[CONSOLIDATED] Israel & Palestine Hamas conflict updates [History Discussion and stirring against any religion NOT ALLOWED]

[YouWish]

Given pretty good airtime, hopefully can illustrate more clearly to all the other folks there the reality of who they are dealing with in Hamas

 

[eclipsemints]

I don't need to, cause tons of other people already gave it to you and it is more or less identical.

This is probably why you would misconstrue sham to actually be supporting you as compared to all the other folks that interpret it for you already...

In essence though it is possible to state you are wrong by stating how u are wrong, there is no need to give my own interpretation (although it is already same as the other folks anyway so you can scroll up to read, you have done that right?)

I totally disagree with what you claim here. If you want to refute me then use your own interpretation instead?

anyway additional information for you to ponder on.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/information-missteps-led-questions-israels-credibility-rcna125723

Information missteps have led to questions about Israel’s credibility​

https://theintercept.com/2023/11/21/al-shifa-hospital-hamas-israel/

AL-SHIFA HOSPITAL, HAMAS’S TUNNELS, AND ISRAELI PROPAGANDA​

cheers

 

[SkyShroud]

I cross check about the green house and according to NBNC News, it is true that donors donated to purchase these greenhouses to donate to the Authority to keep running their economy. I am unable to cross check the suicide bombing 3 sons.

 

[tiobanned]

ABOUT THE DEAL

1. 50 living Israelis will be released in beats of 12-13 each day during the 4 days of respite. It is possible that more nationalities will be released, but they will not be at the expense of the quota of 50 Israelis.

2. During the ceasefire, Hamas will try to locate more abductees, estimating that it can locate up to 80 women and children.

3. An additional day of respite will be given for every additional ten that are released.

4. Kidnappers not in Hamas hands will also be released, Hamas is responsible for bringing them.

5. Murderers will not be released from Israeli prison.

6. The population of Gaza will not be allowed to return to the north of the Gaza Strip.

7. Fuel will enter the Gaza Strip, but only on the days of the ceasefire.

8. Fighting will resume immediately upon the end of the truce.

9. Collecting intelligence from the air will be suspended for 6 hours each day.

10. All the security branches - the IDF, Shin Bet and Mossad - supported the deal. The War Cabinet unanimously supports.

11. Israel insisted for two weeks not to accept the original proposal of Hamas.

12. After the deal is approved by the government, 24 hours will be given to petitions against it, after which it will be launched.

 

[NTB2DO]

Read what Shan stated carefully.

He doesn’t actually say what you think/claim he said.

At no point does he state that Israel has committed acts of indiscriminate killing. He is talking in hypotheticals.

Indeed Shan didn't explicitly say Israel has committed acts of indiscriminate killing.. But did you notice he had added, "in the context of what is now happening in Gaza"?

So you sure he's just talking in "hypotheticals"?

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...indiscriminate-killing-of-civilians-shanmugam

SINGAPORE - Israel has a right to self-defence, but this does not extend to indiscriminate killing of civilians or mass displacement of entire populations, said Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam.

Collective punishment is also illegal, he said, in the context of what is now happening in Gaza.

Mr Shanmugam said in a Facebook post on Nov 18: “The scale of the tragedy in Gaza is immense. Thousands being killed. Devastation (on) this scale is very difficult to accept.”

 

[NTB2DO]

---

So as far as the rest of the us is concerned sham is in agreement with the rest of us

----

Your statement "sham (Shan) is in agreement with the rest of "us".. Can you elaborate, 'in agreement" on what exactly?

And your "us" refers to?

 

[coern]

yes, Shan is talking in hypotheticals.

'In the context of what is now happening in Gaza: Israel has a right of self-defence. But this right does not extend to indiscriminate killing of civilians, or mass displacement of entire populations. Collective punishment is also illegal.'​

why you link to ST instead of Shan's facebook post. aren't his own words more powerful that what ST tells you?



if he wasn't talking in hypotheticals, he would say something entirely different. Shan's current phrasing satisfies both the Hamas supporters in SG (so they won't stir, sibei troublesome lot), and will not offend the Israeli ambassador.

Indeed Shan didn't explicitly say Israel has committed acts of indiscriminate killing.. But did you notice he had added, "in the context of what is now happening in Gaza"?

So you sure he's just talking in "hypotheticals"?

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...indiscriminate-killing-of-civilians-shanmugam

 

[NTB2DO]

yes, Shan is talking in hypotheticals.

'In the context of what is now happening in Gaza: Israel has a right of self-defence. But this right does not extend to indiscriminate killing of civilians, or mass displacement of entire populations. Collective punishment is also illegal.'​

why you link to ST instead of Shan's facebook post. aren't his own words more powerful that what ST tells you?



if he wasn't talking in hypotheticals, he would say something entirely different. Shan's current phrasing satisfies both the Hamas supporters in SG (so they won't stir, sibei troublesome lot), and will not offend the Israeli ambassador.

