On July 24 2014 06:12 xM(Z wrote: Americans didn't built settlements in Cuba. Israeli Minister "We always use the anti-Semitism trick or bring up the Holocaust"
The video is somewhat pointless. If I had a nickel for every time in the past 15 years a politician of a country said something damning, etc etc...
But the first point, about building *illegal* settlements, is an issue I'm interested in discussing, because I feel it's a lot more murky than the disproportionate argument. Would you say that, if America built settlements in Cuba, Cuba would have the right to indiscriminately shoot rockets into America (honest question)? If not, what's the difference between the two scenarios?
i don't know man, i got a warning already in this thread for bringing up Godwin's Law but i'll give this a go. - it would depend on an assumed final goal on the part of Americans: if, as an ultimate goal, they'd have as target the total replacement of native Cubans with Americans (territorial annexation included here), then everything coming out of Cuba would be fair game but still, Cubans wouldn't be in the right; Americans would just be more wrong. - other talking points would include the manner in which is done, the amount of violence/oppression of the natives, the amount of racism/xenophobia/religious believes used as a tool to brainwash people and so on and so forth ... in any case, Americans should be subject to huge economical (but not only) sanctions. (*.* = added in)
Okay, so now we're at the main point- the illegality of Israel's settlements. I'm far from a historian, and admittedly working off Wikipedia here, but let's take a look at Texas: It was under Spanish control until 1821 Mexican until 1836 Independent until 1845 Currently American ('merica!)
Now let's say Spaint wanted Texas back. Would America be obligated to give it to them? If not, what's the difference between Texas and East Jerusalem and the West Bank (Just to be clear, I don't at all think Israel's occupation of those areas is as wrong as most people do, but I think we'd agree it's not any worse than what America did to Mexico.)
On July 24 2014 06:08 Nyxisto wrote: If you want to have an analogy that at least makes a little sense take Cuba and the United states(because these countries also have a history of economic sanctions, being ideologically opposed, and one country being a lot bigger).
Imagine Cuba shooting one hundred missiles a day at the US. What would the US do?Wait 15 years and build an Iron Dome? The US would beat the living shit out of Cuba on day 1, and rightly so. Everyone internationally would accept Cuba's actions as an act of war or terror, despite the fact that the US has sanctioned the country in the past. (Given the fact that Israel has been under attack repeatedly by the same actors for decades and that the Jews have a century long history of being discriminated and killed systematically, even this analogy doesn't really work. )
The difference is that when the country in question happens to be Israel some things change. If any other country produces civil casualties, that's all they are. It's sad that kids die in wars, but that's what happens. If a kid dies during a conflict involving Israel, Israel is a child killing murder state and every bullet fired is a war crime. The former terrorists aren't terrorists anymore, they're freedom fighters which we all need to have crazy amounts of empathy for, despite the fact that their weapons of choice have been suicide bombers and human shields.
Because this is not a war. I wouldn't call it a genocide, but I would not call it a war either. A single Israeli civilian has died since the beginning of July. ONE ISRAELI CIVILIAN. Compared to 600 Palestinians. How is that a war? That's a massacre. inb4comments about how Israeli takes measures in defense and preparation against missile strikes which is why there are not many Israeli casualties.
P.S I have no empathy for the terrorists, don't get me wrong. But that doesn't justify IDF forces DELIBERATELY targetting UN water-supply tanks (I will post pictures if you don't believe me), targetting red-cross ambulances (I will post pictures if I have to), and as well as targetting hospitals. Yes you can counter-argue that terrorists harbored missiles in hospitals, but THEN WHY THE FUCK BOMB THE TOP FLOORS OF HOSPITALS?! If anything the missiles are in the first floors.... and with such "surgical strikes" they should be able to at least target certain parts of a building. And don't get me started on the "tragic accident" of killing 4 children playing FOOTBALL....
Still waiting on a response to my first post! But as for these arguments:
inb4comments about how Israeli takes measures in defense and preparation against missile strikes which is why there are not many Israeli casualties.
Writing "inb4" doesn't mean that what follows is not a good argument. Yes, the reason why there are less Israeli deaths is because, exactly as you say, they have measures of defense and preparation. The issue isn't the number of deaths- the issue is the thousands of rockets fired into Israel, which Israel doesn't have to put up with.
And ya, I'd love to see proof of Israel deliberately targeting water tanks, never heard that claim before. The red cross ambulances one, like the argument about mosques and schools, is ridiculous, because it's been well documented that Hamas is willing to fire from them, so it's quite difficult to point to any one and say that that one's malicious.
Not sure where you're going with the hospital and beach examples. Let me phrase it this way: Why would Israel want to kill 4 boys on a beach, or hit a hospital? The answer, seemingly, is that they would not. It does no good for them to kill innocents, and if they really wanted to, they could carpet bomb the entire Gaza. So what are you proving by telling me that they killed the 4 boys? That they make mistakes? That they have bad intelligence? That they're not perfect? C'mon, follow through with your argument.
On July 24 2014 05:32 Days wrote: Guys. I have this bullet proof window at my house, and for the past 3 years little kids from my neighbor's house have been throwing rocks at my bullet proof window. Well i've had enough. Out of self defense, I am going to go and kill them with my US supplied weapons, which I have a lot of in my closet. It doesn't matter that my window is bullet proof and the rocks don't do anything, I still feel endangered that one of these rocks might break and cause damage. Also, the little kids are throwing rocks from their parent's bedroom, so it does place the blame on them when I go in and kill them and their parents happen to be in the room with them and get caught in the crossfire. But above all, remember I am doing this in self-defense. #israel #self-defense
User was warned for this post
What's the point of using an an abstract analogy, when what's happening is quite clear?
Try this one. We're both Americans. Let's say Mexico started firing rockets into Texas. Let's say that most of them land in empty fields, but 1) Every single time one is launched, you have to run into a bomb shelter, and stay there for 10 minutes 2) You have to spend millions and millions of dollars to stop the rockets that will be hitting populated areas 3) The occasional missile from Mexico causes damage or death
What do you think America should and would do? C'mon, I can't wait to hear how the fact that "But they usually miss" is relevant.
Also, for the love of god, please don't say something like "But Israel is occupying Gaza". If you want to have that discussion, fine. But your argument is "Since the rockets aren't killing people in Israel, Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself with its military." Defend that.
(Also I'm only starting off with the first half of your argument. We'll get to the part about "killing parents" if you can give me a coherent response to this)
This is fucking pointless. This can easily be flipped around and Americans would without a doubt be doing the exact same thing the Palestinians are doing. You know, liberty and free markets, second amendment and all that jazz.
...what? Flipped around to make Americans like the Palestinians? And what about liberty and such? A bit confused over here.
If Palestinians were replaced by Americans, there would still be the exact same amount of terrorism coming out of Palestine. If you take American christian conservative values and placed those into the modern context of Palestine, there would be no difference in the development of a terrorist state. Do you disagree?
-Take away American's guns -Take away their liberty - Take away their access to international trade - Slowly take away more of their land after a third party took a large chunk of it away - Kill large numbers of innocent americans by bombing cities
But the friendly occupiers give you - running water - electricity - food - Pamphlets telling you that your house will be destroyed regardless of whether or not you're in it.
Sigh...I specifically said I did not want to get into the issue of Israel's occupation of Gaza, because it's a completely separate argument, and it's impossible to get anywhere in arguments if we don't make sure to stay exactly on the same page.
I was responding to the argument that Israel's response is disproportionate. That has nothing to do with Israel being in Gaza- that's simply saying (as was explicitly said) "Well, since only one Israeli was killed, Israel doesn't have the right to respond with military force". If you want to continue that line of argument, please do, because I think that one is totally indefensible. On the other hand, if you want to have the argument about whether Israel's occupation justifies Hamas's indiscriminate shooting of rockets into civilian territory, then that one is more murky to me, and I'm curious what your response is.
It does make Israel's use of force excessive. The occupier is responsible for the safety of the occupied in the same way that the warden is responsible for the safety of the prisoners. If the warden is killing more innocent people than the criminals then he is, dare I say, a criminal himself.
And yes, Israel's occupation has de facto turned Palestinians into prisoners because of their race/religion/ethnicity/nationality, or whatever criteria precludes Palestinians from having the same rights as other people in Israel. As I said on page one, it's similar to being forced to live in North Korea.
The problem I have with most pro israeli in this thread is that they deny reality. In reality, Palestinian, through their autorities, accepted the existance of Israel and accepted to most of Israel's demand during the 2013-2014 negociations. The main reasons why the negociation did not advance is because Israel, and mostly Netanyahu, didn't budge on the question of settlements.
