|
On July 24 2014 09:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 09:40 RezJ wrote: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.
I guess my wording is a bit off, but I essentially meant that other countries blame Israel for committing human rights violations while they do so themselves, which is hypocritical, and shows how Israel is held to a double-standard.
I'm absolutely NOT saying Israel is engaged in any form of human rights violations; if anything, Israel has done more to protect (and medicate) enemy civilians than any other nation in the history of warfare.
|
On July 24 2014 09:39 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +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...
First off, we agree that Israel is doing the third option, and not either of the first two. So we agree that Israel is avoiding civilian casualties.
Now, you want Israel to avoid casualties even more, and that they are only doing the minimum they have to do. That's not true at all. What country in the world warns civilians that they're going to bomb the area? I know America sure doesn't. What country goes in by foot, when they can safely bomb from the air? Again, America sure doesn't.
Either way, the question of "but can they do more" seems somewhat pedantic to me, when they're already doing a lot, and going above and beyond what my own country is doing.
On July 24 2014 09:40 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 09:33 m4ini wrote:Apology for the UN building. 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.
It wasn't intentional and we are really sorry to see four children being killed. I think the air force is taking the maximum care not to hit children. And it was an accident because it was an area that we warned would be bombed, because there was a great concentration of weapons. And unfortunately they didn't take out the children.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/gaza-crisis-humanitarian-truce-due-to-start-live-updates#block-53c79169e4b05bebd9ac3390
Definitely qualified, but just as definitely an apology and an admission of a mistake.
On July 24 2014 09:41 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 09:40 RezJ wrote: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?
Right, because Syria and North Korea are so much less deserving of condemnation than Israel.
|
On July 24 2014 09:40 RezJ wrote:Show nested quote +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.
This might sound bad but it has to do with the fact and you can't really deny that the West sees the world as "us" and "the others" and it seems like we have high standards for ourselves and not for others. We view Israel as a sort of distant western-ish people and the reason why the UN is more interested in this than in the other conflicts is because the UN is largely powerless (nowadays) at fixing serious polarizing armed conflicts with no reasonable solution. So the UN condemns Israel and does little about China because China's going to act like China.
But when I say that Israel would get a lot more flak if it were any other country (or should I say, any other western-type country), I don't only mean from the UN perspective. I mean the people's perspective, and the heads of State. Canada, a generally a country widely thought as decent, is supporting Israel with very little reserve regarding Israel's reprehensible actions. And many people support Israel unequivocally.
This is what I find the most annoying, the lack of nuance in people's rhetoric. They're either pro-Israel and Israel can do no wrong, or pro-Palestine and Israel should just let Hamas blow up their shit.
I personally just look at the whole thing, 600 deaths just on the Palestinian side, probably going to be hundreds of Israelis as well, and many more to come and I think, how many people's lives are being saved in this operation? It just looks to me like in the long run it's a net loss because powerful men decided to do a show of force.
|
On July 24 2014 09:45 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +"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.
What do you want them to do? It is a fact that they warn civilians. It is a fact that Hamas encourages the use of human shields. It is a fact that Israel could take out targets with more casualties by bombing Gaza, but instead invaded on foot. Israel is being bombed from Gaza, and is stopping them with military force. What effective use of military force would you suggest that would both stop Hamas and minimize civilian casualties?
|
On July 24 2014 09:42 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +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"? Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 09:30 Djzapz wrote: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. Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 09:33 m4ini wrote:Apology for the UN building. 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.
YOu know, Israel could care lot more about the civilians if they would not bomb them at all. Or invade their little dayz-map size of a country. Yeah sure, they could do worse. But why should we be happy about that? What kind of respect for life does someone need to have to justify bombing your house despite you not leaving it, because, you were informed your house would get bombed. WTF? What would you do if your relatives were killed by a foreign country because one block away from their house a terrorist hides? How do you justify that?