So then why did he even mention "does not extend to indiscriminate killing of civilians, or mass displacement of entire populations"?

Why on earth would a politician - esp. someone like Shan - use such "hypothetical' statement on another which SG has always enjoyed cordial relationship with?

 

[coern]

because there are allegations of such - so he is stating his & SG's stand on such allegations.

So then why did he even mention "does not extend to indiscriminate killing of civilians, or mass displacement of entire populations"?

Why on earth would a politician - esp. someone like Shan - use such "hypothetical' statement on another which SG has always enjoyed cordial relationship with?

do note that Shan is not *accusing* Israel of doing these.

can you tell the difference?

 

[NTB2DO]

because there are allegations of such - so he is stating his & SG's stand on such allegations.



do note that Shan is not *accusing* Israel of doing these.

can you tell the difference?

Of cos he wouldn't. Even if he thinks so, he'll never say it explicitly, don't you agree?

Also note that he didn't say he was addressing some "allegations", he said "in the context of what is happening in Gaza."

 

[enigmastar]

Of cos he wouldn't. Even if he thinks so, he'll never say it explicitly, don't you agree?

I don't know why u and the other guy keep arguing over a clear statement. He did not say Israel has committed acts of indiscriminate killing. Full stop. We are not him, how are we able to guess what is he thinking?

 

[NTB2DO]

I don't know why u and the other guy keep arguing over a clear statement. He did not say Israel has committed acts of indiscriminate killing. Full stop. We are not him, how are we able to guess what is he thinking?

Did I say that he said Israel has committed acts of indiscriminate killing?

I already said that as a politician, he would never make such an explicit statement, regardless of how he thinks.

But his use of "in the context of what is happening in Gaza" is telling.

 

[coern]

glad you understand that Shan did not "say it explicitly". we are on the same page.

Of cos he wouldn't. Even if he thinks so, he'll never say it explicitly, don't you agree?

Also note that he didn't say he was addressing some "allegations", he said "in the context of what is happening in Gaza."

 

[enigmastar]

So then why did he even mention "does not extend to indiscriminate killing of civilians, or mass displacement of entire populations"?

Why on earth would a politician - esp. someone like Shan - use such "hypothetical' statement on another which SG has always enjoyed cordial relationship with?

Did I say that he said Israel has committed acts of indiscriminate killing?

So what are you suggesting when u mention he said "does not extend to indiscriminate killing of civilians, or mass displacement of entire populations"? Are you trying to cast doubt over a clear statement?

 

[NTB2DO]

So what are you suggesting when u mention he said "does not extend to indiscriminate killing of civilians, or mass displacement of entire populations"? Are you trying to cast doubt over a clear statement?

See my edited post (the one you cited).

 

[coern]

politician don't make explicit statement?

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...rifies-position-condemns-hamas-acts-of-terror

I guess that is true in some cases, as WP took until 6th November to explicitly condemn Hamas's acts of terror (instead of referring to it as a "military operation")...

Did I say that he said Israel has committed acts of indiscriminate killing?

I already said that as a politician, he would never make such an explicit statement, regardless of how he thinks.

But his use of "in the context of what is happening in Gaza" is telling.

 

[NTB2DO]

politician don't make explicit statement?

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...rifies-position-condemns-hamas-acts-of-terror

I guess that is true in some cases, as WP took until 6th November to explicitly condemn Hamas's acts of terror (instead of referring to it as a "military operation")...

OK, correction. Politicians do make explicit statement.. In some cases.

 

[jerry_doit]

Aiyo so much on what he Shan said literally and implied. Its pointless discussion. What Israel is doing might seem grotesque to you. What shan is doing against drug traffickers might seem grotesque to the world. And like what jack Nicholson said in a few good men, "however grotesque it may seem to you, it save lives. So pick up a weapon and go stand post. I don't care what you think or do not think"

War is a grey area. You do things to maximise from your ctry point of view. Just like for sg death penalties for drug trafficking is justified

 

[NTB2DO]

Aiyo so much on what he Shan said literally and implied. Its pointless discussion. What Israel is doing might seem grotesque to you. What shan is doing against drug traffickers might seem grotesque to the world. And like what jack Nicholson said in a few good men, "however grotesque it may seem to you, it save lives. So pick up a weapon and go stand post. I don't care what you think or do not think"

War is a grey area. You do things to maximise from your ctry point of view. Just like for sg death penalties for drug trafficking is justified

Problems is, here there is a distinction between different human lives.

Your people's lives vs my people's lives. Nevermind that they are all human lives.

(BTW I'm talking about innocent lives, drug traffickers are not innocent.)

 

[eclipsemints]