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?
I don't really get why you're answering my post with a quote of whitedog.
It's not reasonable. What do you think will texans do if europe gives it to the spanish people? Texas of all places? Now if you can answer that correctly, you know why there won't ever be peace as it is right now. No. A country or council can't give away/claim land for a third party, that's my stance on that.
Funny though, just dawned on me how many people here were in the ukrainethread arguing about how russia broke the treaty about ukraines borders (to get them to destroy their nuclear arsenal), furiously so - now israel does it, and suddenly "palestine had it coming".
On July 24 2014 08:34 Jockmcplop wrote: 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.
Careful, he might start calling you anti-semitic for comments like that.
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.
NO NO NO NO NO! I am NOT saying you think Hamas is acting okay. I think you've been pretty clear in saying that you think both are wrong. I'm saying that I think Israel is acting rightly. We can discuss that point after you respond to the question you posed.
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.
I'm willing to have a debate. I don't consider that a waste of time. It helps me think about my position, and potentially convinces others. I'm not willing to watch a 12 minute video if it'll just say "There are many women and children in the hospital". I agree to that. Watching a video making that point would be a waste of time. Why in the world don't you just make your claim, and if I don't believe you, I'll watch the video to see for myself?
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?
On July 24 2014 08:19 m4ini wrote:
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.
Yes, there's racism in Israel, but we're not talking about the populace- we're talking about the government and military. No Israeli civilian is going gung-ho in Gaza to kill civilians, just like no Gazan civilian will do the same in Israel.
I'm saying the Israeli military is trying to avoid civilian casualties. The goal of Hamas is to kill Israeli civilians. There are two statements there. Do you disagree with one, both, or do you agree to that?
On July 24 2014 08:34 Jockmcplop wrote: 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.
If this is a general question, then yes, I know there's a difference. If it's because I said Jews before, then check the spoiler + Show Spoiler +
Sigh...I've been arguing for the past 5 pages, and slip up literally once between Jews and Israelis in a post where you could replace Jews by "Blacks" or "Gays" or anything else, and that's what you want to call me out for? And you are cool ignoring
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).
and
"Jews don't eat shellfish, you love shellfish, you hate Jews"
You know, the things i don't understand is, why are the people with the do or die opinions only on the side of Israel in this case? Why is there no one claiming that the organisation Israel should better be bombed of the map so that peace can follow? (That's not my opinion, don't try.)
There are 2 kinds of people on this thread.
One kind says, Hamas are in the wrong, Israel is in the wrong, both sides have to stop shooting each other but specially Israel needs to stop because they are supposed to not be terrorists here. Yet they act like those.
The other kind says that everyone who does not follow their argument is an anti-semite and Israel is trying really really hard to bring peace, but they have no choice but kill 400 people, hamas just won't let them not kill those 300 civilians.
What does it say about those kind of people when only they make absolute claims. Everyone else splits the blame for the current situation but them on this forum.
And to your stupid cuba/Usa scenario. No fucking Country has the right to take a civilians life because of their own agenda, no matter what that agenda might be. It does not matter if we are talking about Israel, about Germany, about the States or North Korea. They all don't have that right. And if your think the States did get less bad reputation from european countries for their war against the Iraqi population they you are wrong. And that's not because Europe is anti-american, it's because Governments should be anti-murder.
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.
Funny that you should mention context lol. Keep it up !
NO NO NO NO NO! I am NOT saying you think Hamas is acting okay. I think you've been pretty clear in saying that you think both are wrong. I'm saying that I think Israel is acting rightly. We can discuss that point after you respond to the question you posed.
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.
NO NO NO NO NO! I am NOT saying you think Hamas is acting okay. I think you've been pretty clear in saying that you think both are wrong. I'm saying that I think Israel is acting rightly. We can discuss that point after you respond to the question you posed.
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.
I'm willing to have a debate. I don't consider that a waste of time. It helps me think about my position, and potentially convinces others. I'm not willing to watch a 12 minute video if it'll just say "There are many women and children in the hospital". I agree to that. Watching a video making that point would be a waste of time. Why in the world don't you just make your claim, and if I don't believe you, I'll watch the video to see for myself?
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?
On July 24 2014 08:19 m4ini wrote:
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.
