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 07:06 Days wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:53 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:36 xM(Z wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:17 soon.Cloak wrote:
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.)
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 07:11 WhiteDog wrote:
On July 24 2014 07:06 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:55 Jormundr wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:37 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:19 Days wrote:
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: [quote] 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 07:38 xM(Z wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:53 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:36 xM(Z wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:17 soon.Cloak wrote:
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", 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.
Ya, I would say Israel cannot take Hamas's peace efforts seriously. They are literally designated as a terrorist organization, they attack civilians, and were established on the platform of destroying Israel. Or do you think Hamas really wants peace?
Of course Israel's incursion into Gaza is a good defense. There will be 1 of 2 outcomes 1) Israel will whip Hamas into submission, and Hamas will stop firing rockets (or fire less rockets) 2) Israel will force a truce with Hamas, and the same result will happen. So in the end, there will be less rockets. That's a defense in my book. What is not a defense is what Hamas is doing- it's inciting fighting, with no end goal of peace. Or again, do you think Hamas's strategy is to keep firing rockets into Israel, because they think that'll force Israel to give them the West Bank? That's laughable- as if Israel would give in to terrorism. The second Intifada was brought in the context of "It's not easy for Israel to take peace efforts from terrorists seriously". I am not talking about who's at fault for what.
Edit:
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.
My point about the rockets is that you called it a defense, and I'm saying that, as there's no way it will actually encourage any cessation of hostilities or exchange of land, it cannot in any way be called a "defense", unless you want defense to mean something like "angry protest".
As for your analogy, here's where there's discussion to be had. The fundamental question is: "What gives someone the right to land?" Go back up to my Texas question. Can Spain or Mexico claim Texas back? After we discuss what gives someone the right to land in the first place, we can look at the specific Israel-Palestine example.
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?
"Jews don't eat shellfish, you love shellfish, you hate Jews"
This is about the level of understanding you're displaying here, good job. Keep writing those walls please lol.
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 07:06 Days wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:53 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:36 xM(Z wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:17 soon.Cloak wrote:
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 07:11 WhiteDog wrote:
On July 24 2014 07:06 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:55 Jormundr wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:37 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:19 Days wrote:
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: [quote] 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 07:38 xM(Z wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:53 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:36 xM(Z wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:17 soon.Cloak wrote:
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", 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.
Ya, I would say Israel cannot take Hamas's peace efforts seriously. They are literally designated as a terrorist organization, they attack civilians, and were established on the platform of destroying Israel. Or do you think Hamas really wants peace?
Of course Israel's incursion into Gaza is a good defense. There will be 1 of 2 outcomes 1) Israel will whip Hamas into submission, and Hamas will stop firing rockets (or fire less rockets) 2) Israel will force a truce with Hamas, and the same result will happen. So in the end, there will be less rockets. That's a defense in my book. What is not a defense is what Hamas is doing- it's inciting fighting, with no end goal of peace. Or again, do you think Hamas's strategy is to keep firing rockets into Israel, because they think that'll force Israel to give them the West Bank? That's laughable- as if Israel would give in to terrorism. The second Intifada was brought in the context of "It's not easy for Israel to take peace efforts from terrorists seriously". I am not talking about who's at fault for what.
This is madness. Do you think stopping rocket, but killing 70 % (at least) innocent people, will not lead the survivors to more extremism ? By killing 200 Hamas soldiers today, you create 100 000 for tomorrow.
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?
"Jews don't eat shellfish, you love shellfish, you hate Jews"
This is about the level of understanding you're displaying here, good job. Keep writing those walls please lol.
Not to mention that this part:
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.
Is wrong. For the same reasons that people are wrong thinking Israel supplies water/food/electricity because they care for civilians.
Jewish hate of Arabs proves: Israel must undergo cultural revolution Without a revolution based on humanist values, the Jewish tribe will not be worthy of its own state.
A good Jew hates Arabs Hatred of Arabs is part of the test of loyalty and identity that the state gives its Jewish citizens - a loyal Israeli will leave an Arab to die, because 'he's an Arab.'
Can Spain or Mexico claim Texas back? After we discuss what gives someone the right to land in the first place, we can look at the specific Israel-Palestine example.
I disagree. The more interesting question would be, could europe give texas to spain, telling texans to fuck off. Would like to see your opinion on that.
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?
"Jews don't eat shellfish, you love shellfish, you hate Jews"
This is about the level of understanding you're displaying here, good job. Keep writing those walls please lol.
Did you even see the post I was responding to?! Check it out and get back to me, and try to keep the idea of "context" in mind when you respond to posts.