On 2 May 2014 the Hebrew daily Yedioth Ahronoth, cited an anonymous senior American official as placing the blame for the break-down in talks mainly on Israel's settlement stance, directly quoting the remark:'Netanyahu did not move more than an inch.” Israeli sources in Jerusalem later reported that the remarks came from the US Special Envoy Marin Indyk himself, who was reportedly preparing to hand in his resignation.[67] Whoever the source of the comment, the White House cleared the interview in which the remarks were made.[68] In this the officials appeared to be referring to the Israeli government announcement of a record 14,000 new settlement housing units.[69][70] Mark Landler has written that the remark attributed to Indyk reflected the President's own views:
Publicly, Mr. Obama has said that both sides bear responsibility for the latest collapse. But the president believes that more than any other factor, Israel’s drumbeat of settlement announcements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem poisoned the atmosphere and doomed any chance of a breakthrough with the Palestinians.[68]
According to Peace Now, during the nine months of peace talks Israel set a new record for settlement expansion at nearly 14,000 newly approved settler homes.[76] During this same period Israel also destroyed over 500 Palestinian structures, including the Palestinian village of Khirbit Makhoul. Sixty one Palestinians were killed, 1,100 were injured, and nearly 4000 detained by Israeli forces during the peace talks. [77] Palestinian official Nabil Shaath condemned settlement construction, saying "the settlement activities have made negotiations worthless."[78] For its part, Israeli spokesman Mark Regev condemned Palestinian incitement, saying "the terrorist attacks against Israelis over the last few days are a direct result of the incitement and hatred propagated in Palestinian schools and media."[79] According to B'Tselem, during this same period forty-five Palestinians and six Israelis were killed.[80]
People like Nyxisto are still sixty years ago, when the Palestinian refused the plan proposed by the UN, mostly because it was unbalanced (and obviously, it was biaised toward the jewish population, who got two third of the land while they represented only a third of the population - and the colonial third). But right now the situation has nothing to do with that : gazans and palestinians overall are broke, and definitly tired of this long occupation. They are ready to accept every demand from Israel, as long as those demand are reasonable and respectable. The problem is not only Israel is not ready to respect its counter part (the recent peace project from Egypt is a good exemple of that, since it was made without the Hamas, and the Hamas learned about it through the media...) but also that Israel is not ready for peace because part of its population is asking for a complete annexation of Palestinian lands (a substantial part of the West Bank, that they call the judea samaria, to be precise).
Not to mention : the blocus and the occupation of gaza is illegal according the international law, using palestinian kids, as they did, and punishing civilians for the deeds of few crazy people is also a crime.
On July 24 2014 06:12 xM(Z wrote: Americans didn't built settlements in Cuba. Israeli Minister "We always use the anti-Semitism trick or bring up the Holocaust" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW3a1bw5XlE
The video is somewhat pointless. If I had a nickel for every time in the past 15 years a politician of a country said something damning, etc etc...
But the first point, about building *illegal* settlements, is an issue I'm interested in discussing, because I feel it's a lot more murky than the disproportionate argument. Would you say that, if America built settlements in Cuba, Cuba would have the right to indiscriminately shoot rockets into America (honest question)? If not, what's the difference between the two scenarios?
i don't know man, i got a warning already in this thread for bringing up Godwin's Law but i'll give this a go. - it would depend on an assumed final goal on the part of Americans: if, as an ultimate goal, they'd have as target the total replacement of native Cubans with Americans (territorial annexation included here), then everything coming out of Cuba would be fair game but still, Cubans wouldn't be in the right; Americans would just be more wrong. - other talking points would include the manner in which is done, the amount of violence/oppression of the natives, the amount of racism/xenophobia/religious believes used as a tool to brainwash people and so on and so forth ... in any case, Americans should be subject to huge economical (but not only) sanctions. (*.* = added in)
Okay, so now we're at the main point- the illegality of Israel's settlements. I'm far from a historian, and admittedly working off Wikipedia here, but let's take a look at Texas: It was under Spanish control until 1821 Mexican until 1836 Independent until 1845 Currently American ('merica!)
Now let's say Spaint wanted Texas back. Would America be obligated to give it to them? If not, what's the difference between Texas and East Jerusalem and the West Bank (Just to be clear, I don't at all think Israel's occupation of those areas is as wrong as most people do, but I think we'd agree it's not any worse than what America did to Mexico.)
i'm not sure what your end goal of all your arguments in this thread are. To justify Israel's "self-defense"? You keep bringing up the point of Hamas "indiscriminate" targetting of civilian places, when at the same time the IDF is clearly and in plain sight targetting civilian population in Gaza.
Look the end point I am just trying to make is that you can argue for days on end that either side can be held accountable, but in the end it's Israel that is blatantly trying to wash it's hands and pretend like they are the almighty saints of the earth. For crying out loud the Israeli Ambassador to the US publicly CLAIMED that the IDF deserve a Nobel Peace Prize for their actions in protecting civilian casualties..... are you bullshitting me?!?! please tell me this is a prank right?!
On July 24 2014 06:08 Nyxisto wrote: If you want to have an analogy that at least makes a little sense take Cuba and the United states(because these countries also have a history of economic sanctions, being ideologically opposed, and one country being a lot bigger).
Imagine Cuba shooting one hundred missiles a day at the US. What would the US do?Wait 15 years and build an Iron Dome? The US would beat the living shit out of Cuba on day 1, and rightly so. Everyone internationally would accept Cuba's actions as an act of war or terror, despite the fact that the US has sanctioned the country in the past. (Given the fact that Israel has been under attack repeatedly by the same actors for decades and that the Jews have a century long history of being discriminated and killed systematically, even this analogy doesn't really work. )
The difference is that when the country in question happens to be Israel some things change. If any other country produces civil casualties, that's all they are. It's sad that kids die in wars, but that's what happens. If a kid dies during a conflict involving Israel, Israel is a child killing murder state and every bullet fired is a war crime. The former terrorists aren't terrorists anymore, they're freedom fighters which we all need to have crazy amounts of empathy for, despite the fact that their weapons of choice have been suicide bombers and human shields.
Because this is not a war. I wouldn't call it a genocide, but I would not call it a war either. A single Israeli civilian has died since the beginning of July. ONE ISRAELI CIVILIAN. Compared to 600 Palestinians. How is that a war? That's a massacre. inb4comments about how Israeli takes measures in defense and preparation against missile strikes which is why there are not many Israeli casualties.
P.S I have no empathy for the terrorists, don't get me wrong. But that doesn't justify IDF forces DELIBERATELY targetting UN water-supply tanks (I will post pictures if you don't believe me), targetting red-cross ambulances (I will post pictures if I have to), and as well as targetting hospitals. Yes you can counter-argue that terrorists harbored missiles in hospitals, but THEN WHY THE FUCK BOMB THE TOP FLOORS OF HOSPITALS?! If anything the missiles are in the first floors.... and with such "surgical strikes" they should be able to at least target certain parts of a building. And don't get me started on the "tragic accident" of killing 4 children playing FOOTBALL....
Still waiting on a response to my first post! But as for these arguments:
inb4comments about how Israeli takes measures in defense and preparation against missile strikes which is why there are not many Israeli casualties.
Writing "inb4" doesn't mean that what follows is not a good argument. Yes, the reason why there are less Israeli deaths is because, exactly as you say, they have measures of defense and preparation. The issue isn't the number of deaths- the issue is the thousands of rockets fired into Israel, which Israel doesn't have to put up with.
And ya, I'd love to see proof of Israel deliberately targeting water tanks, never heard that claim before. The red cross ambulances one, like the argument about mosques and schools, is ridiculous, because it's been well documented that Hamas is willing to fire from them, so it's quite difficult to point to any one and say that that one's malicious.
Not sure where you're going with the hospital and beach examples. Let me phrase it this way: Why would Israel want to kill 4 boys on a beach, or hit a hospital? The answer, seemingly, is that they would not. It does no good for them to kill innocents, and if they really wanted to, they could carpet bomb the entire Gaza. So what are you proving by telling me that they killed the 4 boys? That they make mistakes? That they have bad intelligence? That they're not perfect? C'mon, follow through with your argument.
On July 24 2014 06:31 Jormundr wrote:
On July 24 2014 05:55 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 05:53 Jormundr wrote:
On July 24 2014 05:48 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 05:32 Days wrote: Guys. I have this bullet proof window at my house, and for the past 3 years little kids from my neighbor's house have been throwing rocks at my bullet proof window. Well i've had enough. Out of self defense, I am going to go and kill them with my US supplied weapons, which I have a lot of in my closet. It doesn't matter that my window is bullet proof and the rocks don't do anything, I still feel endangered that one of these rocks might break and cause damage. Also, the little kids are throwing rocks from their parent's bedroom, so it does place the blame on them when I go in and kill them and their parents happen to be in the room with them and get caught in the crossfire. But above all, remember I am doing this in self-defense. #israel #self-defense
User was warned for this post
What's the point of using an an abstract analogy, when what's happening is quite clear?
