# Genocide in Gaza. Shame



## chopeth

Israel Sderot Cinema. Israelis bringing chairs to the hilltops of Sderot to watch bombs fall on Gaza. Clapping and celebrating every time they hear a blast. They probably forgot when the nazi officers gased their grandparents.


----------



## necronile

If I would suffer daily from rocket attacks I would have been clapping and singing myself to..


----------



## SD83

If my home was under siege for years, after being invaded in a war (doesn't matter if the war was in itself justified, invaded territory is still stolen territory and while this was buisness as usual in less civilized times, it has always been reason for centuries of hatred), I would probably be building rockets myself. If the people on the other side of the border had supermarkets full of stuff, and I rarely had electricity, let alone fuel or anything, and someone told me they had everything and we have nothing because they keep us from getting it, I would be pissed. If the neighbouring state was building fortified settlements and defending those at all cost on territory which by international laws does not belong to them but to the state I live in, I would definitly be on the road throwing stones at tanks. 
As long as the Palestineans tolerate retard terrorists, there will be war. As long as the Israelians tolerate the settlers and keeps Gaza under siege, there will be war. Both sides have to get their shit together and start to get along.
That said, I regard anyone who fires at a civilian building as a terrorist. If that person wears a uniform or not, if that person acts under goverment command, that doesn't change the fact that they are purposefully targeting civilians. And from what I read or heard, the last weeks of conflict have not seen one Israeli victim. Which can not be said about the Palestine side.


----------



## Explorer

I did a quick read about what's going on.

Is it true that the Israeli counterstrikes were in response to attacks from Gaza?

Is it true that over 550 rockets have been fired into Israel since the first four initial attacks? 

If those two are facts, then you're saying that it's barbaric for israelis to defend themselves?

Or are you saying that* the one group which set up chairs to watch is representative of all Israelies, *in the same way that* all Muslims are represented by those Muslims who danced and celebrated after the gruesome attacks and deaths of 9/11?

I hope not. *

I don't think you can extend the actions of a few idiots to all members of a particular group. 

Funny story: At some point, I was in Veraun, outside of Donostia/San Sebastian, and some guys in a bar were talking about how Spain was attacking and killing Basques. I asked how many Basques had been killed by Spain in the past 5 years, and how many had been killed by ETA for not supporting ETA. My friends rushed me out of the bar, because Veraun is definitely an ETA-supporting town. 

And yes, ETA has killed many Basques who didn't support its terrorism, more Basques than Spain in recent years. 

Are all Basques terrorists or ETA supporters? No. 

Are all people in Gaza terrorists, or supporters of Hamas/Hezbolla/whatever? No. 

It's terrible that these groups are entrenched, and that they use the civilian population as cover for their activities. I think we can both agree on that.


----------



## vansinn

Doesn't really matter that much which side this time launched the first one, or exactly how many has been used..
Is-ra-el was placed there on stolen land during 1948/49, and has been expanding aggressively ever since.

When they bombed the strip some years ago, they used white phosphorous and choose around 11-11.30 am, because the Palestinian school system is split in two-shifts, so at this time kids are en-route to/from, so max casualties.
Read the book "The President's Son", written be the son of the general who recommended the '67 flash war - but also suggested from there on to let Palestine have it's own rule, as he was sure there could never be peace when occupied land have both part-own rule, and part external control. Well, this didn't happen..

Good seeing so many Western bizzes are turning away from work there.

It is IMHO really also abuse of the Jews, as they were simply transported there in the first place; a Zionist scheme.


----------



## Skyblue

Explorer said:


> I did a quick read about what's going on.
> Or are you saying that* the one group which set up chairs to watch is representative of all Israelies, *in the same way that* all Muslims are represented by those Muslims who danced and celebrated after the gruesome attacks and deaths of 9/11?
> 
> I hope not. *
> 
> I don't think you can extend the actions of a few idiots to all members of a particular group.



Couldn't have said it better myself. 

Whether you believe it is legitimate for the Hamas to fire rockets to Israel, don't judge us all based on the actions of a bunch of idiots. Extremists, I'm afraid, you can find in both sides of this fight, and I despise them all, jewish or palestinian or whoever. 

Also, I'd find it quite hard to call what's going on "genocide". The IDF goes as far as *calling people on the phone and letting them know they are about to shoot their house (if, of course, they have a reason to do so) so they'll have time to run away*.

I wish this fight, and the whole conflict would be solved and we could live here peacefully as neighbors. I really do. But as long as my house is being bombarded by missiles, and it is at the moment, and Hamas is firing it's missiles at innocent civilians, don't expect me to be angry at the IDF for fighting back.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Skyblue said:


> But as long as my house is being bombarded by missiles, and it is at the moment, and Hamas is firing it's missiles at innocent civilians, don't expect me to be angry at the IDF for fighting back.


And as long as both Israeli and Palestine citizens feel that way, the conflict will never end.


----------



## Daf57

I will never fully understand what it's like to be on either side of that conflict. For that reason I'll reserve judgement on how they deal with that pressure.


----------



## SD83

UnderTheSign said:


> And as long as both Israeli and Palestine citizens feel that way, the conflict will never end.



Daf57 has a point though. As much as my head tells me that is exactly the problem, I have no doubt that that is hard to do if you're in that situation.

I'm not against war in general. If you are under attack, no one should deny you to do whatever necessary to protect yourself. However, the impression that I, here in Germany, get from the media, is as follows: Hamas shoots missiles at Israel. Missiles do some damage, some people wounded. Israel feels threatened, and soemone in charge decides that offense is the best defense. Strikes back, bombs some targets in the Gaza strip, people die. Maybe electricy gets cut off or the border blocked. Palestineans mourn their dead, Hamas blames Israel, some people believe them. Hamas shoots missiles at Israel. Repeat.
Both sides have to change, and they have to do it at the same time, I guess. Not gonna happen, for reasons mentioned above.  
It's kinda sad to see that news from Israel/Gaza get less coverage in the media (biased or not, and I feel that the bias in Germany is rather pro-Hamas) than the Worldcup. Even worse that other wars, raging at dozens of places, get virtually no media coverage.


----------



## Explorer

I always thought the most amazing media oversight which I've personally witnessed was that no one ever asked the PLO why their map of the restored Palestine was exactly the same shape as Israel. *laugh*


----------



## sojourner

Double standards..


----------



## Addison90




----------



## ThatCanadianGuy

Addison90 said:


>




I love how passively they're trying to portray the bias.


----------



## Ed_Ibanez_Shred

I don't understand all the argument. They're occupying someone else's country it's as simple as that, is it not?


----------



## SD83

Addison90 said:


>




While that might be true, and I can't say for sure, although it pretty much matches my information, it is still only part of a larger truth, and that includes that at least parts of the Hamas still deny Israel's right of existence. That includes that over decades,, the PLO's way of "fighting for freedom" included deliberatly killing civilians, kidnapping, blowing up airplanes, all that sort of nice things. And it includes Hamas firing rockets at civilian cities.


----------



## SpaceDock

I won t claim to be any sort of expert on this it from what I've read, the Isrealis have not had a single death from the Gaza rockets because of the Iron Dome defense system while Gaza is well over 100 deaths in a few days including many civilians.


----------



## Crabface

I live in israel at the moment but i was born and raised in england for most of my life so I tend to keep very up to date with english media, and i must say, they do an awful job of showing the whole picture and educating the nation on the exact details. English media is very, very pro-palestinian... or more likely anti-israel, because anytime there is an arab terror attack on any other nation england would never side with them.

The main Pro-Palestinian argument from the western world is based around the idea that Israel deny Gaza basic human rights. They totally ignore the fact that they are talking about a place run by a terrorist organisation who also deny their own people basic human rights let alone jews - who they would destroy in an instant given the chance. That's the difference. Israel could obliterate Gaza if they wanted to, but they dont. The hamas, on the other hand, wouldnt think twice before destroying all of israel if they could.

The Hamas is a terrorist organisation which controls palestine, and as ling as they are in control there cannot be peace. Not because Israel dont want it but because they refuse it. The Hamas care more about killing others than caring for themselves. They stone their own woman to do death if they sleep with other men, they obligate women to wear stupid ....ing hats on their heads at all times and they cannot show skin. They kill anyone who opposes them and they give 8 year olds weapons. They hide weaponry in normal civilian houses just so that when israel attack them Israel look bad to the outside world.
If this is not a breach of human rights then i dont know what is.
I DO NOT agree with everything israel does, but pro-palestinians who run around preaching "free palestine" are quite frankly ignorant to the facts. As bad as the situation in gaza is, it would be far, far worse if israel werent around and hamas were let to run free. Israel supplies gaza with electricity, food and clean water. They are not there to kill them, but when under threat israel will happily take it away if necessary.

Just know that israel have NEVER been against peace. They have treaties with Egypt and Jordon which have gone unbreached since they were signed. Israel have had 6 agreements signed with the hamas all of which have been breached within months. By the hamas. Israel has never denied peace.

With that said, I am not happy with Bejamin Netanyahu as prime-minister, mainly because he is rather trigger happy and he puts israel under a bad light. It's rather obvious that Israel are far, far stronger than the hamas and they needn't be so violent. That said, i do think that this is a war where one side will not listen unless threatened and, although i do not like it, i do think that israel are within there rights to fight back with force.

People seem to have misconceptions about israel. Israel is a very advanced country. Their medicinal and technological advancements help the whole world and no country in the world contributes nearly as much to the world per capita as israel. Israel is also known as the hub of business startups for how succesful they are.
Israel are trying to do everything they can to be seen as equals in the modern world and what they have achieved over 65 years is quite frankly astonishing, the problem is that as long as the countries around it wage war against israel, israel will be seen as partners in crime.

That last paragraph may seem a little off topic, but its just demonstrating which country in the middle-east really wants to advance and which country are just set in their ways to do what theyve been doing for centuries. killing and selling oil.