Yes, there's racism in Israel, but we're not talking about the populace- we're talking about the government and military. No Israeli civilian is going gung-ho in Gaza to kill civilians, just like no Gazan civilian will do the same in Israel.
I'm saying the Israeli military is trying to avoid civilian casualties. The goal of Hamas is to kill Israeli civilians. There are two statements there. Do you disagree with one, both, or do you agree to that?
No the Israeli military is not doing that. The military in Israel is not professionnal : there are a lot of young people who are doing their military services in gaza killing kids and women. Because of that, the population is really deeply connected to the army and wants the politicians to try to minimize the death of Israeli military the best they can. Because of that, Israeli soldiers are taught to shot on everything they see and protect their life at all cost : in the last conflict, out of the 10 Israeli soldiers who died, 5 were from friendly fire, because the Israeli shot every head on roofs or houses that they saw (I take that from a french interview of a israeli military, here http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2014/07/22/un-ancien-officier-israelien-notre-but-etait-de-semer-la-peur_4460857_3232.html).
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?
I don't really get why you're answering my post with a quote of whitedog.
It's not reasonable. What do you think will texans do if europe gives it to the spanish people? Texas of all places? Now if you can answer that correctly, you know why there won't ever be peace as it is right now. No. A country or council can't give away/claim land for a third party, that's my stance on that.
Funny though, just dawned on me how many people here were in the ukrainethread arguing about how russia broke the treaty about ukraines borders (to get them to destroy their nuclear arsenal), furiously so - now israel does it, and suddenly "palestine had it coming".
Interesting.
It's my own quote. Maybe I should have made that more clear. In any event, reread it. It was a response to the first part of your post.
I know what will happen in Texas, but that's irrelevant. As I started off, we're talking about rights. What gives someone the right to land. You say a country or council can't give land to a third party. Let's say they pay for it. Is that okay? If the British would pay the Gazans for the land they gave to the Israelis, would that make it acceptable? Or is a country never allowed to kick someone off land that a person is on?
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?
I don't really get why you're answering my post with a quote of whitedog.
It's not reasonable. What do you think will texans do if europe gives it to the spanish people? Texas of all places? Now if you can answer that correctly, you know why there won't ever be peace as it is right now. No. A country or council can't give away/claim land for a third party, that's my stance on that.
Funny though, just dawned on me how many people here were in the ukrainethread arguing about how russia broke the treaty about ukraines borders (to get them to destroy their nuclear arsenal), furiously so - now israel does it, and suddenly "palestine had it coming".
Interesting.
It's my own quote. Maybe I should have made that more clear. In any event, reread it. It was a response to the first part of your post.
I know what will happen in Texas, but that's irrelevant. As I started off, we're talking about rights. What gives someone the right to land. You say a country or council can't give land to a third party. Let's say they pay for it. Is that okay? If the British would pay the Gazans for the land they gave to the Israelis, would that make it acceptable? Or is a country never allowed to kick someone off land that a person is on?
If they pay who? To stick to the example, if spain pays europe for them to give away the us-state texas, then no, that's not okay. oO
If you mean, if Israel would pay palestinensians a fair amount of money for their land, that might be a different story, but honesty, i don't think the palestinensian civilians care too much about money, which they can't use anyway since israel embargoes so much.
What i personally (now i do not know what the palestinensians are thinking, it's my personal opinion) would find acceptable, is "an upgrade". You want all that desertland? Give me enough land somewhere else, fertile enough for me to sustain myself on it. Kinda hard to put it in words what i mean, i guess the idea shines through.
On July 24 2014 08:34 Jockmcplop wrote: 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.
If this is a general question, then yes, I know there's a difference. If it's because I said Jews before, then check the spoiler + Show Spoiler +
Sigh...I've been arguing for the past 5 pages, and slip up literally once between Jews and Israelis in a post where you could replace Jews by "Blacks" or "Gays" or anything else, and that's what you want to call me out for? And you are cool ignoring
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).
and
"Jews don't eat shellfish, you love shellfish, you hate Jews"
I probably shouldn't have been so harsh at you dude sorry. However, the last time someone did this in this very thread they ended up using it as a platform for calling me anti semitic for disagreeing with Israeli policy (and getting banned in the process). Its a small mistake to make but it makes a really huge difference for anyone reading. I guess this topic makes people grouchy, me included.