|
On July 24 2014 09:50 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 09:39 Djzapz wrote: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... First off, we agree that Israel is doing the third option, and not either of the first two. So we agree that Israel is avoiding civilian casualties. Now, you want Israel to avoid casualties even more, and that they are only doing the minimum they have to do. That's not true at all. What country in the world warns civilians that they're going to bomb the area? I know America sure doesn't. What country goes in by foot, when they can safely bomb from the air? Again, America sure doesn't. Either way, the question of "but can they do more" seems somewhat pedantic to me, when they're already doing a lot, and going above and beyond what my own country is doing. Its not pedantic if its going to save lives, its a pertinent issue. If a fireman rescues three out of a family of four from a burning building and then wanders off for no reason leaving the fourth to die you wouldn't call it pedantic for questioning why he did that. Especially not if he started the fire.Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 09:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 24 2014 09:33 m4ini wrote:Apology for the UN building. 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. Show nested quote +It wasn't intentional and we are really sorry to see four children being killed. I think the air force is taking the maximum care not to hit children. And it was an accident because it was an area that we warned would be bombed, because there was a great concentration of weapons. And unfortunately they didn't take out the children. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/gaza-crisis-humanitarian-truce-due-to-start-live-updates#block-53c79169e4b05bebd9ac3390Definitely qualified, but just as definitely an apology and an admission of a mistake. Funny. Its not an apology. To say that you are sorry to see something happen is not an apology. Its also not a admission of a mistake, its blaming the event on someone else. Maybe i'm reading it differently to you.Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 09:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 24 2014 09:40 RezJ wrote: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? Right, because Syria and North Korea are so much less deserving of condemnation than Israel. I agree that the UN doesn't do enough to bring up human rights abuses elsewhere. It certainly doesn't mean they shouldn't bring them up when perpetrated by Israel.
The way this is being handled so far is good, its the way all human rights cases should be handled.
|
On July 24 2014 09:50 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 09:39 Djzapz wrote: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... First off, we agree that Israel is doing the third option, and not either of the first two. So we agree that Israel is avoiding civilian casualties. Now, you want Israel to avoid casualties even more, and that they are only doing the minimum they have to do. That's not true at all. What country in the world warns civilians that they're going to bomb the area? I know America sure doesn't. What country goes in by foot, when they can safely bomb from the air? Again, America sure doesn't. Either way, the question of "but can they do more" seems somewhat pedantic to me, when they're already doing a lot, and going above and beyond what my own country is doing.
First I don't necessarily believe that going on foot reduces civilian casualties at all, it might do the contrary. I've also previously said that the US isn't necessarily a good example to follow. As for the warning civilian thing, I have to imagine that it's not hugely effective considering that unless they're really really nice, they don't necessarily want their targets to know their next more.
And you say that asking "they can do more " is pedantic is a fucking disgusting piece of shit thing to say considering we're talking about hundreds of human lives. Pedantic... even if I were way wrong and there's absolutely nothing more we can do to save those lives (which would be a profoundly naive thing to believe), it would still be fucked up thing to say. You have to have so little regard for the lives of those people, it's a little bit sick. It's one of the first questions that should be asked and it should always be asked and re-asked in every conflict ever.
|
First off, we agree that Israel is doing the third option, and not either of the first two. So we agree that Israel is avoiding civilian casualties.
Now, you want Israel to avoid casualties even more, and that they are only doing the minimum they have to do. That's not true at all. What country in the world warns civilians that they're going to bomb the area? I know America sure doesn't. What country goes in by foot, when they can safely bomb from the air? Again, America sure doesn't.
Either way, the question of "but can they do more" seems somewhat pedantic to me, when they're already doing a lot, and going above and beyond what my own country is doing.
It's not pedantic at all. The numbers speak for themselves.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/gaza-counter/?clsrd
Let's look at the best possible scenario for Israeli forces and say that the 69 unknowns were militants or had some sort of combat role that made them legal targets. That barely puts the number of killed militants over the number of killed children - 144. For all of Hamas's lack of scruples in targeting civilians, only 3 Israeli civilians have been killed, compared with 443 Palestinian civilians. Sure, the low number of Israeli civilian casualties is due to the superiority of Israeli defences, but to that I say, if their defences are so good, why go on the offence at all?
It's because Israeli policymakers do not value Palestinian lives anywhere near the level that they value Israeli lives. Sure, all leaders everywhere will put their people first, but the disparity in value here is horrifically absurd. Let's say that there was a homegrown Israeli anti-government terrorist cell operating in Tel Aviv. Would the Israeli government authorise an operation that would result in five hundred Israeli civilian deaths to take out this cell?