Sorry if this post was a little disjointed and makes little sense, i'm very tired and desperately need to sleep :haha:


----------



## Crabface

Addison90 said:


>




That is quite frankly the worst, most biased explanation i have ever seen, and many of the things said are simply not true.
There was no palestinian state before the establishment of israel. It was only a location on the map. Israel was legally established via a vote in the UN, and then the arabs - who disagreed with the LEGAL DECISION - attacked israel, and lost. although at the beginning many arabs were driven out of their homes - understandably due to the fighting - israeli arabs nowadays have equal rights to anyone else in israel and live in peace with them. I invite anyone to come to israel and speak to an Israeli-arab or bedouin and ask whether they would prefer leadership under the hamas or the israeli government (Which btw, is more democratic and less corrupt than the majority of countries in europe, based of the Global Democracy and Corruption Indexes).
They would prefer to live under the israeli government 100% of the time.


----------



## Explorer

I've always thought it interesting that Jordan, which now has part of the land from the distribution, had its own internal problems with the Palestinians. When the king decided he had had enough, he gathered the mothers, wives and children of the internal terrorists, and told them that if they didn't turn themselves in, he would kill them.

They turned themselves in and were executed, and that was the end of the problem.

And yet the grudge is held against those who didn't take such drastic measures. *laugh*

I remember a large project we did in school, wherein we actually did a chart of attacks on Israel versus attacks on Israel's various enemies, trying to see where and when first strikes occurred and when there were counter attacks. There was a striking disproportion in first strikes, depending on whether or not you gave credence to one point which the PLO constantly used, that of calling Israel's existence... "The Aggression." If you counted Israel's existence as a first strike, then Israel's existence was the reason for all of the attacks on it. 

If instead you took first strikes against other territories in the midst of peace as first strikes, then it was very one-sided. It seemed like Israel was reacting to attacks, instead of deciding to carpet bomb without provocation.

BTW, where is the OP? I brought up the subject of ETA terrorism in Spain because I thought it was a very good parallel which I have an interest in, and since I've spent time in Spain and also speak Euskara, I thought it would be good to have some discussion on the similarities in the situations. ETA is still reacting to a history of life under long dead Franco, just as the Palestinian terror groups are reacting to historical facts as opposed to current attacks. 

Anyway, I hope he comes back....


----------



## chopeth

Explorer said:


> I've always thought it interesting that Jordan, which now has part of the land from the distribution, had its own internal problems with the Palestinians. When the king decided he had had enough, he gathered the mothers, wives and children of the internal terrorists, and told them that if they didn't turn themselves in, he would kill them.
> 
> They turned themselves in and were executed, and that was the end of the problem.
> 
> And yet the grudge is held against those who didn't take such drastic measures. *laugh*
> 
> I remember a large project we did in school, wherein we actually did a chart of attacks on Israel versus attacks on Israel's various enemies, trying to see where and when first strikes occurred and when there were counter attacks. There was a striking disproportion in first strikes, depending on whether or not you gave credence to one point which the PLO constantly used, that of calling Israel's existence... "The Aggression." If you counted Israel's existence as a first strike, then Israel's existence was the reason for all of the attacks on it.
> 
> If instead you took first strikes against other territories in the midst of peace as first strikes, then it was very one-sided. It seemed like Israel was reacting to attacks, instead of deciding to carpet bomb without provocation.
> 
> BTW, where is the OP? I brought up the subject of ETA terrorism in Spain because I thought it was a very good parallel which I have an interest in, and since I've spent time in Spain and also speak Euskara, I thought it would be good to have some discussion on the similarities in the situations. ETA is still reacting to a history of life under long dead Franco, just as the Palestinian terror groups are reacting to historical facts as opposed to current attacks.
> 
> Anyway, I hope he comes back....



I read your post but I decided not to answer because of several reasons. One of them, I don't think there's too much similarity between both conflicts, it's up to opinion, anyway. You probably speak Euskera, not Euskara. Congratulations, seriously, that's a very difficult language. The problem with ETA and Franco (a simple way to say it, much more complex actually) died long time ago, it was just the remnants of a conflict which doesn't have anything to do with the situation today. ETA, fortunately is virtually dead, and there's been too much pain and death, but I think the Spanish people, so as the Basque ones, are making a big effort to forgive each other. It's a political weapon used by our repulsive policians everyday, but (most)people want to turn the page. I obviously could be writing hours about it, but though you may consider it similar, I don't, so I don't find it relevant according to the topic, so I don't think I need to add anything else. That's just my opinion on the topic.


----------



## Dog Boy

How bout this? No more American tax dollars for Israel?


----------



## SD83

Dog Boy said:


> How bout this? No more American tax dollars for Israel?



Would only make sense if whoever funds the Hamas these days also cut their fundings.


----------



## Explorer

Actually, I was surprised the first time I started learning Euskara that everyone (including the woman I was involved with in Euskal Herria) would pronounce it Euskera, but it's written with an "a." Or so I was taught. It's one of those things that people pronounce differently than is written, like when you first learn that what people are calling "Espanair" is actually written "Spanair." *laugh*

I also have laughed when friends in Madrid were telling me about this new drink they had discovered called ee-the-te-ah. Then it came out... and it was literally i-ce-te-a. *laugh*

Anyway, the reason I did think of this is because in all the time I spent in Spain, it seemed like one side kept doing the attacks and provoking. That was a *constant*, and I was mostly in the Basque Country. I was stopped everywhere when I'd be driving a car with plates from the north. I'd be in the old part of Donostia/San Sebaastian and members of ETA would set fires to shoot at firefighters, who they considered to be in league with the enemy. 

And I've been places where bombs went off when I was nearby, in Madrid, in vacation towns with children in the south, and so on. 

I'm hopeful that ETA doesn't break the current ceasefire like they did all the ones before. 

But.

I'm not sure why you don't want parallels drawn between two terrorist organizations. 

If you're saying that all the attacks and breakings of ceasefires by the non-Israelis are justified, then you're okay with the various tactics taken by ETA, no? Franco did try to get rid of the Basque identity, even outlawing the language. That was a genocide far greater than your hyperbolic use of the word for the Israeli counterattack (yes, counterattack, right? not first strike or Israel breaking a ceasefire). I think there's a reason you would find it distasteful to say that any kids which ETA killed were justified, and all the fault of the Spanish government, as opposed to being the fault of the terrorists who actually killed them. 

I see Hamas, Hezbolla and ETA as all being terrorist groups who have repeatedly broken ceasefires when they thought it would gain them advantage. If you would like me to think of them as distinct, I'd be interested in the ways they are distinct. 

----

Sorry to be so interested, but I remember parents and grandparents, of my friends growing up, sporting tattooed numbers on their arms, and I also have friends who fled genocides in Africa. I take the word "genocide" very seriously. Given how often Israel has negotiated for peace instead of just carpetbombing, and given the record on Israel honoring ceasefires, and the complete lack of both on the other side in this case, I feel you leveled that accusation of genocide falsely. Shame.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Explorer said:


> It's one of those things that people pronounce differently than is written, like when you first learn that what people are calling "Espanair" is actually written "Spanair." *laugh*


 
In that specific case, it's because Spanish phonology doesn't allow for words that start with consonant clusters beginning with "s," so they'll insert a short "e" sound in front of the cluster when they say the word aloud. You'll hear that coming out alot when speaking to Spanish speakers who are studying English, saying stuff like "What are you, eh-stupid?," "I'm going to eh-school," or "I don't like eh-snow." Not surprising, then, that when they see a non-Spanish word like "Spanair" they'd add an "eh" at the beginning.


This trivial bit of knowledge has been brought to you by a bored person who's glad to just have an excuse to put his useless Spanish degree to some use .


----------



## chopeth

Grand Moff Tim said:


> In that specific case, it's because Spanish phonology doesn't allow for words that start with consonant clusters beginning with "s," so they'll insert a short "e" sound in front of the cluster when they say the word aloud. You'll hear that coming out alot when speaking to Spanish speakers who are studying English, saying stuff like "What are you, eh-stupid?," "I'm going to eh-school," or "I don't like eh-snow." Not surprising, then, that when they see a non-Spanish word like "Spanair" they'd add an "eh" at the beginning.
> 
> 
> This trivial bit of knowledge has been brought to you by a bored person who's glad to just have an excuse to put his useless Spanish degree to some use .



Yeah, I've been mocked by English mates all my life for not being able to pronounce the name of my own country properly. Anyway, I think it's just a funny prejudice too, because I don't think I use that "e" before an "s".


----------



## chopeth

Explorer said:


> Actually, I was surprised the first time I started learning Euskara that everyone (including the woman I was involved with in Euskal Herria) would pronounce it Euskera, but it's written with an "a." Or so I was taught. It's one of those things that people pronounce differently than is written, like when you first learn that what people are calling "Espanair" is actually written "Spanair." *laugh*
> 
> I also have laughed when friends in Madrid were telling me about this new drink they had discovered called ee-the-te-ah. Then it came out... and it was literally i-ce-te-a. *laugh*
> 
> Anyway, the reason I did think of this is because in all the time I spent in Spain, it seemed like one side kept doing the attacks and provoking. That was a *constant*, and I was mostly in the Basque Country. I was stopped everywhere when I'd be driving a car with plates from the north. I'd be in the old part of Donostia/San Sebaastian and members of ETA would set fires to shoot at firefighters, who they considered to be in league with the enemy.
> 
> And I've been places where bombs went off when I was nearby, in Madrid, in vacation towns with children in the south, and so on.
> 
> I'm hopeful that ETA doesn't break the current ceasefire like they did all the ones before.
> 
> But.
> 
> I'm not sure why you don't want parallels drawn between two terrorist organizations.
> 
> If you're saying that all the attacks and breakings of ceasefires by the non-Israelis are justified, then you're okay with the various tactics taken by ETA, no? Franco did try to get rid of the Basque identity, even outlawing the language. That was a genocide far greater than your hyperbolic use of the word for the Israeli counterattack (yes, counterattack, right? not first strike or Israel breaking a ceasefire). I think there's a reason you would find it distasteful to say that any kids which ETA killed were justified, and all the fault of the Spanish government, as opposed to being the fault of the terrorists who actually killed them.
> 
> I see Hamas, Hezbolla and ETA as all being terrorist groups who have repeatedly broken ceasefires when they thought it would gain them advantage. If you would like me to think of them as distinct, I'd be interested in the ways they are distinct.
> 
> ----
> 
> Sorry to be so interested, but I remember parents and grandparents, of my friends growing up, sporting tattooed numbers on their arms, and I also have friends who fled genocides in Africa. I take the word "genocide" very seriously. Given how often Israel has negotiated for peace instead of just carpetbombing, and given the record on Israel honoring ceasefires, and the complete lack of both on the other side in this case, I feel you leveled that accusation of genocide falsely. Shame.