Try this one. We're both Americans. Let's say Mexico started firing rockets into Texas. Let's say that most of them land in empty fields, but 1) Every single time one is launched, you have to run into a bomb shelter, and stay there for 10 minutes 2) You have to spend millions and millions of dollars to stop the rockets that will be hitting populated areas 3) The occasional missile from Mexico causes damage or death
What do you think America should and would do? C'mon, I can't wait to hear how the fact that "But they usually miss" is relevant.
Also, for the love of god, please don't say something like "But Israel is occupying Gaza". If you want to have that discussion, fine. But your argument is "Since the rockets aren't killing people in Israel, Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself with its military." Defend that.
(Also I'm only starting off with the first half of your argument. We'll get to the part about "killing parents" if you can give me a coherent response to this)
This is fucking pointless. This can easily be flipped around and Americans would without a doubt be doing the exact same thing the Palestinians are doing. You know, liberty and free markets, second amendment and all that jazz.
...what? Flipped around to make Americans like the Palestinians? And what about liberty and such? A bit confused over here.
If Palestinians were replaced by Americans, there would still be the exact same amount of terrorism coming out of Palestine. If you take American christian conservative values and placed those into the modern context of Palestine, there would be no difference in the development of a terrorist state. Do you disagree?
-Take away American's guns -Take away their liberty - Take away their access to international trade - Slowly take away more of their land after a third party took a large chunk of it away - Kill large numbers of innocent americans by bombing cities
But the friendly occupiers give you - running water - electricity - food - Pamphlets telling you that your house will be destroyed regardless of whether or not you're in it.
Sigh...I specifically said I did not want to get into the issue of Israel's occupation of Gaza, because it's a completely separate argument, and it's impossible to get anywhere in arguments if we don't make sure to stay exactly on the same page.
I was responding to the argument that Israel's response is disproportionate. That has nothing to do with Israel being in Gaza- that's simply saying (as was explicitly said) "Well, since only one Israeli was killed, Israel doesn't have the right to respond with military force". If you want to continue that line of argument, please do, because I think that one is totally indefensible. On the other hand, if you want to have the argument about whether Israel's occupation justifies Hamas's indiscriminate shooting of rockets into civilian territory, then that one is more murky to me, and I'm curious what your response is.
It does make Israel's use of force excessive. The occupier is responsible for the safety of the occupied in the same way that the warden is responsible for the safety of the prisoners. If the warden is killing more innocent people than the criminals then he is, dare I say, a criminal himself.
And yes, Israel's occupation has de facto turned Palestinians into prisoners because of their race/religion/ethnicity/nationality, or whatever criteria precludes Palestinians from having the same rights as other people in Israel. As I said on page one, it's similar to being forced to live in North Korea.
Excessive is still the wrong term. If everyone agreed that Israel wasn't doing anything wrong to Gaza, then nobody would claim Israel is acting excessively. And if you think Israel is completely in the wrong, and that Hamas has the right to shoot missiles into Israeli civilian territory, then Israel doesn't have the right to do anything on a military level. The "excessive" argument comes when people say "Not many Israelis are getting killed, so they don't have a right to strong military action (like the original post I responded to said). And that argument is stupid, because the low number of deaths is completely, completely irrelevant.
But going back to the occupation- does Hamas have a right to shoot rockets into Israeli civilian territory? Yes or no?
On July 24 2014 06:08 Nyxisto wrote: If you want to have an analogy that at least makes a little sense take Cuba and the United states(because these countries also have a history of economic sanctions, being ideologically opposed, and one country being a lot bigger).
Imagine Cuba shooting one hundred missiles a day at the US. What would the US do?Wait 15 years and build an Iron Dome? The US would beat the living shit out of Cuba on day 1, and rightly so. Everyone internationally would accept Cuba's actions as an act of war or terror, despite the fact that the US has sanctioned the country in the past. (Given the fact that Israel has been under attack repeatedly by the same actors for decades and that the Jews have a century long history of being discriminated and killed systematically, even this analogy doesn't really work. )
The difference is that when the country in question happens to be Israel some things change. If any other country produces civil casualties, that's all they are. It's sad that kids die in wars, but that's what happens. If a kid dies during a conflict involving Israel, Israel is a child killing murder state and every bullet fired is a war crime. The former terrorists aren't terrorists anymore, they're freedom fighters which we all need to have crazy amounts of empathy for, despite the fact that their weapons of choice have been suicide bombers and human shields.
Because this is not a war. I wouldn't call it a genocide, but I would not call it a war either. A single Israeli civilian has died since the beginning of July. ONE ISRAELI CIVILIAN. Compared to 600 Palestinians. How is that a war? That's a massacre. inb4comments about how Israeli takes measures in defense and preparation against missile strikes which is why there are not many Israeli casualties.
P.S I have no empathy for the terrorists, don't get me wrong. But that doesn't justify IDF forces DELIBERATELY targetting UN water-supply tanks (I will post pictures if you don't believe me), targetting red-cross ambulances (I will post pictures if I have to), and as well as targetting hospitals. Yes you can counter-argue that terrorists harbored missiles in hospitals, but THEN WHY THE FUCK BOMB THE TOP FLOORS OF HOSPITALS?! If anything the missiles are in the first floors.... and with such "surgical strikes" they should be able to at least target certain parts of a building. And don't get me started on the "tragic accident" of killing 4 children playing FOOTBALL....
Still waiting on a response to my first post! But as for these arguments:
inb4comments about how Israeli takes measures in defense and preparation against missile strikes which is why there are not many Israeli casualties.
Writing "inb4" doesn't mean that what follows is not a good argument. Yes, the reason why there are less Israeli deaths is because, exactly as you say, they have measures of defense and preparation. The issue isn't the number of deaths- the issue is the thousands of rockets fired into Israel, which Israel doesn't have to put up with.
And ya, I'd love to see proof of Israel deliberately targeting water tanks, never heard that claim before. The red cross ambulances one, like the argument about mosques and schools, is ridiculous, because it's been well documented that Hamas is willing to fire from them, so it's quite difficult to point to any one and say that that one's malicious.
Not sure where you're going with the hospital and beach examples. Let me phrase it this way: Why would Israel want to kill 4 boys on a beach, or hit a hospital? The answer, seemingly, is that they would not. It does no good for them to kill innocents, and if they really wanted to, they could carpet bomb the entire Gaza. So what are you proving by telling me that they killed the 4 boys? That they make mistakes? That they have bad intelligence? That they're not perfect? C'mon, follow through with your argument.
On July 24 2014 06:31 Jormundr wrote:
On July 24 2014 05:55 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 05:53 Jormundr wrote:
On July 24 2014 05:48 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 05:32 Days wrote: Guys. I have this bullet proof window at my house, and for the past 3 years little kids from my neighbor's house have been throwing rocks at my bullet proof window. Well i've had enough. Out of self defense, I am going to go and kill them with my US supplied weapons, which I have a lot of in my closet. It doesn't matter that my window is bullet proof and the rocks don't do anything, I still feel endangered that one of these rocks might break and cause damage. Also, the little kids are throwing rocks from their parent's bedroom, so it does place the blame on them when I go in and kill them and their parents happen to be in the room with them and get caught in the crossfire. But above all, remember I am doing this in self-defense. #israel #self-defense
User was warned for this post
What's the point of using an an abstract analogy, when what's happening is quite clear?
Try this one. We're both Americans. Let's say Mexico started firing rockets into Texas. Let's say that most of them land in empty fields, but 1) Every single time one is launched, you have to run into a bomb shelter, and stay there for 10 minutes 2) You have to spend millions and millions of dollars to stop the rockets that will be hitting populated areas 3) The occasional missile from Mexico causes damage or death
What do you think America should and would do? C'mon, I can't wait to hear how the fact that "But they usually miss" is relevant.
Also, for the love of god, please don't say something like "But Israel is occupying Gaza". If you want to have that discussion, fine. But your argument is "Since the rockets aren't killing people in Israel, Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself with its military." Defend that.
(Also I'm only starting off with the first half of your argument. We'll get to the part about "killing parents" if you can give me a coherent response to this)
This is fucking pointless. This can easily be flipped around and Americans would without a doubt be doing the exact same thing the Palestinians are doing. You know, liberty and free markets, second amendment and all that jazz.
...what? Flipped around to make Americans like the Palestinians? And what about liberty and such? A bit confused over here.
If Palestinians were replaced by Americans, there would still be the exact same amount of terrorism coming out of Palestine. If you take American christian conservative values and placed those into the modern context of Palestine, there would be no difference in the development of a terrorist state. Do you disagree?
-Take away American's guns -Take away their liberty - Take away their access to international trade - Slowly take away more of their land after a third party took a large chunk of it away - Kill large numbers of innocent americans by bombing cities
But the friendly occupiers give you - running water - electricity - food - Pamphlets telling you that your house will be destroyed regardless of whether or not you're in it.
Sigh...I specifically said I did not want to get into the issue of Israel's occupation of Gaza, because it's a completely separate argument, and it's impossible to get anywhere in arguments if we don't make sure to stay exactly on the same page.
