they ask to be called). And I can certainly sit down to watch something like Five Broken Cameras and get properly riled up about the 'injustice', nonetheless it's not for me an ethnic cleansing, and Israel isn't the only guilty party, though I also stop short of a plague on all their houses because the crap going on is on the face it much more about some pathetic and criminal leadership on both sides.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:
Meh, were I obliged to accept such as the UN when they issue a position I'd also be down the path of accepting Boris were he to similarly speak on behalf of a respected global body such as the UK government. Yes one could of course say that's not a suitable equivalence because the UK government is something of an international joke, but you could easily argue the League of Nations V.2 is also a joke, and not a very funny one.

And I doubt I've done anything which suggests I've got a problem disagreeing with everyone in the thread. On this given the population of Gaza is expanding, given many Palestinians leave peaceably in Israel itself perhaps even voting in Israel (and Israel hasa big Arab party as part of their parliamentary body), if this is an ethic cleansing it's a fecking shambolic effort of one. Much of what Israel is doing I find disgusting, indeed left simply to me there wouldn't even be an Israel (so you can be cheered many Israelis would find me horribly anti-semitic), but I don't equate it with honest to god ethnic cleansing, that belongs to Yugoslavia, to Germany, to Rwanda, to Myanmar...

You're saying it's not ethnic cleansing because you use a different definition of ethnic cleansing to everyone else. How do you define ethnic cleansing and how do you define genocide?

Ethnic cleaning just seems, in my estimation granted but I have no other, to be more serious again. And to repeat when there are Palestinians not simply increasing their numbers in the Gaza Strip but also living (and voting) mostly peaceably in Israel that seems distinct from an ethic cleansing.

If it's just me that thinks this way fine, it's not like I'm unused to supporting pointless positions (or the Lib Dems as they ask to be called). And I can certainly sit down to watch something like Five Broken Cameras and get properly riled up about the 'injustice', nonetheless it's not for me an ethnic cleansing, and Israel isn't the only guilty party, though I also stop short of a plague on all their houses because the crap going on is on the face it much more about some pathetic and criminal leadership on both sides.

https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/t ... ersecution

skip to the part "Seeking Maximal Land with Minimal Palestinians"

Leaving aside if labelling the actions of Israel as ethnic cleansing it lessens the use the term for more serious actions, such as those of the Burmese against the Rohingya, and ignores there are plenty of valid complaints to focus on when it comes to use of military force, land grabs and the economic blockades there's also a far too easy retort for Israel, namely that they can easily find comment from Hamas about the destruction of Israel, an ethnic cleansing of Israel is an explicit stated aim. I'm finding it easy to argue with the contention Israel is involved in ethnic cleansing, and I don't even think Israel need exist, so the idea of slipping that argument past the Israelis seems farcical

The use of the military force is difficult to limit when Israel can point to rockets being fired into Israel, and the world is all a bit League of Nations when it comes to land grabs, whether Israel in this instance, or China, or Russia (and we're no angels historically), which leaves the economic blockade, and that I think it would be possible to see some progress around, but then one runs into the problem that such as Hamas want the problem, not moderate steps out of the problem.

Broadly I can't see a better idea than a 2 state solution, but how one gets the respective leaderships and their agitators to sit down and behave long enough to progress that I've no idea.

Digby wrote:Leaving aside if labelling the actions of Israel as ethnic cleansing it lessens the use the term for more serious actions, such as those of the Burmese against the Rohingya, and ignores there are plenty of valid complaints to focus on when it comes to use of military force, land grabs and the economic blockades there's also a far too easy retort for Israel, namely that they can easily find comment from Hamas about the destruction of Israel, an ethnic cleansing of Israel is an explicit stated aim. I'm finding it easy to argue with the contention Israel is involved in ethnic cleansing, and I don't even think Israel need exist, so the idea of slipping that argument past the Israelis seems farcical

The use of the military force is difficult to limit when Israel can point to rockets being fired into Israel, and the world is all a bit League of Nations when it comes to land grabs, whether Israel in this instance, or China, or Russia (and we're no angels historically), which leaves the economic blockade, and that I think it would be possible to see some progress around, but then one runs into the problem that such as Hamas want the problem, not moderate steps out of the problem.

