Israel was taken by surprise by the most ambitious operation Hamas has ever launched from Gaza.
The scale of what’s been happening is unprecedented. Hamas breached the wire that separates Gaza from Israel in multiple places in the most serious cross-border attack Israel has faced in more than a generation.
It came a day after the 50th anniversary of the surprise attack by Egypt and Syria in 1973 that started a major Middle East war. The significance of the date will not have been lost on the Hamas leadership.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says his country is at war and will exact a heavy price from its enemies.
Videos and photos of dead Israelis, civilians as well as soldiers, are all over social media.
Interesting, so those people think that “states” can own the land? This distinction seems odd to me, one would think that if “land cannot be owned” as is the typical assertion, it wouldn’t matter if a state or an individual is doing the “owning,” it “can’t be done.”
“The state” is distinct from “the people,” as well, unless either of these states (Israel or Palestine) are actually marxist and have abolished “the state,” then one could make the argument that “the people” have become “the state,” however then the argument could also be made that there is no “state” to speak of that could do the land owning. And as far as I’m aware, neither “state” is that.
I’m not going to disagree with you, but I am going to push back on your theatrics. You obviously know that nations exert sovereignty over land. You imply as much by your criticism of private property.
You use a lot of quotes to imply these ideas are foreign and odd to you. Even if you disagree, at least have the courtesy of intellectual honesty.
I’m just wondering how “land can’t be owned by anyone” jives with “except by the state.” Seems to me “anyone” would include any group of “someones” that refer to themselves as “the state.”
You should consider being less obnoxious.
If I’m being obnoxious to them hexbear types: “No.”
Technically Palestine isn’t considered an official state cuz of the 1948 treaty/ agreement.
Ok sure, but as to the “land can’t be owned” crowd, supposedly, that wouldn’t be relevant. State or no state, “cannot” is pretty cut and dry.
Also, I’m not super up on that agreement obviously and I’m not referencing it with my confusion as to the sudden shift in the acceptability of land ownership depending on if it is a “state” that owns said land, and this question is unrelated even to that, however I wonder, how does that agreement define “state?”