Well, maybe in _euskara batua_ (unified vasque) you write it like this, but I'm used to writing and saying euskera so as for everybody around and mass media. 

Anyway, when were you here? It seems to me like you are speaking about the 90s. Things are calmer now as I said before as a result of a long process. Why and how? I think it exceeds the purpose of this thread again. But I'll tell you something you are wrong about. Franco didn't have that much against the Basque Country, in fact, he economically favoured it together with Catalunya to such an extent that the other regions in the South, West and East almost died of starvation. Then, your topic doesn't lay upon a real fact, that's probably what you heard there or what they told you, Idk. That's only a reason among hundreds why I don't think it's the same case with the Israel-Palestine conflict, and which I don't want to elaborate more.

Concerning to the topic, I'm used to being called "nazi" or "anti-semitic" any time I make some critic to the genocidal state of Israel. I thank you for being polite just trying to make me feel bad about my own terrorism issues.

The truth is, imho, that there's almost no Palestine yet. The bloodbath in Gaza, which according to the perpetrators, aims to finish them, will only multiply them.

Since 1948 Palestinians can't even breath without asking for permission. They live in a everlasting humiliation. They have lost their country, their lands, their water, their freedom, everything. They can't even choose their rulers. When they vote someone they shouldn't, they are punished. Gaza is being punished. Since Hamas cleanly won the elections in 2006. It has become a mouse trap with no way out. Palestine is becoming smaller and smaller. Israel is a country that never obeys the sentences of the international courts, which mocks at the internatinal laws and that has legalized tortures to their prisoners. What gives them the right to do so? The Bible? the prosecution of the jewish people? The United States?

The Spanish government wouldn't have bombed the Basque country with impunity, nor the British wouldn't have destroyed Ireland to finish with the IRA, if you want proof that there is no parallelism between these conflicts. Israel has the most advanced and sofisticated army in the world doesn't kill for error, they kill for horror. Civil victims are called collateral damage. In Gaza every three out of ten "collateral damages" are children. Dangerous potential terrorists, some say. 100 Palestinian lives in return for an Israeli. It is a defensive war, I've also heard. No, it's not. It is an agressive war. Every war is claimed to be defensive at some point. Hitler invaded Poland to avoid Poland invaded Germany. Bush invaded Irak to avoid Irak invaded the world, and so on.

The worlds hypocresy shines again before the tragedy of Gaza. Indifference, empty speeches, hollow statements. The Arab countries wash their hands. The European countries rub their hands (if you understand the idiomatic expression in English). Shame on those who make possible this genocide, Shame on those who look the other way, Shame on those who justify it. Shame, yes.


----------



## flexkill

Grand Moff Tim said:


> In that specific case, it's because Spanish phonology doesn't allow for words that start with consonant clusters beginning with "s," so they'll insert a short "e" sound in front of the cluster when they say the word aloud. You'll hear that coming out alot when speaking to Spanish speakers who are studying English, saying stuff like "What are you, eh-stupid?," "I'm going to eh-school," or "I don't like eh-snow." Not surprising, then, that when they see a non-Spanish word like "Spanair" they'd add an "eh" at the beginning.
> 
> 
> This trivial bit of knowledge has been brought to you by a bored person who's glad to just have an excuse to put his useless Spanish degree to some use .



Way to go Tim, you are eh-so eh-smart!  


And as for you Explorer....


Explorer said:


> *laugh*


----------



## Skyblue

chopeth said:


> The truth is, imho, that there's almost no Palestine yet. The bloodbath in Gaza, which according to the perpetrators, aims to finish them, will only multiply them.


I'm assuming that by "perpetrators" you mean Israel (and correct me if I'm wrong of course), and if that so- when did Israel ever claim their goal was to finish Gaza and the palestinians? All the attacks so far were all in response to missile attacks on Israel by Hamas, and the second an option for truce was offered, we went for it. 


chopeth said:


> Since 1948 Palestinians can't even breath without asking for permission. They live in a everlasting humiliation. They have lost their country, their lands, their water, their freedom, everything. They can't even choose their rulers. When they vote someone they shouldn't, they are punished. Gaza is being punished. Since Hamas cleanly won the elections in 2006. It has become a mouse trap with no way out


 In 1948, after many jews fled Europe they settled in Israel, which wasn't a country back then, but an area under british control. the UN understood the jewish people's need for their own country, and decided on a 2 states solution- a palestinian state and a jewish one, which the palestinians refused to acknowledge (you were saying something about international law..?) and attacked the new jewish country, named Israel. Israel eventually won that war.[/quote]



chopeth said:


> Palestine is becoming smaller and smaller (*what are you referring to as "palestine" here?*) . Israel is a country that never obeys the sentences of the international courts, which mocks at the internatinal laws and that has legalized tortures to their prisoners. What gives them the right to do so? The Bible? the prosecution of the jewish people? The United States?


I'll be happy if you could be clearer as to which international law are you referring to, so I (or anyone else) could answer to that more clearly. As to the torture- what on earth are you talking about? I find it amusing in some way, as one of the most common arguments here in Israel is how come terrorists (most of them palestinians) get such comfortable conditions in jail, televisions, frequent family visits, the ability to study for a degree for free- and we are talking about people who murdered other people, sometimes whole families. So yeah, what torture? 



chopeth said:


> Israel has the most advanced and sofisticated army in the world doesn't kill for error, they kill for horror. Civil victims are called collateral damage. In Gaza every three out of ten "collateral damages" are children. Dangerous potential terrorists, some say. 100 Palestinian lives in return for an Israeli.


The IDF has absolutely no reason to kill civilians. several air strikes were cancelled due to civilians being too close to the targets. I have also mentioned before that the IDF is taking extreme measures to try and prevent civilians from getting killed- such as calling them and asking them to evacuate, dropping small bombs that act as a warning sign that the building is about to be demolished, and so on and so forth. 
And no one is calling children "potential terrorists". If they do- trust me, they are simply radicals, and as such, say idiotic stuff like that. 



chopeth said:


> It is a defensive war, I've also heard. No, it's not. It is an agressive war. Every war is claimed to be defensive at some point. Hitler invaded Poland to avoid Poland invaded Germany. Bush invaded Irak to avoid Irak invaded the world, and so on.
> 
> The worlds hypocresy shines again before the tragedy of Gaza. Indifference, empty speeches, hollow statements. The Arab countries wash their hands. The European countries rub their hands (if you understand the idiomatic expression in English). Shame on those who make possible this genocide, Shame on those who look the other way, Shame on those who justify it. Shame, yes.


Yes, that is a defensive war. Do you have any other ideas on how to stop Hamas from shooting missiles at us? I don't really think asking nicely will do it. 
Just this morning, a truce was offered. Israel stopped bombing Gaza for 5 hours, while Hamas completely ignored the truce and kept firing. And we're the aggressive ones?

War? yes, there's a war going on. Genocide? Hardly.


----------



## RustInPeace

I talk about this subject almost daily with my co-worker. He is Russian and lived in Isreal for 9 years, now living here in Canada. His wife is in Tel Aviv right now. Heres what I understand:

- This current situation started when some Palestine's kidnapped and murdered 3 Israeli kids. Some Israeli's then kidnapped and murdered 1 Palestine kid in retaliation. Hamas then started launching rockets at civilian targets in Israel. Rocket attacks happen very often, with these terrorist groups firing 4-5 rockets per month at Israel, none of which really make the news because of Israels defence system. This number jumped to over 200 in a day or two. 

- Israel is tired of this shit, so time to bomb the .... outta these terrorists. It is a tough decision, and I wonder how other countries in the same position would respond?

- Hamas is an Islamic terrorist organization. It is not a reflection of all of Palestine.

- Israel tries very hard to limit civilian casualties. They phone ahead of time to warn civilians of incoming attacks on nearby buildings. Its impossible to avoid though when the people launching rockets at you are standing behind civilians.

- Israel is much more advanced in terms of military power and equipment, with their missile defence system shooting down 90% of incoming rockets.

- Hamas has tried to launch rockets at a nuclear power plant. Completely insane.

- Israel has attempted a cease fire as early as last night, but Hamas insists on continuing to launch rockets.

IMO, Israel is just trying to defend itself, and there comes a time when enough is enough. But I fear that if they do take this group out, another will just replace it. 

Someone mentioned earlier how Israel has all the running water, electricity, etc. and neighboring countries dont, and they are mad because of it. Why? Why dont they spend the money and resources to make thier lives and country better instead of being jealous and violent?


----------



## Randy

RustInPeace said:


> Why dont they spend the money and resources to make thier lives and country better instead of being jealous and violent?



Define "they".

Hamas is a terrorist organization that use civilians as human shields. That part is accurate. What's missing in your assessment would be the fact that there are NON-militant, NON-aggressive civilians living in Palestine that are so impoverished or weighed down by violence, they don't have the economic mobility to leave or invest in anything. 