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 07:06 Days wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:53 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:36 xM(Z wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:17 soon.Cloak wrote:
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 07:11 WhiteDog wrote:
On July 24 2014 07:06 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:55 Jormundr wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:37 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:19 Days wrote:
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: [quote] ...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 07:38 xM(Z wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:53 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:36 xM(Z wrote:
On July 24 2014 06:17 soon.Cloak wrote:
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", 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.
Ya, I would say Israel cannot take Hamas's peace efforts seriously. They are literally designated as a terrorist organization, they attack civilians, and were established on the platform of destroying Israel. Or do you think Hamas really wants peace?
Of course Israel's incursion into Gaza is a good defense. There will be 1 of 2 outcomes 1) Israel will whip Hamas into submission, and Hamas will stop firing rockets (or fire less rockets) 2) Israel will force a truce with Hamas, and the same result will happen. So in the end, there will be less rockets. That's a defense in my book. What is not a defense is what Hamas is doing- it's inciting fighting, with no end goal of peace. Or again, do you think Hamas's strategy is to keep firing rockets into Israel, because they think that'll force Israel to give them the West Bank? That's laughable- as if Israel would give in to terrorism. The second Intifada was brought in the context of "It's not easy for Israel to take peace efforts from terrorists seriously". I am not talking about who's at fault for what.
This is madness. Do you think stopping rocket, but killing 70 % (at least) innocent people, will not lead the survivors to more extremism ? By killing 200 Hamas soldiers today, you create 100 000 for tomorrow.
So you're arguing that it's only a short term solution, and thus a bad idea. That's a military decision, and one that I am not qualified to make. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Israel is defending itself, because in the near term the rockets will stop.
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?
"Jews don't eat shellfish, you love shellfish, you hate Jews"
This is about the level of understanding you're displaying here, good job. Keep writing those walls please lol.
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.
Is wrong. For the same reasons that people are wrong thinking Israel supplies water/food/electricity because they care for civilians.
Go on. Are you saying Israel does want to kill civilians? You said I'm wrong, but have not at all explained why.
Ya, I would say Israel cannot take Hamas's peace efforts seriously. They are literally designated as a terrorist organization, they attack civilians, and were established on the platform of destroying Israel. Or do you think Hamas really wants peace?
Of course Israel's incursion into Gaza is a good defense. There will be 1 of 2 outcomes 1) Israel will whip Hamas into submission, and Hamas will stop firing rockets (or fire less rockets) 2) Israel will force a truce with Hamas, and the same result will happen. So in the end, there will be less rockets. That's a defense in my book. What is not a defense is what Hamas is doing- it's inciting fighting, with no end goal of peace. Or again, do you think Hamas's strategy is to keep firing rockets into Israel, because they think that'll force Israel to give them the West Bank? That's laughable- as if Israel would give in to terrorism. The second Intifada was brought in the context of "It's not easy for Israel to take peace efforts from terrorists seriously". I am not talking about who's at fault for what.
Yes because IDF is TOTALLY fighting terrorism by killing women and children.....
On July 24 2014 08:17 WhiteDog wrote: At that point I'm sure a good portion of Israelis would like to kill "all arabs", but they can't for obvious political reasons.
Source (because it is better to support such claims) :
Jewish hate of Arabs proves: Israel must undergo cultural revolution Without a revolution based on humanist values, the Jewish tribe will not be worthy of its own state.
A good Jew hates Arabs Hatred of Arabs is part of the test of loyalty and identity that the state gives its Jewish citizens - a loyal Israeli will leave an Arab to die, because 'he's an Arab.'
C'mon, don't give me that. If you want to kill all the Jews, fine, I don't care. Nobody is stopping you from wanting to kill all the Israelis. What I obviously meant by "Hamas wants to kill the civilians" is that Hamas is attempting to kill civilians, while Israel is attempting to not kill civilians. Because if Israel really was trying to kill civilians, they could do a much better job at it. Is that clearer?
Can Spain or Mexico claim Texas back? After we discuss what gives someone the right to land in the first place, we can look at the specific Israel-Palestine example.
I disagree. The more interesting question would be, could europe give texas to spain, telling texans to fuck off. Would like to see your opinion on that.
Mhm, I understand your change. Fair enough. My answer? I have no idea. I think it's an excellent question, and I'd think both sides of the argument are defensible. And what do you think?
Go on. Are you saying Israel does want to kill civilians? You said I'm wrong, but have not at all explained why.
Sure. If you want to go to kindergardenlevels as Nyxisto does, i surely said that.