I was responding to the argument that Israel's response is disproportionate. That has nothing to do with Israel being in Gaza- that's simply saying (as was explicitly said) "Well, since only one Israeli was killed, Israel doesn't have the right to respond with military force". If you want to continue that line of argument, please do, because I think that one is totally indefensible. On the other hand, if you want to have the argument about whether Israel's occupation justifies Hamas's indiscriminate shooting of rockets into civilian territory, then that one is more murky to me, and I'm curious what your response is.
It does make Israel's use of force excessive. The occupier is responsible for the safety of the occupied in the same way that the warden is responsible for the safety of the prisoners. If the warden is killing more innocent people than the criminals then he is, dare I say, a criminal himself.
And yes, Israel's occupation has de facto turned Palestinians into prisoners because of their race/religion/ethnicity/nationality, or whatever criteria precludes Palestinians from having the same rights as other people in Israel. As I said on page one, it's similar to being forced to live in North Korea.
Excessive is still the wrong term. If everyone agreed that Israel wasn't doing anything wrong to Gaza, then nobody would claim Israel is acting excessively. And if you think Israel is completely in the wrong, and that Hamas has the right to shoot missiles into Israeli civilian territory, then Israel doesn't have the right to do anything on a military level. The "excessive" argument comes when people say "Not many Israelis are getting killed, so they don't have a right to strong military action (like the original post I responded to said). And that argument is stupid, because the low number of deaths is completely, completely irrelevant.
But going back to the occupation- does Hamas have a right to shoot rockets into Israeli civilian territory? Yes or no?
Shooting rockets is a reaction to occupation. Does Israel have the right to occupy Gaza ? International law says no. But nobody do a thing to help gazans, so I guess they decided to defend themselves with those pityful rockets that kills no one. If you accept that Israel has the right to defend itself, which I do, then accept the fact that Gazans also have the right to defend themselves. The problem is : Hamas target civilians (out of weakness but still it is wrong) while Israel is the dominant power, who does not want peace, and kill a terrible number of innocent civilian not because it wants to protect itself, but because it want to assure its power and domination on gazans.
During 2nd WW, France was occupied by Germany, and some French decided to resist. They were called terrorist by the Vichy State and nazi Germany, now they are hero.
On July 24 2014 07:11 m4ini wrote: I don't get how "israel being wrong" equals "hamas is right" to some persons.
Am i missing some important part?
It's a conflict between two parties which fundamentally oppose each other.If you think one is wrong you're implying that the other one is right.
If you're going along the lines of "everybody is wrong, it's all terrible, nothing is going to help, it's all so cruel" you can as well say nothing at all.
On July 24 2014 07:02 WhiteDog wrote: The problem I have with most pro israeli in this thread is that they deny reality. In reality, Palestinian, through their autorities, accepted the existance of Israel and accepted to most of Israel's demand during the 2013-2014 negociations. The main reasons why the negociation did not advance is because Israel, and mostly Netanyahu, didn't budge on the question of settlements.
The Hamas is part of the current government and has stated that they don't and will never, accept the existence of an Israelian state. Netanyahu has stated that the Hamas participation in the government is Israel's biggest problem when talking to the Palestine authorities. (http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/26/palestinians-continuetalks.html)
On July 24 2014 07:11 m4ini wrote: I don't get how "israel being wrong" equals "hamas is right" to some persons.
Am i missing some important part?
It's a conflict between two parties which fundamentally oppose each other.If you think one is wrong you're implying that the other one is right.
If you're going along the lines of "everybody is wrong, it's all terrible, nothing is going to help, it's all so cruel" you can as well say nothing at all.
So you're saying all palestinians are part of Hamas ?
It's a conflict between two parties which fundamentally oppose each other.If you think one is wrong you're implying that the other one is right.
If you're going along the lines of "everybody is wrong, it's all terrible, nothing is going to help, it's all so cruel" you can as well say nothing at all.
And there i am, thinking there couldn't be any worse statement.
It's not a conflict between "two parties", but four. There's the israelian government/military, israelian civilians, there's palestinensian civilians, and theres the hamas.
The only way your "argument" would work is if you equal every palestinensian with a hamas member, which, considering your posting history in this thread, is not too far off i guess (since everybody criticising the IDF automatically equals pro-hamas and anti-semite). And that's literally kindergardenlevel of arguing.
Doesn't make it any smarter of a comment though, sorry.
Although popularity for the Hamas has dropped, still 38% of the Palestine people support the rocket attacks on Israel. In 2012, 12 years after the attacks initially started, 74% supported the attacks.
In the most recent election, the Hamas gained 35% of the votes, and it is part of the unity government, until 2012 it was the undisputed ruling party in the Gaza strip.
On July 24 2014 06:12 xM(Z wrote: Americans didn't built settlements in Cuba. Israeli Minister "We always use the anti-Semitism trick or bring up the Holocaust" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW3a1bw5XlE
The video is somewhat pointless. If I had a nickel for every time in the past 15 years a politician of a country said something damning, etc etc...
But the first point, about building *illegal* settlements, is an issue I'm interested in discussing, because I feel it's a lot more murky than the disproportionate argument. Would you say that, if America built settlements in Cuba, Cuba would have the right to indiscriminately shoot rockets into America (honest question)? If not, what's the difference between the two scenarios?
i don't know man, i got a warning already in this thread for bringing up Godwin's Law but i'll give this a go. - it would depend on an assumed final goal on the part of Americans: if, as an ultimate goal, they'd have as target the total replacement of native Cubans with Americans (territorial annexation included here), then everything coming out of Cuba would be fair game but still, Cubans wouldn't be in the right; Americans would just be more wrong. - other talking points would include the manner in which is done, the amount of violence/oppression of the natives, the amount of racism/xenophobia/religious believes used as a tool to brainwash people and so on and so forth ... in any case, Americans should be subject to huge economical (but not only) sanctions. (*.* = added in)
Okay, so now we're at the main point- the illegality of Israel's settlements. I'm far from a historian, and admittedly working off Wikipedia here, but let's take a look at Texas: It was under Spanish control until 1821 Mexican until 1836 Independent until 1845 Currently American ('merica!)
Now let's say Spaint wanted Texas back. Would America be obligated to give it to them? If not, what's the difference between Texas and East Jerusalem and the West Bank (Just to be clear, I don't at all think Israel's occupation of those areas is as wrong as most people do, but I think we'd agree it's not any worse than what America did to Mexico.)
short answer because i'm going to sleep: - you can not compare Israel with any other country, historically (exclude the bible here), because Israel has a manufacturing date (and even that is questionable). - everything past that date is illegal. there was a map drawn, there was a UN resolution voted and Israel agreed to it.
Although popularity for the Hamas has dropped, still 38% of the Palestine people support the rocket attacks on Israel. In 2012, 12 years after the attacks initially started, 74% supported the attacks.
And 80% of Americans support Israel's attacks on Gaza.... what's your point?
Although popularity for the Hamas has dropped, still 38% of the Palestine people support the rocket attacks on Israel. In 2012, 12 years after the attacks initially started, 74% supported the attacks.
And 80% of Americans support Israel's attacks on Gaza.... what's your point?
I was asked "do you think every Palestinian supports the Hamas?" and my answer is : Kinda, as it was the ruling power in the Gaza strip until just recently, a majority of people supported the attacks for over a decade and 40% of the people still do, and they are part of the current unity government.
Although popularity for the Hamas has dropped, still 38% of the Palestine people support the rocket attacks on Israel. In 2012, 12 years after the attacks initially started, 74% supported the attacks.
And 80% of Americans support Israel's attacks on Gaza.... what's your point?
I was asked "do you think every Palestinian supports the Hamas?" and my answer is : Kinda, as it was the ruling power in the Gaza strip until just recently, a majority of people supported the attacks for over a decade and 40% of the people still do, and they are part of the current unity government.
Yes because their people are oppressed and desperate. I have empathy for the civilian population of Gaza, not Hamas. How else will you retaliate if after 7 years there has been a blockade on a small 25mile piece of land?! Their people are tired, and will look for any solution that MAY seem viable at the moment. I mean, they have nowhere to evacuate to, they are completely blocked from the rest of the world.
On July 24 2014 07:02 WhiteDog wrote: The problem I have with most pro israeli in this thread is that they deny reality. In reality, Palestinian, through their autorities, accepted the existance of Israel and accepted to most of Israel's demand during the 2013-2014 negociations. The main reasons why the negociation did not advance is because Israel, and mostly Netanyahu, didn't budge on the question of settlements.