Minus some fringe crazies, as far as I've seen, most people have been arguing that it's unfair for these impoverished people to have their homes, churches, businesses shelled indiscriminately. That's not to say Israels doesn't have reason to defend itself, but to chaulk Palestine up as all either Hamas or Hamas sympathizers that are just 'allowing this to happen' is tone deaf.


----------



## wannabguitarist

How do we know that picture is actually people watching bombs fall on Gaza? That could be a picture of people sitting on the hill down my street


----------



## RustInPeace

Randy said:


> Define "they".
> 
> Hamas is a terrorist organization that use civilians as human shields. That part is accurate. What's missing in your assessment would be the fact that there are NON-militant, NON-aggressive civilians living in Palestine that are so impoverished or weighed down by violence, they don't have the economic mobility to leave or invest in anything.
> 
> Minus some fringe crazies, as far as I've seen, most people have been arguing that it's unfair for these impoverished people to have their homes, churches, businesses shelled indiscriminately. That's not to say Israels doesn't have reason to defend itself, but to chaulk Palestine up as all either Hamas or Hamas sympathizers that are just 'allowing this to happen' is tone deaf.



Would you think these people are easily swayed by groups like Hamas telling them that they are fighting for them? Fighting to improve their lives? I would guess that they would have at least a small population that is behind them. And even with Palestines leader calling them out...


----------



## Randy

RustInPeace said:


> Would you think these people are easily swayed by groups like Hamas telling them that they are fighting for them? Fighting to improve their lives? I would guess that they would have at least a small population that is behind them. And even with Palestines leader calling them out...



Yeah, and...? You said it yourself, "at least a small population", which I'd conceit is likely/possible but that doesn't equate 'all' or 'most', yet 'all' or 'most' of Palestinians are those who suffer the effects of what's going on there.

With bombs and missiles going off every second, I doubt Joe Schmo Palestinian is sitting around watching their landline phone (which, considering the poverty there, they likely don't even have) for a phone call from Israel telling them to leave; and even if they get that phone call, it's given with how much notice and they're expected to go where?

The place is an impoverished war zone full with, at a minimum, a number of people who don't want any part of it but have literally no option but to stay. Israel has advanced enough of a military that they have means of tending to these kind of attacks without wholesale bombing.


----------



## chopeth

wannabguitarist said:


> How do we know that picture is actually people watching bombs fall on Gaza? That could be a picture of people sitting on the hill down my street



It was confirmed by Al-jazeera


----------



## RustInPeace

Randy said:


> Yeah, and...? You said it yourself, "at least a small population", which I'd conceit is likely/possible but that doesn't equate 'all' or 'most', yet 'all' or 'most' of Palestinians are those who suffer the effects of what's going on there.
> 
> With bombs and missiles going off every second, I doubt Joe Schmo Palestinian is sitting around watching their landline phone (which, considering the poverty there, they likely don't even have) for a phone call from Israel telling them to leave; and even if they get that phone call, it's given with how much notice and they're expected to go where?
> 
> The place is an impoverished war zone full with, at a minimum, a number of people who don't want any part of it but have literally no option but to stay. Israel has advanced enough of a military that they have means of tending to these kind of attacks without wholesale bombing.



I wonder if and why there isnt enough Joe Schmo Pal's sitting around thinking "This is bullshit" and organize their own militant group to fight the Hamas themselfs?


----------



## Randy

That's a good point. If they exist, I definitely haven't heard of them.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate

Why cant they each stay on their own sides of the border and cut the shit ?


----------



## aaaaaaaa

Let's bomb a 10000 times stronger country that already killed many of our civilians in the past counter attacks


and then..


Cry to the media that we got 300 dead people compared to very few in Israel



This sums up the whole situation, Hamas will never gain anything good for it's people (unless you believe that 72 virgin bullshit story)


----------



## aaaaaaaa

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Why cant they each stay on their own sides of the border and cut the shit ?




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH8RL2XRr48

Many Muslims don't really like the Jews as their religion tells them 

In fact they slaughters many Jews who lived in Arab/Muslim countries, and made them escape to Israel.. Ironic huh?

Quran quote:



> The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.


There are tons of many other quotes/aggressions


----------



## aaaaaaaa

Crabface said:


> That is quite frankly the worst, most biased explanation i have ever seen, and many of the things said are simply not true.
> There was no palestinian state before the establishment of israel. It was only a location on the map. Israel was legally established via a vote in the UN, and then the arabs - who disagreed with the LEGAL DECISION - attacked israel, and lost. although at the beginning many arabs were driven out of their homes - understandably due to the fighting - israeli arabs nowadays have equal rights to anyone else in israel and live in peace with them. I invite anyone to come to israel and speak to an Israeli-arab or bedouin and ask whether they would prefer leadership under the hamas or the israeli government (Which btw, is more democratic and less corrupt than the majority of countries in europe, based of the Global Democracy and Corruption Indexes).
> They would prefer to live under the israeli government 100% of the time.




Never even claimed the co-operation of the arabs with nazis, trying to poison jews in Israel(atlas operation), Slaughtering jews in arab/muslim countries so they actually escaped to Israel

Inherent antisemitism in Islam etc..

Hell! their biggest Palestinian leader actually met with Hitler and the Nazis took him to a PERSONAL TOUR in the EXTERMINATION CAMPS

That's the agenda of their leaders.. they name Schools/streets/squares after suicide bombers who killed dozens of Jewish citizens

The major Palestinian population actually voted for Hamas in 2006

BTW arabs can't even say "Palestine" because P doesn't exist in their language, It's truly can't be their native nationality, they say "Falestin"

In fact they started to refer themselves as "Palestinians" just after Israel won the war, before that, their were just the sons of Arab immigrants


----------



## flexkill

aaaaaaaa said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH8RL2XRr48
> 
> Many Muslims don't really like the Jews as their religion tells them
> 
> In fact they slaughters many Jews who lived in Arab/Muslim countries, and made them escape to Israel.. Ironic huh?
> 
> Quran quote:The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.
> 
> There are tons of many other quotes/aggressions





^^^^

Facking religion! When will we learn?


----------



## aaaaaaaa

flexkill said:


> ^^^^
> 
> Facking religion! When will we learn?



It's extremely hard un-brainwash a religious person 

I guess NEVER


----------



## Crabface

OP, im aware this isnt your intention, but calling this genocide is quite frankly just offensive. You are SO off with that assumption that its funny.

Israel want peace, proven by the fact that they just accepted a treaty today, whilst the hamas - who are in no reasonable position to reject a ceasefire - actually rejected nonetheless.
The fact that some people are actually defending the hamas is ridiculous.
Again, israel are not fighting a war against the gazan citizens, they are fighting against a terrorist organisation called the hamas who use these civilians as human shields. Unfortunately the citizens feel the consequences, but thats war, and its awful.


----------



## Govan Emmanuel

flexkill said:


> ^^^^
> 
> Facking religion! When will we learn?



Both sides have religion backing them in their fight and both sides believe they are right.


----------



## chopeth

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have brought up this topic, group conflicts, especially when they are so rooted, are terribly difficult to deal with, and it is necessary to make a huge effort by both parts. Even after that, conciliation isn't granted. I have nothing about Israel people, but against its politics, though I must confess the pics and a few more that came out today, made me angry. I have nothing against Jewish people. In fact, judging my looks, one of my surnames and origin, there's probably plenty of jewish blood running through my veins, probably muslim too.

Anyway, I should have limited myself to speak about guitars and less controversial stuff, I don't want to make you mates argue, nor attract trolls or whatever to heat this topic up. I'll try to be more careful only giving my opinion about 7string usual stuff to not to hurt anyone's feelings.


----------



## Skyblue

chopeth said:


> I'm sorry, I shouldn't have brought up this topic, group conflicts, especially when they are so rooted, are terribly difficult to deal with, and it is necessary to make a huge effort by both parts. Even after that, conciliation isn't granted. I have nothing about Israel people, but against its politics, though I must confess the pics and a few more that came out today, made me angry. I have nothing against Jewish people. In fact, judging my looks, one of my surnames and origin, there's probably plenty of jewish blood running through my veins, probably muslim too.
> 
> Anyway, I should have limited myself to speak about guitars and less controversial stuff, I don't want to make you mates argue, nor attract trolls or whatever to heat this topic up. I'll try to be more careful only giving my opinion about 7string usual stuff to not to hurt anyone's feelings.



No reason to limit yourself to talking about guitars. It's a fair discussion, and no feelings were hurt  you're completely entitled to your own opinion, to express it, and to discuss current matters with all of us. Don't worry about it 
I think the only problem people had is with the use of the word "genocide", which doesn't fit the case here. that's all. aside for that- it's all a fair discussion.


----------



## asher

Some food for thought:
The Two-State Solution is a dead parrot » Balloon Juice


----------



## Crabface

Skyblue said:


> No reason to limit yourself to talking about guitars. It's a fair discussion, and no feelings were hurt  you're completely entitled to your own opinion, to express it, and to discuss current matters with all of us. Don't worry about it
> I think the only problem people had is with the use of the word "genocide", which doesn't fit the case here. that's all. aside for that- it's all a fair discussion.



This. Its all fair discussion. Just the use of the term genocide is out of context and unfair.


----------



## SD83

I actually found this thread rather fascinating (and that is one thing I love about this board  ) because I know no other place where I can have a fair discussion about topics like this with people from literally all over the world, including some who are actually from the place we're talking about. Sadly, there seems to be no member from Palestine around, but I found it quite cool to hear (read) the opinion of people who live in Israel as opposed to that of politicans or professional journalists.


----------



## Randy

Heard this mentioned on the radio yesterday. It's... odd.

Duckfaces and Death to Arabs: Israeli Teens Call for Ethnic Cleansing


----------



## viesczy

Correct me if I'm wrong, the original attacks against Palestine were in retaliation for the killed jewish teenagers... ones that were actually killed by fellow jews. 

Since its fight for independence, which was a terror campaign, to the present, Israel has proven itself to be one of the most ruthless and racist countries on the planet. Any attempt to call them out on that ends with you being labelled anti-Semitic and then bringing up WWII.

