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!?
I've given plenty arguments on the other point you gave but you didn't adress them.
What you see as the expression of a desire to prevent civilian death I see as, most of the time, a strategical desire to mimize military casualties and the objective to terrorize Palestinian.
On July 24 2014 09:05 Djzapz wrote: 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.
Wanted to say that I share a lot of your views on the subject. Good post.
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!?
If they are trying to avoid civilian casualties then quite simply they have failed. More civilian casualties in the latest flashpoint of this conflict than the entire Ukraine civil war. Either they are absolutely terrible at their jobs, the equipment the US provided them with doesn't work properly, or they aren't trying to prevent civilian casualties.
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!?
I'd argue that they're doing a pretty poor job of avoiding civilian casualties and perhaps they should do a better job of that. I haven't seen your "8 demonstrations" that they're trying to avoid this collateral damage but whatever it is it's not working as well as it should.
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!?
I'm gaming atm, but you're wrong again. Israel didn't apologize for the use of white phosphorous. They denied it completely for a while, then paddling back to explaining it with "smokescreens". And they're still using flechette-ammo.
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!?
I've given plenty arguments on the other point you gave but you didn't adress them.
What you see as the expression of a desire to prevent civilian death I see as, most of the time, a strategical desire to mimize military casualties and the objective to terrorize Palestinian.
You've responded to the "Gaza on foot" argument with a non-sequitor. The truce has nothing to do with it. Israel could have sticked to bombing them. Instead, they invaded, because they're attempting to minimize civilian casualties. Your response, like I said, is literally a non-sequitor. You've said that the humanitarian truce is a minimum, and that the world is watching them. Or, to go a bit further, the world is making sure they act in a humanitarian way. By doing things like, you know, having a humanitarian truce. Because they're trying to avoid civilian casualties. I think you accidentally agreed with me. You've said that Israel's just as indiscriminate as Hamas (or that's at least the position you're defending), by telling me how much Israel has bombed Gaza. That too is a non-sequitor. You can heavily bomb a place, but do it precisely. Or you can randomly shoot rockets into civilian territory. One of those is indiscriminate. Can you guess which, and which side is doing which? You've quoted a single UN report that has hardly been reported (from the googling as done), which is a reflection on how seriously people took it (it's not like there's plenty of American newspapers and media willing to report negative things about Israel).
The problem is that both sides are politicizing religious beliefs, nothing good ever comes of this. Both sides feel that they have claims to land because of their religious beliefs. Many on both sides feel that they are good and the other side is evil - because if God is on your side then the other side is automatically wrong and evil and anything you do to them is justified. The parties in power are just using their respective religions to justify their political aims. Good luck convincing either side that all their views are based on bullshit.
Saying that my arguments are non sequitor does not make them non sequitor. Just because you don't understand my point doesn't mean they're not logic For exemple, dropping 2 000 tons of explosiv on 360 km² with high density is not indiscriminate, and this is perfectly logic by itself. The casualties are pretty clear : the number of civilians who died is high, not to mention the reason for the attacks are fraudulent to begin with. You can twist words as you wish, and discard report as you wish, the fact is the casualties are ridiculous and saying that Israel "care" about civilians is denying reality. In fact it is not even important : Israel is killing civilian, and a lot of them.
On July 24 2014 09:25 soon.Cloak wrote: Israel could have sticked to bombing them. Instead, they invaded.
What kind of cheap ass logic is that? The deaths have ramped up since the invasion have they not? Not only is more of an affront to their right to auto determination and a step up to their oppression, it's a really shitty way to take care of people!
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!?
If they are trying to avoid civilian casualties then quite simply they have failed. More civilian casualties in the latest flashpoint of this conflict than the entire Ukraine civil war. Either they are absolutely terrible at their jobs, the equipment the US provided them with doesn't work properly, or they aren't trying to prevent civilian casualties.
"Avoid civilian casualties" is far from "if we killed any civilians, we failed". It is relative to the difficulty of not hitting civilians. Israel wants to hit certain Hamas targets. If they would simply carpet bomb Gaza, they would succeed, but kill a large number of civilians. If they bombed specific targets, they would kill less civilians. If they would bomb specific targets, and warn the residents, and abort some strikes, and agree to a humanitarian truce, they'll kill even less civilians. Israel is doing the third. So yes, a large number of civilians have been killed, but that in no way takes away from the fact that Israel is trying to avoid (read: minimize) those casualties.
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!?
I'd argue that they're doing a pretty poor job of avoiding civilian casualties and perhaps they should do a better job of that. I haven't seen your "8 demonstrations" that they're trying to avoid this collateral damage but whatever it is it's not working as well as it should.
See the response above, as well as the lists that I and RezJ gave.
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!?
I'm gaming atm, but you're wrong again. Israel didn't apologize for the use of white phosphorous. They denied it completely for a while, then paddling back to explaining it with "smokescreens". And they're still using flechette-ammo.
Funny enough considering that so far (afaik, might be wrong) there's no apology for the kids on the beach, which in my mind demands one too.