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.
NO NO NO NO NO! I am NOT saying you think Hamas is acting okay. I think you've been pretty clear in saying that you think both are wrong. I'm saying that I think Israel is acting rightly. We can discuss that point after you respond to the question you posed.
On July 24 2014 08:31 Days wrote:
On July 24 2014 08:28 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 08:21 Days wrote:
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.
I'm willing to have a debate. I don't consider that a waste of time. It helps me think about my position, and potentially convinces others. I'm not willing to watch a 12 minute video if it'll just say "There are many women and children in the hospital". I agree to that. Watching a video making that point would be a waste of time. Why in the world don't you just make your claim, and if I don't believe you, I'll watch the video to see for myself?
On July 24 2014 08:33 WhiteDog wrote:
On July 24 2014 08:26 soon.Cloak wrote:
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?
On July 24 2014 08:19 m4ini wrote:
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.
Yes, there's racism in Israel, but we're not talking about the populace- we're talking about the government and military. No Israeli civilian is going gung-ho in Gaza to kill civilians, just like no Gazan civilian will do the same in Israel.
I'm saying the Israeli military is trying to avoid civilian casualties. The goal of Hamas is to kill Israeli civilians. There are two statements there. Do you disagree with one, both, or do you agree to that?
No the Israeli military is not doing that. The military in Israel is not professionnal : there are a lot of young people who are doing their military services in gaza killing kids and women. Because of that, the population is really deeply connected to the army and wants the politicians to try to minimize the death of Israeli military the best they can. Because of that, Israeli soldiers are taught to shot on everything they see and protect their life at all cost : in the last conflict, out of the 10 Israeli soldiers who died, 5 were from friendly fire, because the Israeli shot every head on roofs or houses that they saw (I take that from a french interview of a israeli military, here .
Ah, so we're arguing about whether or not Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties. I claim that they are, as is demonstrated by 1) Their calling homes they will bomb 2) Their shooting a warning shell before actually bombing a house 3) Their willingness to invade Gaza on foot, when they can much more safely bomb them from afar 4) Their willingness to have a humanitarian truce for some hours 5) Their lack of total indiscriminate bombing in Gaza (unlike Hamas)
Doesn't that show that they, in fact, are trying to NOT kill civilians? I mean, what would possible prove to you that they're trying to avoid civilian casualties?
NO NO NO NO NO! I am NOT saying you think Hamas is acting okay. I think you've been pretty clear in saying that you think both are wrong. I'm saying that I think Israel is acting rightly. We can discuss that point after you respond to the question you posed.
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.
NO NO NO NO NO! I am NOT saying you think Hamas is acting okay. I think you've been pretty clear in saying that you think both are wrong. I'm saying that I think Israel is acting rightly. We can discuss that point after you respond to the question you posed.
On July 24 2014 08:31 Days wrote:
On July 24 2014 08:28 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 08:21 Days wrote:
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.
I'm willing to have a debate. I don't consider that a waste of time. It helps me think about my position, and potentially convinces others. I'm not willing to watch a 12 minute video if it'll just say "There are many women and children in the hospital". I agree to that. Watching a video making that point would be a waste of time. Why in the world don't you just make your claim, and if I don't believe you, I'll watch the video to see for myself?
On July 24 2014 08:33 WhiteDog wrote:
On July 24 2014 08:26 soon.Cloak wrote:
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?
On July 24 2014 08:19 m4ini wrote:
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.
Yes, there's racism in Israel, but we're not talking about the populace- we're talking about the government and military. No Israeli civilian is going gung-ho in Gaza to kill civilians, just like no Gazan civilian will do the same in Israel.
I'm saying the Israeli military is trying to avoid civilian casualties. The goal of Hamas is to kill Israeli civilians. There are two statements there. Do you disagree with one, both, or do you agree to that?
No the Israeli military is not doing that. The military in Israel is not professionnal : there are a lot of young people who are doing their military services in gaza killing kids and women. Because of that, the population is really deeply connected to the army and wants the politicians to try to minimize the death of Israeli military the best they can. Because of that, Israeli soldiers are taught to shot on everything they see and protect their life at all cost : in the last conflict, out of the 10 Israeli soldiers who died, 5 were from friendly fire, because the Israeli shot every head on roofs or houses that they saw (I take that from a french interview of a israeli military, here .