Someone actually trying to have a debate would assume if i say "they can't nuke/carpetbomb civilians" for the reason that it is: they can't nuke their own neighborhood for obvious reasons, nor can they carpetbomb them because that would mean that the UN would jump onto it. And this time there would be no way for them to get away with a slap on the wrist. Even if they wanted to eradicate every single palestinensian. They just can't.
I never even came close to argue if or if they do not want to do that, would you people maybe start growing up?
Mhm, I understand your change. Fair enough. My answer? I have no idea. I think it's an excellent question, and I'd think both sides of the argument are defensible. And what do you think?
Cop out. But i'm proud of the question, thank you.
Ya, I would say Israel cannot take Hamas's peace efforts seriously. They are literally designated as a terrorist organization, they attack civilians, and were established on the platform of destroying Israel. Or do you think Hamas really wants peace?
Of course Israel's incursion into Gaza is a good defense. There will be 1 of 2 outcomes 1) Israel will whip Hamas into submission, and Hamas will stop firing rockets (or fire less rockets) 2) Israel will force a truce with Hamas, and the same result will happen. So in the end, there will be less rockets. That's a defense in my book. What is not a defense is what Hamas is doing- it's inciting fighting, with no end goal of peace. Or again, do you think Hamas's strategy is to keep firing rockets into Israel, because they think that'll force Israel to give them the West Bank? That's laughable- as if Israel would give in to terrorism. The second Intifada was brought in the context of "It's not easy for Israel to take peace efforts from terrorists seriously". I am not talking about who's at fault for what.
Yes because IDF is TOTALLY fighting terrorism by killing women and children.....
I don't really have the time to watch a 12 minute video. Mind summarizing the point you're making? (Also, I'd ideally like a more unbiased source than the "Islam Channel", but let's first hear what point you're trying to make).
Go on. Are you saying Israel does want to kill civilians? You said I'm wrong, but have not at all explained why.
Sure. If you want to go to kindergardenlevels as Nyxisto does, i surely said that.
Someone actually trying to have a debate would assume if i say "they can't nuke/carpetbomb civilians" for the reason that it is: they can't nuke their own neighborhood for obvious reasons, nor can they carpetbomb them because that would mean that the UN would jump onto it. And this time there would be no way for them to get away with a slap on the wrist. Even if they wanted to eradicate every single palestinensian. They just can't.
I never even came close to argue if or if they do not want to do that, would you people maybe start growing up?
They'll never grow up. We can talk in this thread for a 100 pages more, and they will keep thinking Israel is in its god-given right to bomb the shit out of Gaza.
Go on. Are you saying Israel does want to kill civilians? You said I'm wrong, but have not at all explained why.
Sure. If you want to go to kindergardenlevels as Nyxisto does, i surely said that.
Someone actually trying to have a debate would assume if i say "they can't nuke/carpetbomb civilians" for the reason that it is: they can't nuke their own neighborhood for obvious reasons, nor can they carpetbomb them because that would mean that the UN would jump onto it. And this time there would be no way for them to get away with a slap on the wrist. Even if they wanted to eradicate every single palestinensian. They just can't.
I never even came close to argue if or if they do not want to do that, would you people maybe start growing up?
Mhm, I understand your change. Fair enough. My answer? I have no idea. I think it's an excellent question, and I'd think both sides of the argument are defensible. And what do you think?
Cop out. But i'm proud of the question, thank you.
C'mon, don't give me that. If you want to kill all the Jews, fine, I don't care. Nobody is stopping you from wanting to kill all the Israelis. What I obviously meant by "Hamas wants to kill the civilians" is that Hamas is attempting to kill civilians, while Israel is attempting to not kill civilians. Because if Israel really was trying to kill civilians, they could do a much better job at it. Is that clearer?
Edit: Since when is not having a clear opinion on an issue a cop out? I'm saying both sides are reasonable. Or, in other words, I'm saying Israel's side is reasonable. The British gave them that land, which was their right, Israel captured more in '67, which was their right, and now they're getting bombed. So they're responding. Which is in their right. (And for anyone wanting to respond to this: Please, PLEASE read the posts beforehand so you understand whats going on). I'd still like to hear your answer though. Do you agree with me that both sides of the argument are defensible?
Ya, I would say Israel cannot take Hamas's peace efforts seriously. They are literally designated as a terrorist organization, they attack civilians, and were established on the platform of destroying Israel. Or do you think Hamas really wants peace?