Derek


----------



## Skyblue

viesczy said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, the original attacks against Palestine were in retaliation for the killed jewish teenagers... ones that were actually killed by fellow jews.
> 
> Since its fight for independence, which was a terror campaign, to the present, Israel has proven itself to be one of the most ruthless and racist countries on the planet. Any attempt to call them out on that ends with you being labelled anti-Semitic and then bringing up WWII.
> 
> Derek


Allow me to correct you there- the 3 teenagers were murdered by palestinian terrorists. I am not sure how affiliated they were with Hamas, if at all (I'm pretty sure they are though) but Hamas publicly sent his blessing to the murders, praising them for the act. 

As for Israel being racist- how is Israel racist exactly? There are many arabs living in Israel, having the exact same rights as I do, so you can't tell me we're racist against arabs (kinda funny in itself as we're kinda from the same race, if I'm not mistaken, but I digress). You can claim we're acting wrong in Gaza, but I don't think racism is the point here.

@Randy: I completely agree that is completely disgusting. such hateful comments should never be made, and I had countless arguments with people here about making such comments. you always see a spike in that kind of talk on social networks during wars (which makes sense, in a way) but it's never justified. The Israeli people, as a whole, aren't free from racism and hate- but that's no different from many other places in the world. it might be more noticeable around here, but I believe it comes from the conflicts, which by itself stirs up a lot of hate, which finds it's way into the minds of the younger generations. 
As for the duckfaces, I'm as clueless as the rest of you.


----------



## Crabface

Randy said:


> Heard this mentioned on the radio yesterday. It's... odd.
> 
> Duckfaces and Death to Arabs: Israeli Teens Call for Ethnic Cleansing



This is disgusting and quite frankly embarrassing. That said, it has to be understood that this is a tiny minority of israel and you have idiots everywhere in every country. This only represents israel to the same extent that the KKK represents america... as in it doesnt. Its a tiny minority of ignorant halfwits which unfortunately are around in every cluntry in the world, not only israel.


----------



## Xaios

Indeed. Reminds me of how a bunch of people went "Payback for Pearl Harbor, bitches" on social media after the tsunami in Japan. There are idiots the world over.


----------



## RustInPeace

Heres the thing - the Hamas are that group of people who are the tiny minority of ignorant halfwits who are also willing to launch rockets at people. Imagine if a group in the states had the balls to do something like that? It would be chaos.


----------



## Explorer

What's the current score on ceasefire honoring between Israel and Hamas in this current situation? 

If Hamas' score is higher, that would support the "genocide" accusation, with Israel seemingly desirous of continued fighting. 

If Israel's score of honoring them is higher, that would toss out the "genocide" accusation, with Hamas seemingly desirous of continued fighting. 

If that second situation is the case, how does the OP explain why the supposed bad guys, the Israelis, are being honorable, and that Hamas just wants to goad them into more fighting?

And, given the statement that "All Israelis are targets," combined with Israel using various means to warn Palestinians of where strikes will fall, would this count as a radical new (if extremely confusing) definition of "genocide?"


----------



## Randy

Explorer said:


> "All Israelis are targets,"



According to Hamas, which is universally considered a terrorist organization.

Warning or not, the volume of civilian deaths in pretty much every offensive on Palestine seem _almost_ imply the democratic nation (aka, not a terrorist organization) is taking the same tact. 

I'm still very skeptical of how concerted the efforts to warn civilians to escape are. Lest we forget how ineffective the 'warnings to get out' were in our own country during Katrina (particularly in poor neighborhoods). Are we to assume a phone call to somebody's house seconds before a bomb being dropped on the place is warning enough? Are we to assume that all people who live in said homes were actually contacted? Are we to assume that all Israeli missiles only hit their intended targets, and when those targets are hit, no rubble/shrapnel fly in the path of bystanders or cause other buildings to collapse?


----------



## SD83

Randy said:


> According to Hamas, which is universally considered a terrorist organization.
> 
> Warning or not, the volume of civilian deaths in pretty much every offensive on Palestine seem _almost_ imply the democratic nation (aka, not a terrorist organization) is taking the same tact.
> 
> I'm still very skeptical of how concerted the efforts to warn civilians to escape are. Lest we forget how ineffective the 'warnings to get out' were in our own country during Katrina (particularly in poor neighborhoods). Are we to assume a phone call to somebody's house seconds before a bomb being dropped on the place is warning enough? Are we to assume that all people who live in said homes were actually contacted? Are we to assume that all Israeli missiles only hit their intended targets, and when those targets are hit, no rubble/shrapnel fly in the path of bystanders or cause other buildings to collapse?



And let's not forget that Gaza is densly populated. Population density across the entire area is about the same as in London/slightly lower than that of San Francisco or Tokio. To me, that sounds like it would be almost impossible, even with warning, to clear the area of civilians within a couple of hours. Even here in Germany where WW II bombs are found all the time, it takes hours to evacuate parts of the cities for disarming. And that is with hundreds of policemen involved. 
Plus, if you give them hours of time ahead, what is the point of destroying a building? Because obviously, if the civilians have time to evacuate, the terrorists have, too. With my limited understanding of war machinery, the most effective solution seems to be to have tons of artillery on the border and as soon as a rocket is fired, the area where it was fired gets destroyed. Obviously, not possible...


----------



## Crabface

SD83 said:


> And let's not forget that Gaza is densly populated. Population density across the entire area is about the same as in London/slightly lower than that of San Francisco or Tokio. To me, that sounds like it would be almost impossible, even with warning, to clear the area of civilians within a couple of hours. Even here in Germany where WW II bombs are found all the time, it takes hours to evacuate parts of the cities for disarming. And that is with hundreds of policemen involved.
> Plus, if you give them hours of time ahead, what is the point of destroying a building? Because obviously, if the civilians have time to evacuate, the terrorists have, too. With my limited understanding of war machinery, the most effective solution seems to be to have tons of artillery on the border and as soon as a rocket is fired, the area where it was fired gets destroyed. Obviously, not possible...



The problem with that idea is that there isnt really any way to know exactly where the rockets are being fired from at the exact moment.

Also, i believe that without the israeli intelligence do8ng what they do to determine where to fire the missiles there would be far more deaths. The dense population is something noone can help and will always be a main factor in the number of people being killed, but there isnt much israel can actually do about that. If anything its the hamas' fault as they set up in densely populated areas and use the civilians as human shields.
The only other option for israel would be to enter on a ground operation, which would likely cause just as many deaths and also risk far more israeli deaths.


----------



## Randy

Crabface said:


> which would likely cause just as many deaths



In all my life, I've never seen anything that would reinforce that idea. Carry to expand on that?

Anyway, the fact there's 'not a perfect solution' isn't much of a justification to keep using the same tactics, especially when you're talking about the lives of innocent people. Other than the notion that Israel's current approach is 'inefficient' because of the number of civilian deaths, it also hasn't done a whole lot to slow/stop the Hamas rocket attacks either. 

Seems like their only solution is to keep bombarding Palestine with explosives until they don't see any more rockets, which could be a result of killing off all of Hamas and could also be a result of killing off all of.... well, everybody. In that respect, while I think it's a stretch, the word 'genocide' does start to have some traction.


----------



## SD83

Randy said:


> In all my life, I've never seen anything that would reinforce that idea. Carry to expand on that?



Wouldn't that mean urban warfare against an enemy that is pretty much indistinguishable from civilians as soon as they put their guns away & does not even intend to win? Because, even the most stupid fanantics in Hamas must realize that they will never win. It's like they don't even have a goal. They just fight Israel for the sake of fighting it


----------



## Randy

My purpose of that post wasn't to imply anything with regard to an armed occupation. 

Crabface said "which would likely cause just as many deaths and also risk far more israeli deaths", where "Israeli deaths" is clearly defined so I'm assuming "just as many deaths" was referring to Palestinian casualties. I specifically wanted him to clarify the context in which ground combat yields just as many civilian casualties as missile strikes, because I personally find THAT part of his statement to be baseless with regard to my personal observations.

As to your point (SD83), I agree with you. I don't think an armed occupation is the best, nor the only other option.


----------



## Bucks

what kind of world do we live in, where I can log into a news website and watch live as Gaza is destroyed..again. 

I'm a Jew, ethnically through my father. I don't identify with being Jewish at all and don't have any affinity to Israel. But through secular law I have a "right to return" to an area of land that ancestors of mine probably never lived in 1500 years old... it's complete madness. 
I say probably never, because it has been discovered that most ashkenazi's have no connection to Palestine what so ever, they converted in Europe around 800ad, unlike Mizrahi's who had lived with Arabs forever . 

Norman Finkelstein said once, Gaza is as much military threat to Israel as Luxembourg was to the soviet union. Israel wont stop until they have all of Palestine.

Hamas, Hezbollah, the PFLP etc., are not terrorists.


----------



## Explorer

Bucks said:


> Israel wont stop until they have all of Palestine.
> 
> Hamas, Hezbollah, the PFLP etc., are not terrorists.



I'm going to take you at your word that those groups aren't terrorist organizations. 

At what point will Hamas stop with the constant rocket bombardment of Israel, and of doing so from populated areas in order to employ those civilians as human shields?


----------



## Crabface

Randy said:


> My purpose of that post wasn't to imply anything with regard to an armed occupation.
> 
> Crabface said "which would likely cause just as many deaths and also risk far more israeli deaths", where "Israeli deaths" is clearly defined so I'm assuming "just as many deaths" was referring to Palestinian casualties. I specifically wanted him to clarify the context in which ground combat yields just as many civilian casualties as missile strikes, because I personally find THAT part of his statement to be baseless with regard to my personal observations.
> 
> As to your point (SD83), I agree with you. I don't think an armed occupation is the best, nor the only other option.