Ah, so we're arguing about whether or not Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties. I claim that they are, as is demonstrated by 1) Their calling homes they will bomb 2) Their shooting a warning shell before actually bombing a house 3) Their willingness to invade Gaza on foot, when they can much more safely bomb them from afar 4) Their willingness to have a humanitarian truce for some hours 5) Their lack of total indiscriminate bombing in Gaza (unlike Hamas)
Doesn't that show that they, in fact, are trying to NOT kill civilians? I mean, what would possible prove to you that they're trying to avoid civilian casualties?
NO NO NO NO NO! I am NOT saying you think Hamas is acting okay. I think you've been pretty clear in saying that you think both are wrong. I'm saying that I think Israel is acting rightly. We can discuss that point after you respond to the question you posed.
I did already?
A lot going on here, sorry .
Calling homes is not a way to prevent killing civilians, it is a way to terrorize people, something Israelis did since the beginning of their existance (the Deir Yassin massacre article on wiki explain that). They invaded Gaza on foot because Hamas refused the ceasefire (because they did it without them... idiots...). Humanitarian truce is the minimum considering the killing they do and the fact that the entire international community is watching them. Gaza is a really small piece of land (something like 360 km²) with one of the highest density in the world (4 726 hab/km²) and they dropped more than 2 000 tons of explosiv on it... indiscriminate enough to me.
I think Israel would be criticized a whole lot more harshly than this if it were essentially any other country on Earth, but they get a pass because they're Israel and it's as if the history of their people and their generally admittedly harsh circumstances made it okay to butcher hundreds of innocent Palestinians in response to attacks by terrorist group, a minority. Yet this minority is a fairly predictable response to the constant oppression from Israel. There's a very real Apartheid going on in Israel where the good guys are separated from the subhumans, who sometimes (if they're not killed) end up living in little enclaves and they have to cross checkpoints to get to work. Palestinians are treated like cattle. My Arabic buddy from a Muslim family (an atheist) is not allowed to go to Israel (as part of his trip around the world). This kind of institutionalized racism is generally viewed as bad but it's not in this case due to particular circumstances.
Yet I recognize that from a political standpoint, if the Israeli authorities want to quench the palpable bloodthirst of the population, they kind of have to give into this. In a sense, I can sympathize with Israel. I too would want to defend my citizens from the constant attacks and if would be foolish not to do anything. And defending yourself from a faceless enemy is hard, and there's going to be collateral damage. Israel is forced in some cases to kill innocents to defend itself. But this many, this quickly?
I think this is one of the ways you make terrorists. You steal people's land, they live in a climate of oppression, and the seeds just grow. By giving in to the immediate political "need" for violence, Israel is further securing that the long term conflict won't be settled in a mature and civilized way. And that's because the creation of Israel was uncivilized.
And what arguments do they have? -America does it? Not exactly exemplary behavior to mimic. -Right of conquest? Then your apartheid is fine... Morally though I'd argue that human rights are more important than that. -They shot first? Did they though? Do they not have cause for anger and violence when your civilization has been getting run into the ground like this?
Let me assure you that if the proud people of Israel got demolished and had to live in oppression, they would fight back as hundreds of tribes and countries and nations have before, even if they had to scrape up whatever trash they could to pull off some form asymmetric warfare against a more powerful invader. Because the fight, whether it be with weapons or with pacific means, is all you've got left when you've lost your freedom, your dignity and your country.
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?
On July 24 2014 08:19 m4ini wrote:
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 source (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.
Good thing public opinion and government policies are two separate things.
BTW, just an FYI - Haaretz is regarded as an extreme leftist newspaper, while Naftali Bennett is an extreme right-wing MK. Neither of which really represent the views of the majority.
Not saying there isn't any racism in Israel; of course there is. What's your point? Racism exists everywhere on this earth. Rarely does it ever translate into actions.