What effective use of military force would you suggest that would both stop Hamas and minimize civilian casualties?
Perhaps there are none, but why ask such a narrow question? Instead ask - why is military force needed at all? Look for a political solution. If all political solutions have been rejected by Hamas, then just be content with staying on the defence. You'll lose a few civilians due to rockets every now and then, but the sum total of civilian casualties would be much less than this operation, which means that you cannot say that refusing to retaliate for every little rocket would be the lesser evil unless you believe that the life of one Israeli civilian is worth more than the lives of a dozen Palestinian civilians.
|
On July 24 2014 09:48 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +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.
No, I don't know how it's used to avoid civilian deaths. But I do know that it's legal internationally, and I would presume that's because it has militaristic advantages. I'm not saying that Israel is unwilling to have civilians get killed- I'm saying there's a multitude of ways they're minimizing that number.
The white phosphoreous was from the last war. Stop bringing it up. It's irrelevant.
And I'm still waiting on all the other points I made.
It's very difficult to have 5 effective arguments at the same time, which is why I try to stick with one. But fine, if you want to bring up the apology, then look a few posts up, where I quoted Israel as apologizing, and try to do a little more research before spouting your opinion.
|
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/gaza-crisis-humanitarian-truce-due-to-start-live-updates#block-53c79169e4b05bebd9ac3390
Definitely qualified, but just as definitely an apology and an admission of a mistake.
Is it. You do know they blame the kids for playing there? Not to mention, read careful, and see that this is as dishonest as it gets. First of all: journalists were on the beach, reporting first hand. The "airforce" is trying to avoid dead kids. Interestingly enough, it wasn't the airforce attacking the beach, but it was shelled by artillery, and said artillery adjusted their fire after they missed the kids the first time. There's pictures of the beach still smoking, shot by journalists (not hamas), no weapons. No terrorists.
What were they shooting at then?
No, I don't know how it's used to avoid civilian deaths. But I do know that it's legal internationally, and I would presume that's because it has militaristic advantages. I'm not saying that Israel is unwilling to have civilians get killed- I'm saying there's a multitude of ways they're minimizing that number.
The white phosphoreous was from the last war. Stop bringing it up. It's irrelevant.
It's irrelevant that they only just stopped acting like warcriminals? Apparently it's relevant that the population in palestine supported the hamas with roughly 70%, it dropped recently to 40% - and yet some people still say "kinda all of palestine" is supporting the hamas. What now? If the support for the hamas is dropping so hard, the retaliationstrikes are used against people who don't even support the hamas, which makes it murder - or the drop was "too recently" to be relevant.
How does it change anything that they were forced by the international community (note: they didn't decide by themselves, otherwise they wouldn't have used it in the first place) to stop firing prohibited ammo? It's absolutely retarded to discard something because "well yesterday they said so and so". They still fricking used it, against civilians. YOU are arguing they do so much to prevent civilian deaths. I tell you: no, they don't. The international community does.
About flechette-ammo. You're playing dumb now, and i will bite, solely because it's amusing to see a person playing dumb because he doesn't want to admit something.
Let's see. A flechette-round is basically tons of nails (rather, darts, to make them fly further and make them deadlier) wrapped around an explosive. It literally is a pipebomb filled with nails, just more sophisticated. You know what pipebombs with nails are used for? To kill and injure as many people as possible. And the same goes for flechette-ammo. They're designed to maw down everything that is in the radius of the hit (in fact, not just the radius of the hit, but a couple of magnitudes further). Feel free to tell me how that is "restraint". Oh btw, they're not banned by the geneva conventions, right. But they were just ruled to be against humanitarian law. How long you think will it take for israel to declare that those small weapons of mass destruction (that's what they are, just a smaller scale and certainly nothing for "surgical strikes", ever seen a surgical strike by clusterbombs?) will be decommitioned (don't know the spelling) - and then claim it's because they wanna protect civilians?
|
I feel kinda bad for cloak. You need to call for some backup my friend.