On 2 May 2014 the Hebrew daily Yedioth Ahronoth, cited an anonymous senior American official as placing the blame for the break-down in talks mainly on Israel's settlement stance, directly quoting the remark:'Netanyahu did not move more than an inch.” Israeli sources in Jerusalem later reported that the remarks came from the US Special Envoy Marin Indyk himself, who was reportedly preparing to hand in his resignation.[67] Whoever the source of the comment, the White House cleared the interview in which the remarks were made.[68] In this the officials appeared to be referring to the Israeli government announcement of a record 14,000 new settlement housing units.[69][70] Mark Landler has written that the remark attributed to Indyk reflected the President's own views:
Publicly, Mr. Obama has said that both sides bear responsibility for the latest collapse. But the president believes that more than any other factor, Israel’s drumbeat of settlement announcements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem poisoned the atmosphere and doomed any chance of a breakthrough with the Palestinians.[68]
According to Peace Now, during the nine months of peace talks Israel set a new record for settlement expansion at nearly 14,000 newly approved settler homes.[76] During this same period Israel also destroyed over 500 Palestinian structures, including the Palestinian village of Khirbit Makhoul. Sixty one Palestinians were killed, 1,100 were injured, and nearly 4000 detained by Israeli forces during the peace talks. [77] Palestinian official Nabil Shaath condemned settlement construction, saying "the settlement activities have made negotiations worthless."[78] For its part, Israeli spokesman Mark Regev condemned Palestinian incitement, saying "the terrorist attacks against Israelis over the last few days are a direct result of the incitement and hatred propagated in Palestinian schools and media."[79] According to B'Tselem, during this same period forty-five Palestinians and six Israelis were killed.[80]
People like Nyxisto are still sixty years ago, when the Palestinian refused the plan proposed by the UN, mostly because it was unbalanced (and obviously, it was biaised toward the jewish population, who got two third of the land while they represented only a third of the population - and the colonial third). But right now the situation has nothing to do with that : gazans and palestinians overall are broke, and definitly tired of this long occupation. They are ready to accept every demand from Israel, as long as those demand are reasonable and respectable. The problem is not only Israel is not ready to respect its counter part (the recent peace project from Egypt is a good exemple of that, since it was made without the Hamas, and the Hamas learned about it through the media...) but also that Israel is not ready for peace because part of its population is asking for a complete annexation of Palestinian lands (a substantial part of the West Bank, that they call the judea samaria, to be precise).
Not to mention : the blocus and the occupation of gaza is illegal according the international law, using palestinian kids, as they did, and punishing civilians for the deeds of few crazy people is also a crime.
Forgive Israel for not taking Hamas's desire for peace seriously. For starters, if Hamas really wanted peace, you think that maybe they should stop firing rockets at Israeli civilians? And aside for that, the second Intifada was not "60 years ago". I'd say that people that care about peace should stop acting like terrorists (and yes, there is a reason that Hamas is considered to be a terrorist group. Or can you see America taking a peace attempt by al-quaeda seriously)?
On July 24 2014 06:12 xM(Z wrote: Americans didn't built settlements in Cuba. Israeli Minister "We always use the anti-Semitism trick or bring up the Holocaust" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW3a1bw5XlE
The video is somewhat pointless. If I had a nickel for every time in the past 15 years a politician of a country said something damning, etc etc...
But the first point, about building *illegal* settlements, is an issue I'm interested in discussing, because I feel it's a lot more murky than the disproportionate argument. Would you say that, if America built settlements in Cuba, Cuba would have the right to indiscriminately shoot rockets into America (honest question)? If not, what's the difference between the two scenarios?
i don't know man, i got a warning already in this thread for bringing up Godwin's Law but i'll give this a go. - it would depend on an assumed final goal on the part of Americans: if, as an ultimate goal, they'd have as target the total replacement of native Cubans with Americans (territorial annexation included here), then everything coming out of Cuba would be fair game but still, Cubans wouldn't be in the right; Americans would just be more wrong. - other talking points would include the manner in which is done, the amount of violence/oppression of the natives, the amount of racism/xenophobia/religious believes used as a tool to brainwash people and so on and so forth ... in any case, Americans should be subject to huge economical (but not only) sanctions. (*.* = added in)
Okay, so now we're at the main point- the illegality of Israel's settlements. I'm far from a historian, and admittedly working off Wikipedia here, but let's take a look at Texas: It was under Spanish control until 1821 Mexican until 1836 Independent until 1845 Currently American ('merica!)
Now let's say Spaint wanted Texas back. Would America be obligated to give it to them? If not, what's the difference between Texas and East Jerusalem and the West Bank (Just to be clear, I don't at all think Israel's occupation of those areas is as wrong as most people do, but I think we'd agree it's not any worse than what America did to Mexico.)
i'm not sure what your end goal of all your arguments in this thread are. To justify Israel's "self-defense"? You keep bringing up the point of Hamas "indiscriminate" targetting of civilian places, when at the same time the IDF is clearly and in plain sight targetting civilian population in Gaza.
Look the end point I am just trying to make is that you can argue for days on end that either side can be held accountable, but in the end it's Israel that is blatantly trying to wash it's hands and pretend like they are the almighty saints of the earth. For crying out loud the Israeli Ambassador to the US publicly CLAIMED that the IDF deserve a Nobel Peace Prize for their actions in protecting civilian casualties..... are you bullshitting me?!?! please tell me this is a prank right?!
Wow- did you really, seriously just compare what Israel is doing to civilians to what Hamas is doing to civilians? I mean, seriously? Hamas is CONSISTENTLY, INDISCRIMINATELY firing rockets into Israel. They have shot thousands of rockets into Israel, and have not been aiming for specific military targets. They would of course be happy if they killed civilians- that's why they're firing the rockets. But now, you say, the IDF is targeting "civilian population" in Gaza. If Israel wanted to kill civilians in Gaza, they could literally nuke it, or carpet bomb it, or some other method of destruction. The fact that they are not doing that demonstrates that they, in fact, do NOT want to kill civilians.
Let's review that. Hamas wants to kill civilians. Israel does not. Are you seriously trying to argue against that?
And now you suddenly saying that your point is that you don't like how Israel is acting like saints. What happened to your stupid analogy from before- gave up on that one? Is that the point that you're really trying to make, that you're annoyed that Israel is acting like they're innocent? Because you haven't given any indication of that before.
On July 24 2014 06:08 Nyxisto wrote: If you want to have an analogy that at least makes a little sense take Cuba and the United states(because these countries also have a history of economic sanctions, being ideologically opposed, and one country being a lot bigger).
Imagine Cuba shooting one hundred missiles a day at the US. What would the US do?Wait 15 years and build an Iron Dome? The US would beat the living shit out of Cuba on day 1, and rightly so. Everyone internationally would accept Cuba's actions as an act of war or terror, despite the fact that the US has sanctioned the country in the past. (Given the fact that Israel has been under attack repeatedly by the same actors for decades and that the Jews have a century long history of being discriminated and killed systematically, even this analogy doesn't really work. )
The difference is that when the country in question happens to be Israel some things change. If any other country produces civil casualties, that's all they are. It's sad that kids die in wars, but that's what happens. If a kid dies during a conflict involving Israel, Israel is a child killing murder state and every bullet fired is a war crime. The former terrorists aren't terrorists anymore, they're freedom fighters which we all need to have crazy amounts of empathy for, despite the fact that their weapons of choice have been suicide bombers and human shields.
Because this is not a war. I wouldn't call it a genocide, but I would not call it a war either. A single Israeli civilian has died since the beginning of July. ONE ISRAELI CIVILIAN. Compared to 600 Palestinians. How is that a war? That's a massacre. inb4comments about how Israeli takes measures in defense and preparation against missile strikes which is why there are not many Israeli casualties.
P.S I have no empathy for the terrorists, don't get me wrong. But that doesn't justify IDF forces DELIBERATELY targetting UN water-supply tanks (I will post pictures if you don't believe me), targetting red-cross ambulances (I will post pictures if I have to), and as well as targetting hospitals. Yes you can counter-argue that terrorists harbored missiles in hospitals, but THEN WHY THE FUCK BOMB THE TOP FLOORS OF HOSPITALS?! If anything the missiles are in the first floors.... and with such "surgical strikes" they should be able to at least target certain parts of a building. And don't get me started on the "tragic accident" of killing 4 children playing FOOTBALL....
Still waiting on a response to my first post! But as for these arguments:
inb4comments about how Israeli takes measures in defense and preparation against missile strikes which is why there are not many Israeli casualties.
Writing "inb4" doesn't mean that what follows is not a good argument. Yes, the reason why there are less Israeli deaths is because, exactly as you say, they have measures of defense and preparation. The issue isn't the number of deaths- the issue is the thousands of rockets fired into Israel, which Israel doesn't have to put up with.
And ya, I'd love to see proof of Israel deliberately targeting water tanks, never heard that claim before. The red cross ambulances one, like the argument about mosques and schools, is ridiculous, because it's been well documented that Hamas is willing to fire from them, so it's quite difficult to point to any one and say that that one's malicious.
