Just so we´re clear: your entire argument hinges on the idea that Israelis didn´t have settlements in Gaza before?

They had settlements there before, and now they want to build them back. It´s really weird to franctically want to avoid the word ´rebuild´ in this case

Do you think readers will completely ignore what they want to rebuild?

You can only interpret the wording the BBC is using in the way you propose if you believe settling in Gaza is a peaceful affair

No-one is reading that BBC article thinking the Gazans are peacefully evacuating their homes so their jewish friends can rebuild their settlement

Again, if you interpret Israelis settling in Gaza as ´peacefully´ taking something ´already theirs´ then that´s more of a you problem than a BBC problem

So “active in the movement to settle” is different from “settling” for you?

I think the problem is that your personal interpretation of ´settlement´ is more positive than what it means in reality

Note the use of “rebuild” … BBC always framing it as if it was Israels land to begin with.

Which wording would you propose they use?

What media are you reading where Israel is halting their attacks

They were quick to add barricades the previous time they expected a mass stampede… But it´s hard to imagine them being able to hold back a million determined refugees without it looking bad on tv.

I still fear that that´s what it´ll come down to though. A lot of people are never going to forgive them if they let them out

You sound like a caricature account ran by the Mossad to discredit pro-Palestinian posters

And can you describe what you think is wrong with that article? Does it make you question whether those 60+ dead were unrelated to the Israeli attack??

If that’s the case then it’s just an issue of the Guardian being written for smarter people

You gave a link accusing them of quoting Israeli officials

You don’t seem to be able to back up your accusation that they have been avoiding to use the word ‘killed’. So why make it?

The Guardian is not misinforming their readers about what’s happening in Gaza.

The way you’re talking about this is telling me that you’re too far gone to look at these things objectively

Do you have any examples of the Guardian dancing around the word ‘killed’? The fact you have to resort to their reporting on unrelated issues seems to suggest that’s not really the case

Do you have anything to back this up? I’ve never felt The Guardian was using euphemisms

Also, unlimited executive power for the top dog

I get that the book you want me to read claims, like the previous poster, that the only option Russia had was to secretly team up with the nazis and attack the Poles from the rear

But my question is not so much to repeat that but to support it with arguments

Could you paraphrase the parts of the book that would be relevant?

please tell me what was the alternative to Soviet occupation in Eastern Poland, once Poland rejected a mutual defense agreement against Nazis with the Soviets

There were several alternatives, actually. But most of them would start with Russia not attacking them in the rear after they moved their troops west to fight off the nazis

can you provide a source for that? I know about the Katyn massacre and about other events in which Nazi collaborators/Bourgeois Polish nationalists were killed (as well as some innocent civilians), but AFAIK the numbers don’t go that high

Yeah sure, here’s one that estimates between 250k and 1.5m (but which I believe also includes post-war)

But I presume that if you’re the type that already convinced themselves that all these murdered Poles “must have deserved it” in one way or another, then that number probably couldn’t be high enough anyway

Not to defend the flawed comparison with Trump’s treason, but that’s a very useless take on the M-R pact…

Stalin could have

• not promised the nazis to attack the Poles from the rear
• not attacked the Poles from the rear
• not murdered hundreds of thousands of Poles after high-fiving the nazis after having succesfully attacked the Poles from the rear

I think all of these alternatives would have been more desirable than, well, actively teaming up with the nazis

edit: list layout

The article claims the exact opposite, ie. that the mentioned amount of bombs was largely dropped on targets within Gaza.

The term ‘Gaza envelope’ does not appear once and looks like a fabrication