Sorry. Misunderstanding there. I meant deaths on both sides, and then emphasised israeli deaths because obviously a country is obviously gonna try to preserve tgeir own lives before they think about the others.

I agree that the tactics dont seem to be working as efficiently as we'd hope but there arent really many other options.


----------



## Crabface

Bucks said:


> what kind of world do we live in, where I can log into a news website and watch live as Gaza is destroyed..again.
> 
> I'm a Jew, ethnically through my father. I don't identify with being Jewish at all and don't have any affinity to Israel. But through secular law I have a "right to return" to an area of land that ancestors of mine probably never lived in 1500 years old... it's complete madness.
> I say probably never, because it has been discovered that most ashkenazi's have no connection to Palestine what so ever, they converted in Europe around 800ad, unlike Mizrahi's who had lived with Arabs forever .
> 
> Norman Finkelstein said once, Gaza is as much military threat to Israel as Luxembourg was to the soviet union. Israel wont stop until they have all of Palestine.
> 
> Hamas, Hezbollah, the PFLP etc., are not terrorists.



Really? They are just as much of a terrorist group as the taliban. The fact that they dont cause much of a threat agaonst israel doesnt take away from.the fact that theyre a terrorist group.
Is a suicide bomber whos bomb doesnt go off not a terrorist? Of course he is.

And the Hezbollah? Check your sources please, because there cannot even be a remote argument that they are not a terrorist group. They are literally a hate group. During the lebanon wars they werent even cooperating with the lebanese government. They are 100% terrorist.

This would all end far quicker if the hamas had any desire of self preservation or desire to protect their civilians. They dont though, instead they use them as human shields and, despjte their awful predicament, they still feel as if theyre in a position to negotiate and reject a truce.


Earlier someone also mentioned keeping a tally to see who was more at fault here. What i can say is that israel have two long standing treaties with egypt and jordan that have gone unbreached since they were signed, whereas they have signed six agreements with the hamas, all of which were quickly breached by the hamas as soon as they thought it would be advantageous to them.

Let me give an example of the situation.
Lets say that the KKK got hold of rocket launchers and set up camp in the middle of an innocent white neighborhood, on the border of a completely black neighborhood, amd they started firing missiles at the black people. Whether they are succesful or not isnt even part of the equation, its also the hateful intention. What would The black neighbourhood be able to do except for return fire? Obviously noone from the outside is intervening, because whilst the blacks are getting plenty of resources from africa - the nearby white sherriff also want the blacks to die and is secretly providing for the KKK.


----------



## Skyblue

Currently, by the way, a ground operation has started in Gaza. It's main target, as of now- prevent the use of terror tunnels- what are those, you ask? well, those are tunnels dug by the Hamas, usually from inside civilian houses inside Gaza, all the way into Israeli territory. They are used as a method to infiltrate Israel and preform terrorist attacks. just yesterday, thanks to the IDF's intelligence, we discovered such a tunnel, and we we're able to destroy it, just as 13 terrorists we're trying to get out of it. we have found numerous guns, rockets, and other ammunition carried by those terrosists. it is still unclear whether they were planning an attack, or a kidnapping operation. 

The tunnels, as you can see if you'll search them quickly online, are all concrete reinforced, and well made. You guys tell me why isn't all that concrete used to build shelters for citizens. Why, instead of keeping their own people safe, they prefer to work their asses off (those tunnels won't build themselves) to try and come up with new ways to kill us.


----------



## Gamsl

Skyblue said:


> Also, I'd find it quite hard to call what's going on "genocide". The IDF goes as far as *calling people on the phone and letting them know they are about to shoot their house (if, of course, they have a reason to do so) so they'll have time to run away*.



I do understand your point about genocide. Statistically over a time frame the deaths do not reach the levels comparative to genocides perpetuated elsewhere. Nor does it compare to those of Leopold II in Congo, Hitler in Europe, the numerous genocides of indigenous peoples by settlers or any other genocides this sad world has seen. A mere read at the wikipedia page for genocides in history will give you a definite perspective in how controversial its use is. Often times its the side that has no traction to argue against its use, either due to the sheer heinousness of their crimes or the lack of traction their people or organization have with the world, is when it is firmly established as a genocide. 

I believe this quote by Stafford Poole, a research historian, about the colonization of South America really shows something really valid about such discussions: "There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them. It is a good propaganda term in an age where slogans and shouting have replaced reflection and learning, but to use it in this context is to cheapen both the word itself and the appalling experiences of the Jews and Armenians, to mention but two of the major victims of this century." On the other hand one could say comparisons are meaningless to loss of human life

With regards to its appropriateness for this conflict. Its more than that. This conflict didn't start from a single root cause, its an amalgamation of many many things over the course of human history. Atleast that's what I think. Hamas are aggressors that put the people at risk. But they will gather more people that can't accept the gargantuan difference in power between the aggressors and supposed victims. Every missile they attack with, a thousand can be sent towards the Palestines. A point will come where its not about principles or religion. It'll just be about revenge. Perspective does little to save the innocents that die. Warnings don't help the people that lose their homes and entire livelihoods. I wouldn't know what to do if someone told me my house will get destroyed because terrorist live next door. It just makes me so sad that this has to happen. Humanity has done more things like this and more will happen. Its just depressing. 

Its refreshing to see a two sided conversation going on about this matter


----------



## SD83

Crabface said:


> This would all end far quicker if the hamas had any desire of self preservation or desire to protect their civilians. They dont though, instead they use them as human shields and, despjte their awful predicament, they still feel as if theyre in a position to negotiate and reject a truce.



This!  They know that, in their current position, all they do for "their people" is cause harm. 
Since we have people from Israel here, maybe not exactly now in this stage of the conflict, but, lets say before the current escalation, how was the cooperation between Israel and Palestine, if there was any? Roads, electricty, education, flowing water... damn, all of a sudden Monty Python pop up in my head... "What have the Romans ever done for us?" Have the Israelis ever done anything for the Palestineans? I'm asking because I really don't know. I have not read or heard about it, but looking at how biased the media is, that does not necessarily mean anything.


----------



## Bucks

The real catastrophe here is the effect this all has on the children - Iraseli and Palestinian. 

No hope for the future.

[YOUTUBEvid]fX3E9FcWN7s[/YOUTUBEvid]


----------



## necronile

Bucks said:


> The real catastrophe here is the effect this all has on the children - Iraseli and Palestinian.
> 
> No hope for the future.
> 
> [YOUTUBEvid]fX3E9FcWN7s[/YOUTUBEvid]



When I was at their age I thought it was all cool also.
Now I'm serving in the IDF and my whole perspective is way more different than what it used to be.
Even though I'm not a combatant, when I do get to hold a rifle I really hope not to get into a situation where I need to use it.
Also I dont recall being taught in school to hate muslims and chant songs about it.


----------



## Bucks

necronile said:


> When I was at their age I thought it was all cool also.
> Now I'm serving in the IDF and my whole perspective is way more different than what it used to be.
> Even though I'm not a combatant, when I do get to hold a rifle I really hope not to get into a situation where I need to use it.
> Also I dont recall being taught in school to hate muslims and chant songs about it.



I know what you are trying to say.

But there is a difference between thinking an F-16 is cool to expressing the sentiment that you are "happy" because you've killed Arabs.

The children in the video are clearly suffering from some pretty severe psychological damage, just as many of the Palestinian children are.

However, I suspect the cause for the overwhelming majority of the Israeli children's problems is through indoctrination. Where as Palestinian children's' is through the trauma of experiencing their school/home/mother/father etc., blown up.


----------



## Explorer

If I recall at least two sources, the use of terror tunnels led to the IDF thinking those kids on the beach were another such group. 

Would that be another example of Hamas using civilians ans their behavior as camouflage?

----

I actually have a big question, and I'm interested in hearing the reasoning from the other side.

I know that some here feel that Israel is in the wrong for the counterattacks, including the OP. 

To them, I ask: If Hamas had more weapons and was being constantly provoked by Israel... would Hamas offer a ceasefire?

Your honest answer will illuminate the main core of the problem. 

Israel has offered and honored ceasefires multiple times, in spite of the history between itself and terrorist organizations like Hamas. They've done so when in a position of strength, being willing to eschew the advantage of that strength. 

If Hamas had the upper hand, would they be merciful to Israel?

I look forward to reading your responses and reasoning!


----------



## flint757

My only problem with it is that Israel is able to avoid injury from the 'bombardment' thanks to their defenses, whereas the people in Gaza cannot. In doing so they are killing innocent people. Yes, Hamas is guilty in that regard for setting up shop there to use them as human shields, but that fact doesn't completely rid those in charge in Israel of guilt nor excuse the murder of many innocent civilians. It isn't that black and white. 

That will be my only input on the subject because I'm not fully informed of the situation nor do I fully comprehend what it might be like to live in either nation. I'm perfectly content with individuals defending themselves, and nations if need be, but as a rule I'm very much against war and sweeping actions for this very reason. While fighting back may be the only option there is truth in the phrase 'violence begets violence'.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood

aaaaaaaa said:


> Quran quote:
> 
> Quote:
> The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.
> There are tons of many other quotes/aggressions



You are posting incorrect information. You will not find this statement anywhere in the Quran. This is from the Hadith. Specifically Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Fitan wa Ashrat as-Sa'ah, Book 41, 6985 

There are many strange Hadith including drinking camel's urine and performing cunnilingus on menstruating women just to name a few. However, none of them are in the Quran and the Quran says that is is a complete book with nothing left out and that everything else besides the Quran is B.S. so that means that all Hadith are lies and go against the Quran.

On the other hand, here is the real information from both the Quran and the Bible regarding who may dwell in the Holy Land and under what conditions.

Quran

[17:104] And we said to the Children of Israel afterwards, "Go live into this land. When the final prophecy comes to pass, we will summon you all in one group."

[5:20] Recall that Moses said to his people, "O my people, remember GOD's blessings upon you: He appointed prophets from among you, made you kings, and granted you what He never granted any other people. 
[5:21] "O my people, enter the holy land that GOD has decreed for you, and do not rebel, lest you become losers."