Not sure where you're going with the hospital and beach examples. Let me phrase it this way: Why would Israel want to kill 4 boys on a beach, or hit a hospital? The answer, seemingly, is that they would not. It does no good for them to kill innocents, and if they really wanted to, they could carpet bomb the entire Gaza. So what are you proving by telling me that they killed the 4 boys? That they make mistakes? That they have bad intelligence? That they're not perfect? C'mon, follow through with your argument.
On July 24 2014 06:31 Jormundr wrote:
On July 24 2014 05:55 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 05:53 Jormundr wrote:
On July 24 2014 05:48 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 05:32 Days wrote: Guys. I have this bullet proof window at my house, and for the past 3 years little kids from my neighbor's house have been throwing rocks at my bullet proof window. Well i've had enough. Out of self defense, I am going to go and kill them with my US supplied weapons, which I have a lot of in my closet. It doesn't matter that my window is bullet proof and the rocks don't do anything, I still feel endangered that one of these rocks might break and cause damage. Also, the little kids are throwing rocks from their parent's bedroom, so it does place the blame on them when I go in and kill them and their parents happen to be in the room with them and get caught in the crossfire. But above all, remember I am doing this in self-defense. #israel #self-defense
User was warned for this post
What's the point of using an an abstract analogy, when what's happening is quite clear?
Try this one. We're both Americans. Let's say Mexico started firing rockets into Texas. Let's say that most of them land in empty fields, but 1) Every single time one is launched, you have to run into a bomb shelter, and stay there for 10 minutes 2) You have to spend millions and millions of dollars to stop the rockets that will be hitting populated areas 3) The occasional missile from Mexico causes damage or death
What do you think America should and would do? C'mon, I can't wait to hear how the fact that "But they usually miss" is relevant.
Also, for the love of god, please don't say something like "But Israel is occupying Gaza". If you want to have that discussion, fine. But your argument is "Since the rockets aren't killing people in Israel, Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself with its military." Defend that.
(Also I'm only starting off with the first half of your argument. We'll get to the part about "killing parents" if you can give me a coherent response to this)
This is fucking pointless. This can easily be flipped around and Americans would without a doubt be doing the exact same thing the Palestinians are doing. You know, liberty and free markets, second amendment and all that jazz.
...what? Flipped around to make Americans like the Palestinians? And what about liberty and such? A bit confused over here.
If Palestinians were replaced by Americans, there would still be the exact same amount of terrorism coming out of Palestine. If you take American christian conservative values and placed those into the modern context of Palestine, there would be no difference in the development of a terrorist state. Do you disagree?
-Take away American's guns -Take away their liberty - Take away their access to international trade - Slowly take away more of their land after a third party took a large chunk of it away - Kill large numbers of innocent americans by bombing cities
But the friendly occupiers give you - running water - electricity - food - Pamphlets telling you that your house will be destroyed regardless of whether or not you're in it.
Sigh...I specifically said I did not want to get into the issue of Israel's occupation of Gaza, because it's a completely separate argument, and it's impossible to get anywhere in arguments if we don't make sure to stay exactly on the same page.
I was responding to the argument that Israel's response is disproportionate. That has nothing to do with Israel being in Gaza- that's simply saying (as was explicitly said) "Well, since only one Israeli was killed, Israel doesn't have the right to respond with military force". If you want to continue that line of argument, please do, because I think that one is totally indefensible. On the other hand, if you want to have the argument about whether Israel's occupation justifies Hamas's indiscriminate shooting of rockets into civilian territory, then that one is more murky to me, and I'm curious what your response is.
It does make Israel's use of force excessive. The occupier is responsible for the safety of the occupied in the same way that the warden is responsible for the safety of the prisoners. If the warden is killing more innocent people than the criminals then he is, dare I say, a criminal himself.
And yes, Israel's occupation has de facto turned Palestinians into prisoners because of their race/religion/ethnicity/nationality, or whatever criteria precludes Palestinians from having the same rights as other people in Israel. As I said on page one, it's similar to being forced to live in North Korea.
Excessive is still the wrong term. If everyone agreed that Israel wasn't doing anything wrong to Gaza, then nobody would claim Israel is acting excessively. And if you think Israel is completely in the wrong, and that Hamas has the right to shoot missiles into Israeli civilian territory, then Israel doesn't have the right to do anything on a military level. The "excessive" argument comes when people say "Not many Israelis are getting killed, so they don't have a right to strong military action (like the original post I responded to said). And that argument is stupid, because the low number of deaths is completely, completely irrelevant.
But going back to the occupation- does Hamas have a right to shoot rockets into Israeli civilian territory? Yes or no?
Shooting rockets is a reaction to occupation. Does Israel have the right to occupy Gaza ? International law says no. But nobody do a thing to help gazans, so I guess they decided to defend themselves with those pityful rockets that kills no one. If you accept that Israel has the right to defend itself, which I do, then accept the fact that Gazans also have the right to defend themselves. The problem is : Hamas target civilians (out of weakness but still it is wrong) while Israel is the dominant power, who does not want peace, and kill a terrible number of innocent civilian not because it wants to protect itself, but because it want to assure its power and domination on gazans.
During 2nd WW, France was occupied by Germany, and some French decided to resist. They were called terrorist by the Vichy State and nazi Germany, now they are hero.
Are you saying that Hamas's firing rockets at Israeli civilians is justified because it's defending itself? That's a very strange defense. And please don't talk about pitiful rockets. Just because they haven't killed more people doesn't mean that they haven't already killed plenty, done a ton of damage, and force people to run into bomb shelters consistently. Talk about their being pitiful after you've been woken up in the middle of the night, ran into a bomb shelter, and waited as you hear the booms of rockets fired at you.
So now we get to the settlement question of before. I already asked it (see my post a few up about Texas), and I'd be interested in your response.
On July 24 2014 06:12 xM(Z wrote: Americans didn't built settlements in Cuba. Israeli Minister "We always use the anti-Semitism trick or bring up the Holocaust" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW3a1bw5XlE
The video is somewhat pointless. If I had a nickel for every time in the past 15 years a politician of a country said something damning, etc etc...
But the first point, about building *illegal* settlements, is an issue I'm interested in discussing, because I feel it's a lot more murky than the disproportionate argument. Would you say that, if America built settlements in Cuba, Cuba would have the right to indiscriminately shoot rockets into America (honest question)? If not, what's the difference between the two scenarios?
i don't know man, i got a warning already in this thread for bringing up Godwin's Law but i'll give this a go. - it would depend on an assumed final goal on the part of Americans: if, as an ultimate goal, they'd have as target the total replacement of native Cubans with Americans (territorial annexation included here), then everything coming out of Cuba would be fair game but still, Cubans wouldn't be in the right; Americans would just be more wrong. - other talking points would include the manner in which is done, the amount of violence/oppression of the natives, the amount of racism/xenophobia/religious believes used as a tool to brainwash people and so on and so forth ... in any case, Americans should be subject to huge economical (but not only) sanctions. (*.* = added in)
Okay, so now we're at the main point- the illegality of Israel's settlements. I'm far from a historian, and admittedly working off Wikipedia here, but let's take a look at Texas: It was under Spanish control until 1821 Mexican until 1836 Independent until 1845 Currently American ('merica!)
Now let's say Spaint wanted Texas back. Would America be obligated to give it to them? If not, what's the difference between Texas and East Jerusalem and the West Bank (Just to be clear, I don't at all think Israel's occupation of those areas is as wrong as most people do, but I think we'd agree it's not any worse than what America did to Mexico.)
short answer because i'm going to sleep: - you can not compare Israel with any other country, historically (exclude the bible here), because Israel has a manufacturing date (and even that is questionable). - everything past that date is illegal. there was a map drawn, there was a UN resolution voted and Israel agreed to it.
Everything past that date is illegal? If that is true, I'm sure there's a bunch of Germans out there who would like their pre-WW2 borders back. No, that's not how it works. If a country attacks you, and you capture land, you keep it.
On July 24 2014 07:02 WhiteDog wrote: The problem I have with most pro israeli in this thread is that they deny reality. In reality, Palestinian, through their autorities, accepted the existance of Israel and accepted to most of Israel's demand during the 2013-2014 negociations. The main reasons why the negociation did not advance is because Israel, and mostly Netanyahu, didn't budge on the question of settlements.
