[throw310822]

The author is very clear that he considers Israel being "the victim" despite the fact that it is the illegal occupier of parts of Palestine, and that the disproportion in military power between it and its supposed "tormentor" it's so huge that they have razed its entire region to the ground suffering minimal military losses (and that's only because they showed a minimal amount of restraint). That's what his whole argument hinges on.

[nailer]

But Arabs colonised Israel. They arrived about 2000 years after Jews did.

[breppp]

That's pretty much what happens when you attack your stronger neighbor, go on a rape/execution/beheading/burning spree, then run away to embed in your civilian population who cannot enter your 400 miles of tunnels, which could have defended them

The Palestinians through years of Israeli reinforcements have chosen Hamas, an organization that thinks that sacrificing them all is beneficial, and it is actually partially working for them on international opinion.

Unfortunately both sides now needs to pay for their choices

[throw310822]

I think you didn't get my comment. They didn't attack their stronger neighbour. They attacked their invader and occupier- the one that has been attacking, massacring, colonising, annexing, blockading, and generally making their life impossible for the past 80 years.

[breppp]

An "invader" and "occupier" that completely vacated the gaza strip of any occupation, triggering a Hamas election and take over, and constant rocket fire.

Unfortunately actual chronology shows that whenever Israel downsized its occupation, it has been attacked by the Palestinians, leading to more occupation (such as now)

[throw310822]

> completely vacated the gaza strip of any occupation

What's Gaza? Gaza is just a region of Palestine. Gazans have the full right to fight against the occupier of Palestine. Besides, Gaza was still considered occupied due to the complete control Israel exercised in it (you confuse occupation with colonisation).

> whenever Israel downsized its occupation, it has been attacked by the Palestinians

Israel doesn't need to downsize its occupation. It needs to end it. Whatever consequences it suffers while still occupying land that it doesn't have a right to, are just consequences and it can't complain. How is this not clear?

[breppp]

> What's Gaza? Gaza is just a region of Palestine. Gazans have the full right to fight against the occupier of Palestine. Besides, Gaza was still considered occupied due to the complete control Israel exercised in it (you confuse occupation with colonisation).

No I do not, I don't know anywhere else in the world where occupation was defined as a blockade. Occupation is troops on the ground. Gaza was only considered occupied by Hamas and related propaganda, internationally it was not considered occupied, in fact it was the only time and place in history where Palestinians had full sovereignty

Israel previously had civilian population settled in Gaza, military bases and military government (hence occupation). It then retreated to the internationally recognized borders and removed all civilians from their homes, in a deeply expensive internal political effort.

Naively expecting the international community to give it the needed backing. However as was discovered it was never about occupation all along.

> Israel doesn't need to downsize its occupation. It needs to end it. Whatever consequences it suffers while still occupying land that it doesn't have a right to, are just consequences and it can't complain. How is this not clear?

Oslo accords was a process of progression towards Palestinian independence. This was derailed by Hamas suicide bombings in Israeli towns and PLO rejecting peace offers and initiating the second intifada. Just as the Gazan independence was removed due to Palestinian actions. It is quite clear to me that the Palestinians are ironically doing anything within their power to prevent independence.

[throw310822]

> Gaza was only considered occupied by Hamas and related propaganda, internationally it was not considered occupied

This is false, all relevant international organisations (the UN, the ICC, the ICJ, the WHO, the Red Cross, all the human rights organisations), an overwhelming majority of legal experts considered Gaza still occupied because of the amount of control Israel exercised on it. What you think in this respect, or your ignorance of the facts, has no relevance on the matter.

> Oslo accords was a process of progression towards Palestinian independence

There is no "process of progression" (LOL). Israel has to abandon all its settlements and East Jerusalem and retreat within the 1967 borders. They are free to build a steel wall 100 metres high between them and the Palestinians, if they so desire- within their own territory of course. What is not clear about this?