I want to say "telling, isn't it", but then another one comes around telling me how that is something to apologize for - can't be arsed to have that discussion.
On July 24 2014 09:28 Kickstart wrote: The problem is that both sides are politicizing religious beliefs, nothing good ever comes of this. Both sides feel that they have claims to land because of their religious beliefs. Many on both sides feel that they are good and the other side is evil - because if God is on your side then the other side is automatically wrong and evil and anything you do to them is justified. The parties in power are just using their respective religions to justify their political aims. Good luck convincing either side that all their views are based on bullshit.
I'm straying a bit off topic here but the point pertains to your post. I don't expect everyone to watch a 100 minute documentary, but this explains why religion and politics are so frequently mixed. Without wishing to offend anyone religious, the content of the Bible has been changed many many times over the years for political reasons. Some books in the Bible were written with politics in mind. The two are inextricably linked. To believe that you are God's chosen people (which the Old Testament specifically says the Jews are) is always going to lead to political problems with other people, unless you can overcome the desire to trust the words that have been edited by political leaders for millennia. That is probably a case of how fundamentally you interpret your chosen religious text. So Israeli extremists are probably more likely to take a fundamental view of this stuff, as it also benefits them politically.
On July 24 2014 09:31 soon.Cloak wrote: "Avoid civilian casualties" is far from "if we killed any civilians, we failed". It is relative to the difficulty of not hitting civilians. Israel wants to hit certain Hamas targets. If they would simply carpet bomb Gaza, they would succeed, but kill a large number of civilians. If they bombed specific targets, they would kill less civilians. If they would bomb specific targets, and warn the residents, and abort some strikes, and agree to a humanitarian truce, they'll kill even less civilians. Israel is doing the third. So yes, a large number of civilians have been killed, but that in no way takes away from the fact that Israel is trying to avoid (read: minimize) those casualties.
Nobody thinks that avoiding civilian casualties means to be perfect about it, it means to be reasonable. Israel is "doing the third" option you list, why not the 4th that's unmentioned where you pick your targets more carefully and you don't pull the trigger when there are kids running around. But you see that's not the orders they're given because there's such hatred of the enemy it's like they don't matter. Israel is only as careful as the international community is asking them to be. It's because of people who flip the fuck out that they're being even a little careful like they are now. Without people flipping out, they'd raze the stuff, evict even more people from their homes, steal even more land from defenseless people. It's not just the killing that's a problem here.
As for the guy's response with theoretical measures taken by Israel and excuses for why despite those they're failing to keep casualties at a reasonable level, that's pathetic and if you think what they're doing is worth the 600 deaths and the hundreds more that are to come, IDK what to think of you...
On July 24 2014 09:28 Kickstart wrote: The problem is that both sides are politicizing religious beliefs, nothing good ever comes of this. Both sides feel that they have claims to land because of their religious beliefs. Many on both sides feel that they are good and the other side is evil - because if God is on your side then the other side is automatically wrong and evil and anything you do to them is justified. The parties in power are just using their respective religions to justify their political aims. Good luck convincing either side that all their views are based on bullshit.
I'm straying a bit off topic here but the point pertains to your post. I don't expect everyone to watch a 100 minute documentary, but this explains why religion and politics are so frequently mixed. Without wishing to offend anyone religious, the content of the Bible has been changed many many times over the years for political reasons. Some books in the Bible were written with politics in mind. The two are inextricably linked. To believe that you are God's chosen people (which the Old Testament specifically says the Jews are) is always going to lead to political problems with other people, unless you can overcome the desire to trust the words that have been edited by political leaders for millennia. That is probably a case of how fundamentally you interpret your chosen religious text. So Israeli extremists are probably more likely to take a fundamental view of this stuff, as it also benefits them politically.
Exactly my point. And to make the issue worse the parties in power are either 'fundamentalists' themselves or support the fundamentalists on their side (or at least dont stop them in any way). What needs to happen is that moderates from each side work together. But I do not really know the distribution of fundamentalists vs moderates in palistine and isreal. I would hope that the moderates make up the majority because that means that progress could be made. But who knows.
On July 24 2014 09:05 Djzapz wrote: 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.
I would argue the exact opposite.
Ever since its inception, the UN has condemned Israel more times than all other countries in the world combined.
Fact is, the world doesn't give a shit about China & Tibet, Russia & Chechnya, Turkey & Armenia, Syria & the rebels, or any other atrocity that has happened or is still happening, no matter the scale. The world is focused on the holy land, and the moral standard is set very, very high. In many cases, the very countries that condemn Israel, have committed and/or are still committing human rights violations on a much larger scale.
Funny enough considering that so far (afaik, might be wrong) there's no apology for the kids on the beach, which in my mind demands one too.
I want to say "telling, isn't it", but then another one comes around telling me how that is something to apologize for - can't be arsed to have that discussion.
Earlier in the thread i linked to a Channel 4 interview in which the hilariously named interviewer Jon Snow tries to get an Israeli spokesperson to admit that the killing of those children was an error. He refused to do so. Without being extremely logically strict its reasonably safe to assume then that it was deliberate.