Bible


Ezekiel 47:21-23

21 So you shall divide this land among you according to the tribes of Israel. 22You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who reside among you and have begotten children among you. They shall be to you as citizens of Israel; with you they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. 23In whatever tribe aliens reside, there you shall assign them their inheritance, says the Lord God.

So, as you can see both the Quran and the Bible tells everyone to get along and live and let live basically. Most people don't understand but around 90% of the Quran is nothing more than a confirmation of the previous scriptures. In fact, Moses is mentioned 136 times, Jesus 25 times and Muhammad only 5 times.

List of Quranic people mentioned by name - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## necronile

Bucks said:


> I know what you are trying to say.
> 
> But there is a difference between thinking an F-16 is cool to expressing the sentiment that you are "happy" because you've killed Arabs.
> 
> The children in the video are clearly suffering from some pretty severe psychological damage, just as many of the Palestinian children are.
> 
> However, I suspect the cause for the overwhelming majority of the Israeli children's problems is through indoctrination. Where as Palestinian children's' is through the trauma of experiencing their school/home/mother/father etc., blown up.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkNE__TiMZo

I cant see how this is not indoctrination.
When I watched local Israeli channels on TV when I was younger I never experienced something like this.
But I do agree with you that part of the problem with Palestinian children is trauma due to the situation they grow up in.


----------



## DocBach

Those genocidal, evil Israelis just agreed to a two hour cease fire to help evacuate and treat wounded Palestinians. 

Who wants to bet Hamas shoots rockets at civilian centers despite the cease fire?


----------



## Xaios

necronile said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkNE__TiMZo


----------



## Quitty

I try to keep out of these discussions for the simple fact that nothing i say will be taken as unbiased opinion. Rightly so, i guess.
I do, however, believe in sternly judging your own country. I don't like hateful people, regardless of who's side they're on.

That said, you should understand how biased your media is before you take sides.
I won't say my media consumption isn't contaminated, but there are things you can't hide here that you most certainly can in a Fox news broadcast.
I can't be objective, but i'm not Jewish-biased either. I didn't vote for this government, but i spent a couple of years in the Gaza strip as a soldier and as a civilian. Take it or leave it.

This is going to be long, so i'll put this in two separate posts. If you're interested in the history backdrop, the next post if for you.

As for the current fight, Hamas is going through some very rough times, financially. Support from Egypt has stopped almost completely because Egypt hasn't got a lot to spare. 
All that nonsense about 'no clean water or electricity in the Gaza strip' is so false i don't know how they managed to shove it this far down the media's throat.
They have clean water. They have electricity. They have sewers.
They have jobs, a big industrial center, a UN-operated hospital and 8 public schools.
I wouldn't build my summerhouse there, but it most certainly is live-able.
They do have a severe shortage of construction materials, because the Israeli government believes they use it to build tunnels to smuggle ammunition and launch missiles out of. Normally i'd tell you to take anything the Israeli government throws at you with a grain of salt, but it turns out they were right.

However, seeing as Hamas is spending so much resources on... Stuff, it hasn't been paying its electrical bills, water bills, sewer bills etc. for a while now - all of which come from Israel, so now Israel is withholding the tax money it collects for them.
No money? no salaries. No salaries? no PR. These are the facts. Rumor has it that Hamas has been growing weaker, politically, so it joined up with the PLO to have some extra Iranian financial support, but that didn't work out too well either, so they go to war.
Every political switch in the Gaza strip is always followed by missiles fired at Israel because extremists vote and 'general populace' doesn't, especially when all you can vote for is terrorist organizations (see the next post for why i presume to label them that way).

Israel isn't a nice country, not even a fair one, but you can't fault them for anything in this war. Yet.

This war is about getting political and financial support from fundamentalist Islamists. The Hamas, being a terror organization, will not stay in power if he does not fight Israel.
In fact, it has no right to exist if it doesn't try and kill Jews.
They have been given two ceasefires as of now - given as in, Israel stopped attacking. Both times, they broke the ceasefire. 
The first time Israeli forces just stood there like morons and waited for it to stop, because we're in a ceasefire.

I feel for the civilians of the Gaza strip, but if they don't overthrow the terrorists they have for a government, this war won't be the last.


----------



## Quitty

As for the land, this was a British colony and there was no such thing as a Palestinian 'people' back when it was signed off to the Zionist movement some 65 years ago. The Brits didn't really care who's land this was, so long as it wasn't theirs.
They tried dividing it into Jewish and Arab sections, the Zionist movement accepted, the Arabs didn't, and so the British handed the land to whoever would deal with them - that being the Jews - and so it came about that many Arabs were suddenly Israeli. Bummer for them, but it worked out well for 20 years.

Then, back in the sixties, some Islamist fundamentalists orchestrated a religious war between the Israeli Arabs and Jewish ones when they realized that having jews stuck in the middle of the largest Arab contingency is bad for business. The 'Palestinians', as we know them, are those who fought the Jews in that war.
They lost, and were allowed to retreat to where Arab populace was already abundant - that's the 67' armistice lines, you might have heard of those.
These lands weren't Israeli by any means, but they certainly weren't Palestinian either. They were a British oversight.

For the next 30 years the now self-proclaimed 'Palestinians' complained that they were being held in ghetto-like conditions and not allowed to settle in the rest of Israel. That's the beginning of the public, international fiasco. Some of that was true. Some was BS. 
Surprisingly, the BS worked better than the truth. If there's one thing the Palestinians are really bloody good at it's tilting public opinion. I won't go into detail, but you haven't seen biased media until you've seen photoshopped picss of yourself beating women and children.

One day, they decided they want an official country, and being the Spartan, religious, semi-fascist assholes that we are, the Israeli government said 'no'.
So, they established the Palestinian authority, and that one was taken over by a bunch of terrorist organisations one after the other - 
usually when one gets too violent, Israel kills its leaders and allows a different one to take over.
If the Israeli government sounds like assholes, it's because we are. Do bear in mind, though, that the term 'terrorist organizations' isn't just thrown around for fun.
There are innocent civilians in Gaza, no doubt about it, but their leadership is a different matter altogether.
The current government, for example, is Hamas. Hamas charter has some lovely gems;
"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors", or
"Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims. &#8220;Let the eyes of the cowards not fall asleep.&#8221;"
The charter, by the way, also acknowledges the 'protocols of the elders of Zion' as proof of the need to eliminate all Jews worldwide.
If you wanted fundamentalist nutjobs, these are it. The government of the Gaza strip is an organization formed to kill Jews, because we rejoiced when Muhammad was killed.
By the way, they never won democratic elections in the Gaza strip, either. They took over by force, assisted by Israel - because their rivals were worse.


----------



## Cloudy

Ive been watching a lot of CNN and man do they pile on the bias. They're making Israel sound like a bunch of horrible horrible monstrous terrorists. After that whole firing rockets into the streets killing civilians/children thing. Yes it was extremely terrible that they did it but they were pushed into a corner, the Palestians are setting up rockets sites in school yards and civilian areas so so israel has to shoot back in a danger zone for innocents.

The Palestinian officials are doing terrible terrible things to their people.

I'm not saying Israel is faultless but from what I understand a lot of this could have been avoided, the blood of all the recently dead children/civilians is mainly on Palestine for completely setting them up.

At least from what I've briefly read on the internet. Don't mind my blantent blindless to the situation Ive just skimmed this thread over and I'll be giving it a good looksy now.

just my 2 cents over in canada. 

My heart goes out to all the civilians and such being wrongfully harmed.


----------



## flint757

Neither can just pass all the blame on to either party. Making the strategically correct decision doesn't make something 'right' thus ridding the other party of fault. You can't say Israel isn't at fault for killing innocent people because they did in fact kill innocent people. As I said before, Hamas is equally guilty for using them as human shields essentially, but that doesn't really serve as an excuse either. I'm not saying they had other options, but passing blame around to make it look better publicly or to make one side feel better about the situation does a disservice to those who needlessly died.


----------



## Rylynn

If this is, true then its sad:

Erdogan: 'Ayelet Shaked has same mindset as Hitler' | JPost | Israel News

PressTV - Mothers of all Palestinians must be killed: Israeli MP


----------



## Explorer

When we were talking about it today, a friend asked, "If Hamas isn't the aggressor, why have they been building tunnels whose only use seems to sneak attacks into Israel?"

Like the question on which side breaks ceasefires, still unanswered, I would love to hear a answer to this from the defenders of Hamas....


----------



## Randy

I didn't realize there were people defending Hamas in here?


----------



## Dog Boy

NBC News - Breaking News & Top Stories - Latest World, US & Local News

Hospitals? Really?


----------



## Crabface

Rylynn said:


> If this is, true then its sad:
> 
> Erdogan: 'Ayelet Shaked has same mindset as Hitler' | JPost | Israel News
> 
> PressTV - Mothers of all Palestinians must be killed: Israeli MP



This woman is an idiot. Almost anyone in israel will agree with me about that though, she says these things - and its awful. she should be killed, not the palestinian mothers. That said, what she says is also considered bullshit in israel. She is, quite simply, a twat.


----------



## nikt

Randy said:


> I didn't realize there were people defending Hamas in here?


Palestine is not only Hamas.


----------



## flint757

Yes, but that is not how Explorer phrased the question either.


----------



## Overtone

Well, people have caught on to the logical fallacy of "You don't support Israel so you are anti-Semitic" so I think it's time that everybody in the media and politics create a "You are pro-Palestine? You're pro-Hamas!" dialog. Meanwhile the irony of Quitty's claim that Palestinians have an advantage in biasing public opinion is completely lost on him.


----------



## SD83

Overtone said:


> Well, people have caught on to the logical fallacy of "You don't support Israel so you are anti-Semitic" so I think it's time that everybody in the media and politics create a "You are pro-Palestine? You're pro-Hamas!" dialog. Meanwhile the irony of Quitty's claim that Palestinians have an advantage in biasing public opinion is completely lost on him.