Now to address your confusion: 1. Israel specifically targets military outposts, which are often hidden inside hospitals, schools etc. 2. Israel warns civilians of incoming attacks by dropping leaflets and making phone calls, an unprecedented effort in the history of warfare 3. Hamas, on multiple occasions, have publicly encouraged Palestinians to disregard these warnings 4. Israel, on multiple occasions, has abandoned targets that had been too crowded with civilians
There were two (three?) proposals for a ceasefire, which Israel immediately accepted. In both cases, Hamas continued to fire.
Last but not least: Gaza is NOT occupied. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 in a unilateral move. This marked the beginning of the launching of missiles into Israel.
On July 24 2014 08:34 Jockmcplop wrote: 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.
If this is a general question, then yes, I know there's a difference. If it's because I said Jews before, then check the spoiler + Show Spoiler +
Sigh...I've been arguing for the past 5 pages, and slip up literally once between Jews and Israelis in a post where you could replace Jews by "Blacks" or "Gays" or anything else, and that's what you want to call me out for? And you are cool ignoring
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).
and
"Jews don't eat shellfish, you love shellfish, you hate Jews"
I probably shouldn't have been so harsh at you dude sorry. However, the last time someone did this in this very thread they ended up using it as a platform for calling me anti semitic for disagreeing with Israeli policy (and getting banned in the process). Its a small mistake to make but it makes a really huge difference for anyone reading. I guess this topic makes people grouchy, me included.
Fair enough :D. Ya, I agree it's a bad road to go down to mix those two up.
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?
I don't really get why you're answering my post with a quote of whitedog.
It's not reasonable. What do you think will texans do if europe gives it to the spanish people? Texas of all places? Now if you can answer that correctly, you know why there won't ever be peace as it is right now. No. A country or council can't give away/claim land for a third party, that's my stance on that.
Funny though, just dawned on me how many people here were in the ukrainethread arguing about how russia broke the treaty about ukraines borders (to get them to destroy their nuclear arsenal), furiously so - now israel does it, and suddenly "palestine had it coming".
Interesting.
It's my own quote. Maybe I should have made that more clear. In any event, reread it. It was a response to the first part of your post.
I know what will happen in Texas, but that's irrelevant. As I started off, we're talking about rights. What gives someone the right to land. You say a country or council can't give land to a third party. Let's say they pay for it. Is that okay? If the British would pay the Gazans for the land they gave to the Israelis, would that make it acceptable? Or is a country never allowed to kick someone off land that a person is on?
If they pay who? To stick to the example, if spain pays europe for them to give away the us-state texas, then no, that's not okay. oO
If you mean, if Israel would pay palestinensians a fair amount of money for their land, that might be a different story, but honesty, i don't think the palestinensian civilians care too much about money, which they can't use anyway since israel embargoes so much.
What i personally (now i do not know what the palestinensians are thinking, it's my personal opinion) would find acceptable, is "an upgrade". You want all that desertland? Give me enough land somewhere else, fertile enough for me to sustain myself on it. Kinda hard to put it in words what i mean, i guess the idea shines through.
No, I meant can Europe kick the Texans off of their land if they pay the Texans for it? As in, do you feel that a country can NEVER take away the land of its populace and use it for some other purpose, or are there circumstances (e.g. if there's payment) that would make it acceptable?
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?
On July 24 2014 08:19 m4ini wrote:
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 source (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.
Good thing public opinion and government policies are two separate things.
BTW, just an FYI - Haaretz is regarded as an extreme leftist newspaper, while Naftali Bennett is an extreme right-wing MK. Neither of which really represent the views of the majority.
Not saying there isn't any racism in Israel; of course there is. What's your point? Racism exists everywhere on this earth. It doesn't always translate into actions.
Now to address your confusion: 1. Israel specifically targets military outposts, which are often hidden inside hospitals, schools etc. 2. Israel warns civilians of incoming attacks by dropping leaflets and making phone calls, an unprecedented effort in the history of warfare 3. Hamas, on multiple occasions, have publicly encouraged Palestinians to disregard these warnings 4. Israel, on multiple occasions, has abandoned targets that had been too crowded with civilians
There were two (three?) proposals for a ceasefire, which Israel immediately accepted. In both cases, Hamas continued to fire.
Last but not least: Gaza is NOT occupied. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 in a unilateral move. This marked the beginning of the launching of missiles into Israel.