The worst thing about this interview was the fact that at any time the Israeli guy could have said "you know nothing, Jon Snow" and the argument would have been won, but he didn't even do that.
On July 24 2014 09:05 Djzapz wrote: 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.
I would argue the exact opposite.
Ever since its inception, the UN has condemned Israel more times than all other countries in the world combined.
Did it occur to you that this might have something to do with the behaviour of Israel?
On July 24 2014 09:30 WhiteDog wrote: Saying that my arguments are non sequitor does not make them non sequitor. Just because you don't understand my point doesn't mean they're not logic For exemple, dropping 2 000 tons of explosiv on 360 km² with high density is not indiscriminate, and this is perfectly logic by itself. The casualties are pretty clear : the number of civilians who died is high, not to mention the reason for the attacks are fraudulent to begin with. You can twist words as you wish, and discard report as you wish, the fact is the casualties are ridiculous and saying that Israel "care" about civilians is denying reality. In fact it is not even important : Israel is killing civilian, and a lot of them.
I said Israel is minimizing casualties by invading on foot. You said that Hamas turned down the truce because nobody informed them. That's a non-sequitor in my book. And you keep repeating those numbers, as if they're supposed to mean something. Is 2000 tons of explosives in that area a lot? Do you have any standard to compare that against? Or is it just "look, big numbers, Israel is indiscriminate"?
On July 24 2014 09:25 soon.Cloak wrote: Israel could have sticked to bombing them. Instead, they invaded.
What kind of cheap ass logic is that? The deaths have ramped up since the invasion have they not? Not only is more of an affront to their right to auto determination and a step up to their oppression, it's a really shitty way to take care of people!
See the post just below this one. Deaths have ramped up, but they'd be much higher if Israel took out the targets they wanted by simply bombing Gaza.
Funny enough considering that so far (afaik, might be wrong) there's no apology for the kids on the beach, which in my mind demands one too.
I want to say "telling, isn't it", but then another one comes around telling me how that is something to apologize for - can't be arsed to have that discussion.
It's like you're trying to distract me from the main argument. We're talking about how Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties. We can discuss Israel's lack of apology after we finish this conversation.
On July 24 2014 09:05 Djzapz wrote: 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.
I would argue the exact opposite.
Ever since its inception, the UN has condemned Israel more times than all other countries in the world combined.
Fact is, the world doesn't give a shit about China & Tibet, Russia & Chechnya, Turkey & Armenia, Syria & the rebels, or any other atrocity that has happened or is still happening, no matter the scale. The world is focused on the holy land, and the moral standard is set very, very high. In many cases, the very countries that condemn Israel, have committed and/or are still committing human rights violations on a much larger scale.
Ah the, other countries do it too, so it's ok for Israel to engage in "insert human rights violations" too arguemnt.
"Avoid civilian casualties" is far from "if we killed any civilians, we failed". It is relative to the difficulty of not hitting civilians. Israel wants to hit certain Hamas targets. If they would simply carpet bomb Gaza, they would succeed, but kill a large number of civilians. If they bombed specific targets, they would kill less civilians. If they would bomb specific targets, and warn the residents, and abort some strikes, and agree to a humanitarian truce, they'll kill even less civilians. Israel is doing the third. So yes, a large number of civilians have been killed, but that in no way takes away from the fact that Israel is trying to avoid (read: minimize) those casualties.
The fact that Israeli forces are taking measures to avoid civilian casualties is a start, but nowhere near enough. Just saying "all those civilian casualties are acceptable because Israeli forces could do much worse" is a terrible argument because it pretty much excuses any atrocity short of nuclear annihilation. What's been going on isn't genocide, but it's a massacre via sheer negligence and lack of respect for human life.
It's like you're trying to distract me from the main argument. We're talking about how Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties. We can discuss Israel's lack of apology after we finish this conversation.
And i linked you an article by the guardian stating that Israel still up to this day uses flechette ammo. Care to explain how flechette-ammo is used to avoid unecessary civilian deaths?
If your main argument is "is the IDF trying to avoid civilian casualties", then the answer is "as much as they pressured into". They used phosphor, they use flechette ammo, they used civilians as bulletshields, and that's all out of the top of my head without reading into it. Feel free to explain to me how that is "avoiding civilian casualties", then we can argue about if the retaliationstrikes are overboard.
edit:
Not to mention that only because you have a discussion with somebody, doesn't mean that i can point out some obvious interesting points.
Since you're so into explaining and arguing, how is an attack on the UN building worth of an apology, but the deaths of nothing short but a bunch of kids is not? Doesn't that somehow lack some perspective? It shows how much a civilian life is worth, if the UN building (you know, the stuff that can bite you in the ass) is worth apologizing for, but the death of civilians somehow isn't.
EPT
For exemple, dropping 2 000 tons of explosiv on 360 km² with high density is not indiscriminate, and this is perfectly logic by itself.