On 2 May 2014 the Hebrew daily Yedioth Ahronoth, cited an anonymous senior American official as placing the blame for the break-down in talks mainly on Israel's settlement stance, directly quoting the remark:'Netanyahu did not move more than an inch.” Israeli sources in Jerusalem later reported that the remarks came from the US Special Envoy Marin Indyk himself, who was reportedly preparing to hand in his resignation.[67] Whoever the source of the comment, the White House cleared the interview in which the remarks were made.[68] In this the officials appeared to be referring to the Israeli government announcement of a record 14,000 new settlement housing units.[69][70] Mark Landler has written that the remark attributed to Indyk reflected the President's own views:
Publicly, Mr. Obama has said that both sides bear responsibility for the latest collapse. But the president believes that more than any other factor, Israel’s drumbeat of settlement announcements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem poisoned the atmosphere and doomed any chance of a breakthrough with the Palestinians.[68]
According to Peace Now, during the nine months of peace talks Israel set a new record for settlement expansion at nearly 14,000 newly approved settler homes.[76] During this same period Israel also destroyed over 500 Palestinian structures, including the Palestinian village of Khirbit Makhoul. Sixty one Palestinians were killed, 1,100 were injured, and nearly 4000 detained by Israeli forces during the peace talks. [77] Palestinian official Nabil Shaath condemned settlement construction, saying "the settlement activities have made negotiations worthless."[78] For its part, Israeli spokesman Mark Regev condemned Palestinian incitement, saying "the terrorist attacks against Israelis over the last few days are a direct result of the incitement and hatred propagated in Palestinian schools and media."[79] According to B'Tselem, during this same period forty-five Palestinians and six Israelis were killed.[80]
People like Nyxisto are still sixty years ago, when the Palestinian refused the plan proposed by the UN, mostly because it was unbalanced (and obviously, it was biaised toward the jewish population, who got two third of the land while they represented only a third of the population - and the colonial third). But right now the situation has nothing to do with that : gazans and palestinians overall are broke, and definitly tired of this long occupation. They are ready to accept every demand from Israel, as long as those demand are reasonable and respectable. The problem is not only Israel is not ready to respect its counter part (the recent peace project from Egypt is a good exemple of that, since it was made without the Hamas, and the Hamas learned about it through the media...) but also that Israel is not ready for peace because part of its population is asking for a complete annexation of Palestinian lands (a substantial part of the West Bank, that they call the judea samaria, to be precise).
Not to mention : the blocus and the occupation of gaza is illegal according the international law, using palestinian kids, as they did, and punishing civilians for the deeds of few crazy people is also a crime.
Forgive Israel for not taking Hamas's desire for peace seriously. For starters, if Hamas really wanted peace, you think that maybe they should stop firing rockets at Israeli civilians? And aside for that, the second Intifada was not "60 years ago". I'd say that people that care about peace should stop acting like terrorists (and yes, there is a reason that Hamas is considered to be a terrorist group. Or can you see America taking a peace attempt by al-quaeda seriously)?
On July 24 2014 06:12 xM(Z wrote: Americans didn't built settlements in Cuba. Israeli Minister "We always use the anti-Semitism trick or bring up the Holocaust" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW3a1bw5XlE
The video is somewhat pointless. If I had a nickel for every time in the past 15 years a politician of a country said something damning, etc etc...
But the first point, about building *illegal* settlements, is an issue I'm interested in discussing, because I feel it's a lot more murky than the disproportionate argument. Would you say that, if America built settlements in Cuba, Cuba would have the right to indiscriminately shoot rockets into America (honest question)? If not, what's the difference between the two scenarios?
i don't know man, i got a warning already in this thread for bringing up Godwin's Law but i'll give this a go. - it would depend on an assumed final goal on the part of Americans: if, as an ultimate goal, they'd have as target the total replacement of native Cubans with Americans (territorial annexation included here), then everything coming out of Cuba would be fair game but still, Cubans wouldn't be in the right; Americans would just be more wrong. - other talking points would include the manner in which is done, the amount of violence/oppression of the natives, the amount of racism/xenophobia/religious believes used as a tool to brainwash people and so on and so forth ... in any case, Americans should be subject to huge economical (but not only) sanctions. (*.* = added in)
Okay, so now we're at the main point- the illegality of Israel's settlements. I'm far from a historian, and admittedly working off Wikipedia here, but let's take a look at Texas: It was under Spanish control until 1821 Mexican until 1836 Independent until 1845 Currently American ('merica!)
Now let's say Spaint wanted Texas back. Would America be obligated to give it to them? If not, what's the difference between Texas and East Jerusalem and the West Bank (Just to be clear, I don't at all think Israel's occupation of those areas is as wrong as most people do, but I think we'd agree it's not any worse than what America did to Mexico.)
i'm not sure what your end goal of all your arguments in this thread are. To justify Israel's "self-defense"? You keep bringing up the point of Hamas "indiscriminate" targetting of civilian places, when at the same time the IDF is clearly and in plain sight targetting civilian population in Gaza.
Look the end point I am just trying to make is that you can argue for days on end that either side can be held accountable, but in the end it's Israel that is blatantly trying to wash it's hands and pretend like they are the almighty saints of the earth. For crying out loud the Israeli Ambassador to the US publicly CLAIMED that the IDF deserve a Nobel Peace Prize for their actions in protecting civilian casualties..... are you bullshitting me?!?! please tell me this is a prank right?!
Wow- did you really, seriously just compare what Israel is doing to civilians to what Hamas is doing to civilians? I mean, seriously? Hamas is CONSISTENTLY, INDISCRIMINATELY firing rockets into Israel. They have shot thousands of rockets into Israel, and have not been aiming for specific military targets. They would of course be happy if they killed civilians- that's why they're firing the rockets. But now, you say, the IDF is targeting "civilian population" in Gaza. If Israel wanted to kill civilians in Gaza, they could literally nuke it, or carpet bomb it, or some other method of destruction. The fact that they are not doing that demonstrates that they, in fact, do NOT want to kill civilians.
Let's review that. Hamas wants to kill civilians. Israel does not. Are you seriously trying to argue against that?
And now you suddenly saying that your point is that you don't like how Israel is acting like saints. What happened to your stupid analogy from before- gave up on that one? Is that the point that you're really trying to make, that you're annoyed that Israel is acting like they're innocent? Because you haven't given any indication of that before.
On July 24 2014 06:08 Nyxisto wrote: If you want to have an analogy that at least makes a little sense take Cuba and the United states(because these countries also have a history of economic sanctions, being ideologically opposed, and one country being a lot bigger).
Imagine Cuba shooting one hundred missiles a day at the US. What would the US do?Wait 15 years and build an Iron Dome? The US would beat the living shit out of Cuba on day 1, and rightly so. Everyone internationally would accept Cuba's actions as an act of war or terror, despite the fact that the US has sanctioned the country in the past. (Given the fact that Israel has been under attack repeatedly by the same actors for decades and that the Jews have a century long history of being discriminated and killed systematically, even this analogy doesn't really work. )
The difference is that when the country in question happens to be Israel some things change. If any other country produces civil casualties, that's all they are. It's sad that kids die in wars, but that's what happens. If a kid dies during a conflict involving Israel, Israel is a child killing murder state and every bullet fired is a war crime. The former terrorists aren't terrorists anymore, they're freedom fighters which we all need to have crazy amounts of empathy for, despite the fact that their weapons of choice have been suicide bombers and human shields.
Because this is not a war. I wouldn't call it a genocide, but I would not call it a war either. A single Israeli civilian has died since the beginning of July. ONE ISRAELI CIVILIAN. Compared to 600 Palestinians. How is that a war? That's a massacre. inb4comments about how Israeli takes measures in defense and preparation against missile strikes which is why there are not many Israeli casualties.
P.S I have no empathy for the terrorists, don't get me wrong. But that doesn't justify IDF forces DELIBERATELY targetting UN water-supply tanks (I will post pictures if you don't believe me), targetting red-cross ambulances (I will post pictures if I have to), and as well as targetting hospitals. Yes you can counter-argue that terrorists harbored missiles in hospitals, but THEN WHY THE FUCK BOMB THE TOP FLOORS OF HOSPITALS?! If anything the missiles are in the first floors.... and with such "surgical strikes" they should be able to at least target certain parts of a building. And don't get me started on the "tragic accident" of killing 4 children playing FOOTBALL....
Still waiting on a response to my first post! But as for these arguments:
inb4comments about how Israeli takes measures in defense and preparation against missile strikes which is why there are not many Israeli casualties.
Writing "inb4" doesn't mean that what follows is not a good argument. Yes, the reason why there are less Israeli deaths is because, exactly as you say, they have measures of defense and preparation. The issue isn't the number of deaths- the issue is the thousands of rockets fired into Israel, which Israel doesn't have to put up with.
And ya, I'd love to see proof of Israel deliberately targeting water tanks, never heard that claim before. The red cross ambulances one, like the argument about mosques and schools, is ridiculous, because it's been well documented that Hamas is willing to fire from them, so it's quite difficult to point to any one and say that that one's malicious.
Not sure where you're going with the hospital and beach examples. Let me phrase it this way: Why would Israel want to kill 4 boys on a beach, or hit a hospital? The answer, seemingly, is that they would not. It does no good for them to kill innocents, and if they really wanted to, they could carpet bomb the entire Gaza. So what are you proving by telling me that they killed the 4 boys? That they make mistakes? That they have bad intelligence? That they're not perfect? C'mon, follow through with your argument.