|
On July 24 2014 09:51 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 09:40 RezJ wrote: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. This might sound bad but it has to do with the fact and you can't really deny that the West sees the world as "us" and "the others" and it seems like we have high standards for ourselves and not for others. We view Israel as a sort of distant western-ish people and the reason why the UN is more interested in this than in the other conflicts is because the UN is largely powerless (nowadays) at fixing serious polarizing armed conflicts with no reasonable solution. So the UN condemns Israel and does little about China because China's going to act like China. But when I say that Israel would get a lot more flak if it were any other country (or should I say, any other western-type country), I don't only mean from the UN perspective. I mean the people's perspective, and the heads of State. Canada, a generally a country widely thought as decent, is supporting Israel with very little reserve regarding Israel's reprehensible actions. And many people support Israel unequivocally. This is what I find the most annoying, the lack of nuance in people's rhetoric. They're either pro-Israel and Israel can do no wrong, or pro-Palestine and Israel should just let Hamas blow up their shit. I personally just look at the whole thing, 600 deaths just on the Palestinian side, probably going to be hundreds of Israelis as well, and many more to come and I think, how many people's lives are being saved in this operation? It just looks to me like in the long run it's a net loss because powerful men decided to do a show of force.
So we agree that Israel is held to a double-standard. Good.
You say the UN condemns Israel because it feels powerless against certain countries; I would say the UN is run by a certain lobby/coalition of countries that opposes Israel, hence the bias.
It might seem to you like there is little nuance in what I'm saying, but that is only because all I've been doing in this thread is fight off certain claims that I find the most ridiculous. I don't necessarily agree with everything my government does (I'm a leftist and an atheist, against settlements and pro-negotiations).
Simply looking at the number of casualties gives you little context of what is happening, who is doing what, and why. To say "people are dying over there" is an oversimplification of the situation. I think Israel is doing whatever it takes so that a fourth escalation doesn't happen, and I'm 100% behind that.
|
On July 24 2014 10:03 Jockmcplop wrote:
I feel kinda bad for cloak. You need to call for some backup my friend.
It's 4:09 AM here.
It's alright btw, I'm glad we can have a civilized discussion on TL even though the subject is sensitive.
|
Simply looking at the number of casualties gives you little context of what is happening, who is doing what, and why. To say "people are dying over there" is an oversimplification of the situation. I think Israel is doing whatever it takes so that a fourth escalation doesn't happen, and I'm 100% behind that.
Look at all the hate they're creating with this violence. If you told me that those 443+ Palestinian civilians had to die for a greater cause, to ensure a lasting peace, then I would agree. But all these deaths are doing nothing but making things worse for Israel in the long run. Not only is this operation immoral, it's completely shortsighted and strategically unsound.
|
On July 24 2014 10:07 RezJ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 09:51 Djzapz wrote:On July 24 2014 09:40 RezJ wrote: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. This might sound bad but it has to do with the fact and you can't really deny that the West sees the world as "us" and "the others" and it seems like we have high standards for ourselves and not for others. We view Israel as a sort of distant western-ish people and the reason why the UN is more interested in this than in the other conflicts is because the UN is largely powerless (nowadays) at fixing serious polarizing armed conflicts with no reasonable solution. So the UN condemns Israel and does little about China because China's going to act like China. But when I say that Israel would get a lot more flak if it were any other country (or should I say, any other western-type country), I don't only mean from the UN perspective. I mean the people's perspective, and the heads of State. Canada, a generally a country widely thought as decent, is supporting Israel with very little reserve regarding Israel's reprehensible actions. And many people support Israel unequivocally. This is what I find the most annoying, the lack of nuance in people's rhetoric. They're either pro-Israel and Israel can do no wrong, or pro-Palestine and Israel should just let Hamas blow up their shit. I personally just look at the whole thing, 600 deaths just on the Palestinian side, probably going to be hundreds of Israelis as well, and many more to come and I think, how many people's lives are being saved in this operation? It just looks to me like in the long run it's a net loss because powerful men decided to do a show of force. So we agree that Israel is held to a double-standard. Good. You say the UN condemns Israel because it feels powerless against certain countries; I would say the UN is run by a certain lobby/coalition of countries that opposes Israel, hence the bias.