Broadly I can't see a better idea than a 2 state solution, but how one gets the respective leaderships and their agitators to sit down and behave long enough to progress that I've no idea.

Your last paragraph I absolutely agree with. However the rest of it is ignoring the reality that Israel has total control and a two state solution is disappearing at the same rate the second state is. Hamas might have the eradication of Israel built into its founding documents, but it's like a mouse saying it wants the abolishment of all cats at this point. Israel is an occupying force across Gaza and the West Bank. They control power, water, imports, freedom of movement and migration, building permits, decisions to demolish/compulsory purchase/seize buildings, law, police and can effectively do as they like (and do). Such is the power disparity that this was Hamas's largest attack in decades, a massive expenditure of their resources and clearly the best they could do. They killed 6 people.

That's why people are agitated about you both-sidesing this. No-one is saying that both Hamas and the Israeli government are not both a bunch of fuckers, but one is a terrorist group of limited means and the other is an occupying force.

Puja

Palestinians were represented by the PA previously but they decided they didn't want to work with them, parked a tank in Arafat's compound in dismantled the security infrastructure of the PA, they knew full well this would to a further destabilised Palestine which is what they want

Hamas's are the perfect bogeyman for Israel, totally ineffective but they can still point and say rockets and do carry on emptying the west bank illegally

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Leaving aside if labelling the actions of Israel as ethnic cleansing it lessens the use the term for more serious actions, such as those of the Burmese against the Rohingya, and ignores there are plenty of valid complaints to focus on when it comes to use of military force, land grabs and the economic blockades there's also a far too easy retort for Israel, namely that they can easily find comment from Hamas about the destruction of Israel, an ethnic cleansing of Israel is an explicit stated aim. I'm finding it easy to argue with the contention Israel is involved in ethnic cleansing, and I don't even think Israel need exist, so the idea of slipping that argument past the Israelis seems farcical

The use of the military force is difficult to limit when Israel can point to rockets being fired into Israel, and the world is all a bit League of Nations when it comes to land grabs, whether Israel in this instance, or China, or Russia (and we're no angels historically), which leaves the economic blockade, and that I think it would be possible to see some progress around, but then one runs into the problem that such as Hamas want the problem, not moderate steps out of the problem.

Broadly I can't see a better idea than a 2 state solution, but how one gets the respective leaderships and their agitators to sit down and behave long enough to progress that I've no idea.

Your last paragraph I absolutely agree with. However the rest of it is ignoring the reality that Israel has total control and a two state solution is disappearing at the same rate the second state is. Hamas might have the eradication of Israel built into its founding documents, but it's like a mouse saying it wants the abolishment of all cats at this point. Israel is an occupying force across Gaza and the West Bank. They control power, water, imports, freedom of movement and migration, building permits, decisions to demolish/compulsory purchase/seize buildings, law, police and can effectively do as they like (and do). Such is the power disparity that this was Hamas's largest attack in decades, a massive expenditure of their resources and clearly the best they could do. They killed 6 people.

That's why people are agitated about you both-sidesing this. No-one is saying that both Hamas and the Israeli government are not both a bunch of fuckers, but one is a terrorist group of limited means and the other is an occupying force.

Puja

People can be as bothered as they want by saying both sides are bad. Both sides are killing children, thus saying it's just one side ignores a group that's killing children, which to me just seems daft no matter the disparity in many aspects of the conflict, and there's no way of getting both sides to the table if the narrative is one side is to blame

I do agree there are problems with the occupying force aspect, but that's not unique to Israel, and the world, Nato, the UN have no good answers to that