On July 24 2014 06:31 Jormundr wrote:
On July 24 2014 05:55 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 05:53 Jormundr wrote:
On July 24 2014 05:48 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 05:32 Days wrote: Guys. I have this bullet proof window at my house, and for the past 3 years little kids from my neighbor's house have been throwing rocks at my bullet proof window. Well i've had enough. Out of self defense, I am going to go and kill them with my US supplied weapons, which I have a lot of in my closet. It doesn't matter that my window is bullet proof and the rocks don't do anything, I still feel endangered that one of these rocks might break and cause damage. Also, the little kids are throwing rocks from their parent's bedroom, so it does place the blame on them when I go in and kill them and their parents happen to be in the room with them and get caught in the crossfire. But above all, remember I am doing this in self-defense. #israel #self-defense
User was warned for this post
What's the point of using an an abstract analogy, when what's happening is quite clear?
Try this one. We're both Americans. Let's say Mexico started firing rockets into Texas. Let's say that most of them land in empty fields, but 1) Every single time one is launched, you have to run into a bomb shelter, and stay there for 10 minutes 2) You have to spend millions and millions of dollars to stop the rockets that will be hitting populated areas 3) The occasional missile from Mexico causes damage or death
What do you think America should and would do? C'mon, I can't wait to hear how the fact that "But they usually miss" is relevant.
Also, for the love of god, please don't say something like "But Israel is occupying Gaza". If you want to have that discussion, fine. But your argument is "Since the rockets aren't killing people in Israel, Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself with its military." Defend that.
(Also I'm only starting off with the first half of your argument. We'll get to the part about "killing parents" if you can give me a coherent response to this)
This is fucking pointless. This can easily be flipped around and Americans would without a doubt be doing the exact same thing the Palestinians are doing. You know, liberty and free markets, second amendment and all that jazz.
...what? Flipped around to make Americans like the Palestinians? And what about liberty and such? A bit confused over here.
If Palestinians were replaced by Americans, there would still be the exact same amount of terrorism coming out of Palestine. If you take American christian conservative values and placed those into the modern context of Palestine, there would be no difference in the development of a terrorist state. Do you disagree?
-Take away American's guns -Take away their liberty - Take away their access to international trade - Slowly take away more of their land after a third party took a large chunk of it away - Kill large numbers of innocent americans by bombing cities
But the friendly occupiers give you - running water - electricity - food - Pamphlets telling you that your house will be destroyed regardless of whether or not you're in it.
Sigh...I specifically said I did not want to get into the issue of Israel's occupation of Gaza, because it's a completely separate argument, and it's impossible to get anywhere in arguments if we don't make sure to stay exactly on the same page.
I was responding to the argument that Israel's response is disproportionate. That has nothing to do with Israel being in Gaza- that's simply saying (as was explicitly said) "Well, since only one Israeli was killed, Israel doesn't have the right to respond with military force". If you want to continue that line of argument, please do, because I think that one is totally indefensible. On the other hand, if you want to have the argument about whether Israel's occupation justifies Hamas's indiscriminate shooting of rockets into civilian territory, then that one is more murky to me, and I'm curious what your response is.
It does make Israel's use of force excessive. The occupier is responsible for the safety of the occupied in the same way that the warden is responsible for the safety of the prisoners. If the warden is killing more innocent people than the criminals then he is, dare I say, a criminal himself.
And yes, Israel's occupation has de facto turned Palestinians into prisoners because of their race/religion/ethnicity/nationality, or whatever criteria precludes Palestinians from having the same rights as other people in Israel. As I said on page one, it's similar to being forced to live in North Korea.
Excessive is still the wrong term. If everyone agreed that Israel wasn't doing anything wrong to Gaza, then nobody would claim Israel is acting excessively. And if you think Israel is completely in the wrong, and that Hamas has the right to shoot missiles into Israeli civilian territory, then Israel doesn't have the right to do anything on a military level. The "excessive" argument comes when people say "Not many Israelis are getting killed, so they don't have a right to strong military action (like the original post I responded to said). And that argument is stupid, because the low number of deaths is completely, completely irrelevant.
But going back to the occupation- does Hamas have a right to shoot rockets into Israeli civilian territory? Yes or no?
Shooting rockets is a reaction to occupation. Does Israel have the right to occupy Gaza ? International law says no. But nobody do a thing to help gazans, so I guess they decided to defend themselves with those pityful rockets that kills no one. If you accept that Israel has the right to defend itself, which I do, then accept the fact that Gazans also have the right to defend themselves. The problem is : Hamas target civilians (out of weakness but still it is wrong) while Israel is the dominant power, who does not want peace, and kill a terrible number of innocent civilian not because it wants to protect itself, but because it want to assure its power and domination on gazans.
During 2nd WW, France was occupied by Germany, and some French decided to resist. They were called terrorist by the Vichy State and nazi Germany, now they are hero.
Are you saying that Hamas's firing rockets at Israeli civilians is justified because it's defending itself? That's a very strange defense. And please don't talk about pitiful rockets. Just because they haven't killed more people doesn't mean that they haven't already killed plenty, done a ton of damage, and force people to run into bomb shelters consistently. Talk about their being pitiful after you've been woken up in the middle of the night, ran into a bomb shelter, and waited as you hear the booms of rockets fired at you.
So now we get to the settlement question of before. I already asked it (see my post a few up about Texas), and I'd be interested in your response.
On July 24 2014 06:12 xM(Z wrote: Americans didn't built settlements in Cuba. Israeli Minister "We always use the anti-Semitism trick or bring up the Holocaust" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW3a1bw5XlE
The video is somewhat pointless. If I had a nickel for every time in the past 15 years a politician of a country said something damning, etc etc...
But the first point, about building *illegal* settlements, is an issue I'm interested in discussing, because I feel it's a lot more murky than the disproportionate argument. Would you say that, if America built settlements in Cuba, Cuba would have the right to indiscriminately shoot rockets into America (honest question)? If not, what's the difference between the two scenarios?
i don't know man, i got a warning already in this thread for bringing up Godwin's Law but i'll give this a go. - it would depend on an assumed final goal on the part of Americans: if, as an ultimate goal, they'd have as target the total replacement of native Cubans with Americans (territorial annexation included here), then everything coming out of Cuba would be fair game but still, Cubans wouldn't be in the right; Americans would just be more wrong. - other talking points would include the manner in which is done, the amount of violence/oppression of the natives, the amount of racism/xenophobia/religious believes used as a tool to brainwash people and so on and so forth ... in any case, Americans should be subject to huge economical (but not only) sanctions. (*.* = added in)
Okay, so now we're at the main point- the illegality of Israel's settlements. I'm far from a historian, and admittedly working off Wikipedia here, but let's take a look at Texas: It was under Spanish control until 1821 Mexican until 1836 Independent until 1845 Currently American ('merica!)
Now let's say Spaint wanted Texas back. Would America be obligated to give it to them? If not, what's the difference between Texas and East Jerusalem and the West Bank (Just to be clear, I don't at all think Israel's occupation of those areas is as wrong as most people do, but I think we'd agree it's not any worse than what America did to Mexico.)
short answer because i'm going to sleep: - you can not compare Israel with any other country, historically (exclude the bible here), because Israel has a manufacturing date (and even that is questionable). - everything past that date is illegal. there was a map drawn, there was a UN resolution voted and Israel agreed to it.
Everything past that date is illegal? If that is true, I'm sure there's a bunch of Germans out there who would like their pre-WW2 borders back. No, that's not how it works. If a country attacks you, and you capture land, you keep it.
Do you see how biased you are ? First Palestinian accept peace but "Israel cannot take it seriously" ? How is that an argument ? In this case no peace is possible. Then you say that Hamas' defence is a "very strange defence", like Israel incursion in gaza is a good defence ? Then you talk about the second intifada, putting aside the fact that almost everyone pointed out the failed 1947 partition as a justification for the current palestinian problem.
On July 24 2014 06:12 xM(Z wrote: Americans didn't built settlements in Cuba. Israeli Minister "We always use the anti-Semitism trick or bring up the Holocaust" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW3a1bw5XlE
The video is somewhat pointless. If I had a nickel for every time in the past 15 years a politician of a country said something damning, etc etc...
But the first point, about building settlements, is an issue I'm interested in discussing, because I feel it's a lot more murky than the disproportionate argument. Would you say that, if America built settlements in Cuba, Cuba would have the right to indiscriminately shoot rockets into America (honest question)? If not, what's the difference between the two scenarios?
Edit: @Dangermousecatdog, same question to you.
Again it is biased.... Hamas does not launch rockets because of the settlements alone, but also because of the blocus, the occupation, and their overall weakness. If the US were completly crushed by say Canada, to a point that the US only had Texas left, with all americans forced to stay in Texas, like a prison with open sky, with borders and most ressources (like water) completly controlled by Canada, don't you think you would justify any form of retaliation on Canada ?
By the way, I don't think launching rockets on civilians is justifiable, and for that belief I condemn both Hamas and Israel. But all things considered, Hamas' position is much easier to justify than Israel's.
EPT