Well you don't come off as unreasonable so I don't have much to say but while the UN is run by a certain coalition, I don't agree that it truly opposes Israel. I think it's patting itself on the back by giving powerless warnings to a member of the most powerful coalition (the west) which is behaving a little bit like the "bad guys" (the mean, different eastern people!)
|
I think this argument applies to both sides but when you believe so feverently that God makes you always right, bad shit if going to happen. If there was a place where anyone really wanted to make a difference and play "World Police" this could be it.
My prediction is:
Israel continues to encroach and stop short of all out invasion because as useless as the UN is, they don't quite own Europe. UN can condem their behaviour all they like but really, they can't and won't do shit.
Eventually shit in Palestine will get super shit due to Israel blockades and they will crack, probably attempt some kind of desperation attack.
Should be enough to "justify" Israel wiping them off the Earth.
World still does nothing. Arab states can't act cos America (and vastly outgunned). Europe too weak.
|
Some random thoughts i'm having while sat here. Not well thought out (its 2.15am)so go ahead and crush them if you want:
1. Israel stops using any force against Palestinians for one month. Watch the entire world turn against Hamas the moment they launch a rocket. This could also work the other way round, but i doubt it.
2. Both sides seem unable to stop killing civilians, maybe its time for someone else to step in and force the issue. This war has gone on for FAR too long.
3. Is it me or are the circumstances that kicked off this latest debacle a little bit suspicious. When people are burned alive its usually a way of destroying evidence. I haven't really researched this or whether there has been a definite answer to who killed the Palestinian kid, but its an odd method of execution.
|
On July 24 2014 10:07 RezJ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 09:51 Djzapz wrote:On July 24 2014 09:40 RezJ wrote: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. This might sound bad but it has to do with the fact and you can't really deny that the West sees the world as "us" and "the others" and it seems like we have high standards for ourselves and not for others. We view Israel as a sort of distant western-ish people and the reason why the UN is more interested in this than in the other conflicts is because the UN is largely powerless (nowadays) at fixing serious polarizing armed conflicts with no reasonable solution. So the UN condemns Israel and does little about China because China's going to act like China. But when I say that Israel would get a lot more flak if it were any other country (or should I say, any other western-type country), I don't only mean from the UN perspective. I mean the people's perspective, and the heads of State. Canada, a generally a country widely thought as decent, is supporting Israel with very little reserve regarding Israel's reprehensible actions. And many people support Israel unequivocally. This is what I find the most annoying, the lack of nuance in people's rhetoric. They're either pro-Israel and Israel can do no wrong, or pro-Palestine and Israel should just let Hamas blow up their shit. I personally just look at the whole thing, 600 deaths just on the Palestinian side, probably going to be hundreds of Israelis as well, and many more to come and I think, how many people's lives are being saved in this operation? It just looks to me like in the long run it's a net loss because powerful men decided to do a show of force. So we agree that Israel is held to a double-standard. Good. You say the UN condemns Israel because it feels powerless against certain countries; I would say the UN is run by a certain lobby/coalition of countries that opposes Israel, hence the bias. It might seem to you like there is little nuance in what I'm saying, but that is only because all I've been doing in this thread is fight off certain claims that I find the most ridiculous. I don't necessarily agree with everything my government does (I'm a leftist and an atheist, against settlements and pro-negotiations). Simply looking at the number of casualties gives you little context of what is happening, who is doing what, and why. To say "people are dying over there" is an oversimplification of the situation. I think Israel is doing whatever it takes so that a fourth escalation doesn't happen, and I'm 100% behind that.
a certain lobby/coalition of countries that opposes Israel,
Two members of the security concil of this said "lobby" represent the first (USA) and the third (France) jews community in the world.
I've problem to get where your lobby is to be honnest...I see more supports than opponents.
|
Hm, was editing rather than writing a new post. Guess it's time for me to go to bed. -,-
|
On July 24 2014 10:09 RezJ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 10:03 Jockmcplop wrote:
I feel kinda bad for cloak. You need to call for some backup my friend. It's 4:09 AM here. It's alright btw, I'm glad we can have a civilized discussion on TL even though the subject is sensitive.
You should have seen it earlier today lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