Israel used white phosphorus and even bombed a UN building the last war so we can continue on this morbid competition, I'm sure Israel is worst.
Last but not least: Gaza is NOT occupied. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 in a unilateral move. This marked the beginning of the launching of missiles into Israel.
Gaza IS OCCUPIED !
Previous post :
It is not up to you (nor me) to decide wheither Israel is an occupying force or not. According to the UN, the US, and most international organisation in the world (like Europe), Israel is occupying gaza. The reason as to why it is occupying gaza is, according to international law, that altho it is not effectively in gaza, it is still controlling a lot of things : some ressources, like water, the air space and both ground and sea borders. Israel is using everything it can to make people believe they are not occupying anymore because, according to the geneva accord, an occupying force is responsible for the well being of the occupied population – and Israelis don't want that.
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.
NO NO NO NO NO! I am NOT saying you think Hamas is acting okay. I think you've been pretty clear in saying that you think both are wrong. I'm saying that I think Israel is acting rightly. We can discuss that point after you respond to the question you posed.
On July 24 2014 08:31 Days wrote:
On July 24 2014 08:28 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 08:21 Days wrote:
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.
I'm willing to have a debate. I don't consider that a waste of time. It helps me think about my position, and potentially convinces others. I'm not willing to watch a 12 minute video if it'll just say "There are many women and children in the hospital". I agree to that. Watching a video making that point would be a waste of time. Why in the world don't you just make your claim, and if I don't believe you, I'll watch the video to see for myself?
On July 24 2014 08:33 WhiteDog wrote:
On July 24 2014 08:26 soon.Cloak wrote:
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?
On July 24 2014 08:19 m4ini wrote:
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.
Yes, there's racism in Israel, but we're not talking about the populace- we're talking about the government and military. No Israeli civilian is going gung-ho in Gaza to kill civilians, just like no Gazan civilian will do the same in Israel.
I'm saying the Israeli military is trying to avoid civilian casualties. The goal of Hamas is to kill Israeli civilians. There are two statements there. Do you disagree with one, both, or do you agree to that?
No the Israeli military is not doing that. The military in Israel is not professionnal : there are a lot of young people who are doing their military services in gaza killing kids and women. Because of that, the population is really deeply connected to the army and wants the politicians to try to minimize the death of Israeli military the best they can. Because of that, Israeli soldiers are taught to shot on everything they see and protect their life at all cost : in the last conflict, out of the 10 Israeli soldiers who died, 5 were from friendly fire, because the Israeli shot every head on roofs or houses that they saw (I take that from a french interview of a israeli military, here .
Ah, so we're arguing about whether or not Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties. I claim that they are, as is demonstrated by 1) Their calling homes they will bomb 2) Their shooting a warning shell before actually bombing a house 3) Their willingness to invade Gaza on foot, when they can much more safely bomb them from afar 4) Their willingness to have a humanitarian truce for some hours 5) Their lack of total indiscriminate bombing in Gaza (unlike Hamas)
Doesn't that show that they, in fact, are trying to NOT kill civilians? I mean, what would possible prove to you that they're trying to avoid civilian casualties?
On July 24 2014 08:50 m4ini wrote:
NO NO NO NO NO! I am NOT saying you think Hamas is acting okay. I think you've been pretty clear in saying that you think both are wrong. I'm saying that I think Israel is acting rightly. We can discuss that point after you respond to the question you posed.
I did already?
A lot going on here, sorry .
Calling homes is not a way to prevent killing civilians, it is a way to terrorize people, something Israelis did since the beginning of their existance (the Deir Yassin massacre article on wiki explain that).
So it would be better if Israel did not call them, and just bombed the house? I said that they're trying to avoid civilian casualties. That demonstrates that. And what about the latter 3 points? Not enough on their own?
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.
NO NO NO NO NO! I am NOT saying you think Hamas is acting okay. I think you've been pretty clear in saying that you think both are wrong. I'm saying that I think Israel is acting rightly. We can discuss that point after you respond to the question you posed.
On July 24 2014 08:31 Days wrote:
On July 24 2014 08:28 soon.Cloak wrote:
On July 24 2014 08:21 Days wrote:
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.