Of course Israel's incursion into Gaza is a good defense. There will be 1 of 2 outcomes 1) Israel will whip Hamas into submission, and Hamas will stop firing rockets (or fire less rockets) 2) Israel will force a truce with Hamas, and the same result will happen. So in the end, there will be less rockets. That's a defense in my book. What is not a defense is what Hamas is doing- it's inciting fighting, with no end goal of peace. Or again, do you think Hamas's strategy is to keep firing rockets into Israel, because they think that'll force Israel to give them the West Bank? That's laughable- as if Israel would give in to terrorism. The second Intifada was brought in the context of "It's not easy for Israel to take peace efforts from terrorists seriously". I am not talking about who's at fault for what.
Yes because IDF is TOTALLY fighting terrorism by killing women and children.....
I don't really have the time to watch a 12 minute video. Mind summarizing the point you're making? (Also, I'd ideally like a more unbiased source than the "Islam Channel", but let's first hear what point you're trying to make).
I thought you'd say that. Yet you have time to be commenting on this thread for the past 3 hours? Go watch it, barely any Islam or Palestinian speaks. Only a Norwegian doctor speaks his mind who is working in Gaza hospitals right now as we speak. Come on go ahead, watch it. Don't be scared little boy.
Go on. Are you saying Israel does want to kill civilians? You said I'm wrong, but have not at all explained why.
Sure. If you want to go to kindergardenlevels as Nyxisto does, i surely said that.
Someone actually trying to have a debate would assume if i say "they can't nuke/carpetbomb civilians" for the reason that it is: they can't nuke their own neighborhood for obvious reasons, nor can they carpetbomb them because that would mean that the UN would jump onto it. And this time there would be no way for them to get away with a slap on the wrist. Even if they wanted to eradicate every single palestinensian. They just can't.
I never even came close to argue if or if they do not want to do that, would you people maybe start growing up?
They'll never grow up. We can talk in this thread for a 100 pages more, and they will keep thinking Israel is in its god-given right to bomb the shit out of Gaza.
It's not about the right or not, that's arguable and i'm fine with that, i have my opinion, others may differ.
The trouble i have is that some people in here (specifically Nyxisto and Cloak) automatically assume that a person criticising the IDF/Knesset somehow equals being happy that the Hamas shoots rockets.
That's honestly the most frustrating and infuriating thing i've ever came across on TL.
It's like me saying "oh you're fine with retaliations against civilians, so you're automatically implying you would be fine with genocide". It's ridiculous.
On July 24 2014 08:17 WhiteDog wrote: At that point I'm sure a good portion of Israelis would like to kill "all arabs", but they can't for obvious political reasons.
Source (because it is better to support such claims) :
Naftali Bennett: 'I've Killed Lots Of Arabs In My Life And There's No Problem With That'
Jewish hate of Arabs proves: Israel must undergo cultural revolution Without a revolution based on humanist values, the Jewish tribe will not be worthy of its own state.
A good Jew hates Arabs Hatred of Arabs is part of the test of loyalty and identity that the state gives its Jewish citizens - a loyal Israeli will leave an Arab to die, because 'he's an Arab.'
C'mon, don't give me that. If you want to kill all the Jews, fine, I don't care. Nobody is stopping you from wanting to kill all the Israelis. What I obviously meant by "Hamas wants to kill the civilians" is that Hamas is attempting to kill civilians, while Israel is attempting to not kill civilians. Because if Israel really was trying to kill civilians, they could do a much better job at it. Is that clearer?
Can Spain or Mexico claim Texas back? After we discuss what gives someone the right to land in the first place, we can look at the specific Israel-Palestine example.
I disagree. The more interesting question would be, could europe give texas to spain, telling texans to fuck off. Would like to see your opinion on that.
Mhm, I understand your change. Fair enough. My answer? I have no idea. I think it's an excellent question, and I'd think both sides of the argument are defensible. And what do you think?
Come on ? I give you sources (from the Haaretz no less, Israeli newspapers) that there is a deep racism towards Arabs in Israel. Now you tell me they want to protect civilians ? And Hamas wants to kill civilians ? What are you talking about ? From my point of view, and the source I gave, Israeli don't care at all about Arabs' life since they don't respect them or consider them as human being. On the other side, Hamas consider itself as resistance (it's the islamic resistance movement), and saying that it wants to "kill all jews" is nothing but a projection of "nazism" on Hamas, two things that have nothing to do together.
soon.Cloak, Jews and Israelis are not the same thing, you understand that, right? I mean as someone with so much invested in proving themselves correct about aspects of this conflict, you don't seem to be able to get the most basic of information right. Don't say this is me being pedantic, if you think all Jews are Israelis and vica versa you have no business in this thread.
EPT