I'm willing to have a debate. I don't consider that a waste of time. It helps me think about my position, and potentially convinces others. I'm not willing to watch a 12 minute video if it'll just say "There are many women and children in the hospital". I agree to that. Watching a video making that point would be a waste of time. Why in the world don't you just make your claim, and if I don't believe you, I'll watch the video to see for myself?
On July 24 2014 08:33 WhiteDog wrote:
On July 24 2014 08:26 soon.Cloak wrote:
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?
On July 24 2014 08:19 m4ini wrote:
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.
Yes, there's racism in Israel, but we're not talking about the populace- we're talking about the government and military. No Israeli civilian is going gung-ho in Gaza to kill civilians, just like no Gazan civilian will do the same in Israel.
I'm saying the Israeli military is trying to avoid civilian casualties. The goal of Hamas is to kill Israeli civilians. There are two statements there. Do you disagree with one, both, or do you agree to that?
No the Israeli military is not doing that. The military in Israel is not professionnal : there are a lot of young people who are doing their military services in gaza killing kids and women. Because of that, the population is really deeply connected to the army and wants the politicians to try to minimize the death of Israeli military the best they can. Because of that, Israeli soldiers are taught to shot on everything they see and protect their life at all cost : in the last conflict, out of the 10 Israeli soldiers who died, 5 were from friendly fire, because the Israeli shot every head on roofs or houses that they saw (I take that from a french interview of a israeli military, here .
Ah, so we're arguing about whether or not Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties. I claim that they are, as is demonstrated by 1) Their calling homes they will bomb 2) Their shooting a warning shell before actually bombing a house 3) Their willingness to invade Gaza on foot, when they can much more safely bomb them from afar 4) Their willingness to have a humanitarian truce for some hours 5) Their lack of total indiscriminate bombing in Gaza (unlike Hamas)
Doesn't that show that they, in fact, are trying to NOT kill civilians? I mean, what would possible prove to you that they're trying to avoid civilian casualties?
On July 24 2014 08:50 m4ini wrote:
NO NO NO NO NO! I am NOT saying you think Hamas is acting okay. I think you've been pretty clear in saying that you think both are wrong. I'm saying that I think Israel is acting rightly. We can discuss that point after you respond to the question you posed.
I did already?
A lot going on here, sorry .
Calling homes is not a way to prevent killing civilians, it is a way to terrorize people, something Israelis did since the beginning of their existance (the Deir Yassin massacre article on wiki explain that).
So it would be better if Israel did not call them, and just bombed the house? I said that they're trying to avoid civilian casualties. That demonstrates that. And what about the latter 3 points? Not enough on their own?
What is better is not to drop bomb on poor broken people and stop trying to annex all palestinian land. Just keep the land you have and let them live in peace, with their own borders and their right to exploit their own ressources.
I think this is the best way to prevent killing civilians.
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?
On July 24 2014 08:19 m4ini wrote:
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 source (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.
Good thing public opinion and government policies are two separate things.
BTW, just an FYI - Haaretz is regarded as an extreme leftist newspaper, while Naftali Bennett is an extreme right-wing MK. Neither of which really represent the views of the majority.
Not saying there isn't any racism in Israel; of course there is. What's your point? Racism exists everywhere on this earth. It doesn't always translate into actions.
Now to address your confusion: 1. Israel specifically targets military outposts, which are often hidden inside hospitals, schools etc. 2. Israel warns civilians of incoming attacks by dropping leaflets and making phone calls, an unprecedented effort in the history of warfare 3. Hamas, on multiple occasions, have publicly encouraged Palestinians to disregard these warnings 4. Israel, on multiple occasions, has abandoned targets that had been too crowded with civilians
There were two (three?) proposals for a ceasefire, which Israel immediately accepted. In both cases, Hamas continued to fire.
Last but not least: Gaza is NOT occupied. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 in a unilateral move. This marked the beginning of the launching of missiles into Israel.
Israel used white phosphorus and even bombed a UN building the last war so we can continue on this morbid competition, I'm sure Israel is worst.
Between us two, we've given you like 8 demonstrations that Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties, and the best you can do is talk about the white phosphorous and the UN building attack (which Israel apologized for) from the LAST war!? Are you serious!?
EPT