Sadly enough, there has been a good deal of anti-semitic hatred on recent pro-Palestine demonstrations. Like, people shouting that one should kill the Jews, or burn the Jews. There's one picture floating around with a man holding a sign that says "Once supposedly victims, now offenders." Let's destroy illogical hate with more illogical hate. And question those parts of history we never really liked anyway. Makes me sick.


----------



## Overtone

Damn... they're shouting that in Germany of all places?


----------



## Randy

nikt said:


> Palestine is not only Hamas.



Thats actually exactly my point.

Anybody feel free to step in if I'm talking out of turn or putting words in anybodies mouth but the main argument Ive gathered from those taking issue with Israel in this thread have principally been focused on the volume of indisputably civilian (ie young children, pregnant women, people bedridden in hospitals) deaths.

We're talking specifically civilians here, and yet I keep hearing 'but Hamas this' and 'Hamas that'. If that's the canned response to a discussion about CIVILIANS, then I can only conclude 1.) Some people are using 'Hamas' and 'Palestinians' interchangeably in discussion 2.) Their wording is no mistake and they actually consider any volume of civilians deaths in the name of stopping Hamas to be justified. Whatever the reasoning, I'd love to move onto that rather than repeated rhetoric.

Speaking as an American, I know we've been involved in terrible conflicts with lopsided civilian casualties. Despite that, only the most calloused among us justified the murder of children or women and the destruction of innocent lives as 'justified' in some grand sweeping war on terror, and only the most deluded of us believe the blood of innocent people only stains the hands of the terrorists.


----------



## SD83

Overtone said:


> Damn... they're shouting that in Germany of all places?



From what I hear it's worse in France and a handful of other countries but yes, apparently a handful of idiots do. Not many, but those few who shout that make one wonder how many think that way.


----------



## Overtone

SD83 said:


> From what I hear it's worse in France and a handful of other countries but yes, apparently a handful of idiots do. Not many, but those few who shout that make one wonder how many think that way.



I heard about some shop attacks in France targeted at Jewish owners or something and thought that was pretty uncool. It definitely hurts the cause to have people doing things like that. Remember... in Europe protests attract hooligans who have no affiliation with the cause and are there to start chaos. Also, many people are very hurt and feel their personal lines have been crossed. It's childish of them, but some of them are lashing out at things that are also "over the line" because of how betrayed they feel. Of those people hopefully some will grow up and understand that hurting someone else back because they hurt you is what is keeping this whole thing going. So hopefully some of those people will learn better... but I wouldn't look at that and see it as representative of many people.


----------



## sangap

Been a lurker for years, excuse me for jumping in & for not properly quoting the previous posts being referenced below. Just a general view of an outside observer.

Really I think we all know this already yet I can't help stating the obvious that opinions will always be divided depending on which source(s) we're getting our news from. Never ceases to amaze me how some people think their source(s) - thus their "factual knowledge" - is the absolute truth, the most accurate there is out there.

E.g. Your side says the other party broke the ceasefire, whereas on my side (comprised of independent international charity workers/volunteers/journalists/reporters/medical aides & whathaveyous) it's repeatedly stated that the ceasefire was never discussed between the parties INVOLVED to begin with. Yeah, it was only ever agreed upon by Israel and EGYPT as the so-called peacemeaker; without negotiating the t&cs with Hamas. I mean wow.. such negotiation, much agreement.

Oh, about the the two-hour cease fire? What a noble gesture; given hundreds of dead bodies & scattered body parts that were lying about, not to mention the injured civilians whose amount easily doubled the dead. Yeah, I think all of Gaza will eternally be grateful to the IDF for the two hours urm..respite. Well before normal service resumed that is; more bombings & more random shootings again. Some of my sources said IDF were still firing whilst the "cease fire" was on..at least once at the helpers rushing the injured to aid no less. Oh and about the pre-missile warnings; on the contrary to what I've read here, sources on my side say at least once the was only ever a 10-minute notice..via text alright. Soo considerate, much time to warn the occupants & neighbors.

See how people's versions differ according to their most trusted sources. A person running around forums posting his "factual opinions - complete with intelligent (aka presumptuous) insight" don't automatically make his the ultimate truth. Come on, we're not 13 year olds here. I myself recognize this, hence constant mentions of "my sources said..". Like it or not, unless we're in command ourselves we'll only likely be dependent on these sources. Pointless to argue on why you're right & he's wrong, given the different sources. Same goes for history btw, it was so many years ago that anyone can make up, distort or flat out reject any fact on to whom the lands originally belonged to yadda yadda.

Regardless, I'll tell you one thing; from the very first day of the "war", most the casualties I've seen reported/pictured/filmed were either mostly children/women/civilians on the Palestinian side, or mostly military personnel on the Israel side. The former has reportedly reached 600+ by now, whereas the latter still only 100+ max. To me, no words - however biased or unbiased - can possibly describe the current situation better than that. A no brainer of who's the actual intended target for either side, and who's the aggressor-transgressor between the two. Genocide is appropriate alright.


----------



## Quitty

Dog Boy said:


> NBC News - Breaking News & Top Stories - Latest World, US & Local News
> 
> Hospitals? Really?


Yes, unfortunately.
There are Hamas fighters in hospitals, in food storage, in UN buildings... Everywhere but the mosques, but there are allegedly bombs in the mosques.

There are even bombs in the schools (UN paramedics found those, not Israeli army, so i'll take their word for it).

This could have been a misfire just the same, but we'll never know - this is why, in a nutshell, there are so many civilian casualties.



Rylynn said:


> If this is, true then its sad:
> 
> Erdogan: 'Ayelet Shaked has same mindset as Hitler' | JPost | Israel News
> 
> PressTV - Mothers of all Palestinians must be killed: Israeli MP



One of these is true, the other is severely misquoted.
She is, however, a bit of a fruitcake. A very religious fruitcake.



If there's anything i'm really disappointed with Israel over, it's the hatred and hypocrisy this war has brought to the surface.


----------



## Quitty

sangap said:


> E.g. Your side says the other party broke the ceasefire, whereas on my side (comprised of independent international charity workers/volunteers/journalists/reporters/medical aides & whathaveyous) it's repeatedly stated that the ceasefire was never discussed between the parties INVOLVED to begin with. Yeah, it was only ever agreed upon by Israel and EGYPT as the so-called peacemeaker; without negotiating the t&cs with Hamas. I mean wow.. such negotiation, much agreement.


Let's get some facts straight. 
I live in Israel. A ceasefire starts when rockets stop landing around me and stops when they start again - my 'side' has nothing to do with media, independent or otherwise. It just so happens that i also live near a non-civilian airport, so i'll usually know when Israel's bombing away.
The ceasefire wasn't two hours, it was 26. It started long before troops were in Gaza and it was discussed - but rejected - by Hamas. Publicly.
Israel maintained the ceasefire nonetheless. Hamas kept firing for the full 26 hours.

We can disagree, that's alright, but check your facts.



sangap said:


> Regardless, I'll tell you one thing; from the very first day of the "war", most the casualties I've seen reported/pictured/filmed were either mostly children/women/civilians on the Palestinian side, or mostly military personnel on the Israel side. The former has reportedly reached 600+ by now, whereas the latter still only 100+ max. To me, no words - however biased or unbiased - can possibly describe the current situation better than that. A no brainer of who's the actual intended target for either side, and who's the aggressor-transgressor between the two. Genocide is appropriate alright.


When you pick a fight, you're responsible for it whether you win or lose.
The fact that one side hits harder than the other does not make one side guiltier.
And for what you've seen reported/pictured/filmed... Dude.
You've just scorched your keyboard over biased media. Why do you think these were filmed?


----------



## Crabface

sangap said:


> Been a lurker for years, excuse me for jumping in & for not properly quoting the previous posts being referenced below. Just a general view of an outside observer.
> 
> Really I think we all know this already yet I can't help stating the obvious that opinions will always be divided depending on which source(s) we're getting our news from. Never ceases to amaze me how some people think their source(s) - thus their "factual knowledge" - is the absolute truth, the most accurate there is out there.
> 
> E.g. Your side says the other party broke the ceasefire, whereas on my side (comprised of independent international charity workers/volunteers/journalists/reporters/medical aides & whathaveyous) it's repeatedly stated that the ceasefire was never discussed between the parties INVOLVED to begin with. Yeah, it was only ever agreed upon by Israel and EGYPT as the so-called peacemeaker; without negotiating the t&cs with Hamas. I mean wow.. such negotiation, much agree.
> 
> Regardless, I'll tell you one thing; from the very first day of the "war", most the casualties I've seen reported/pictured/filmed were either mostly children/women/civilians on the Palestinian side, or mostly military personnel on the Israel side. The former has reportedly reached 600+ by now, whereas the latter still only 100+ max. To me, no words - however biased or unbiased - can possibly describe the current situation better than that. A no brainer of who's the actual intended target for either side, and who's the aggressor-transgressor between the two. Genocide is appropriate alright.



Error 404: Logic Not Found.

Just read the thread again and you'll realise why. I'm not even going to bother typing this out because it doesnt seem like you read the posts properly.

Also, hamas rejected a ceasefire. Fact. That has been reported by everyone. And hamas were in no logical or reasonable position to negotiate anyway, yet they tried. Because they are that deluded.


----------



## Captain Shoggoth

I have lots of opinions and research invested in this topic, maybe I'll post my thoughts a little later (I agree with a lot of things Randy's said in this thread, for starters). For now, here are a couple of quick but by no means isolated examples of why I always am in stark disbelief whenever people claim that the media is biased _against_ Israel.


----------



## sangap

Quitty said:


> Let's get some facts straight.
> I live in Israel.



Fair enough. I did read your post before, seeing as you live in Israel yourself my reply wasn't intended towards you. I meant it towards some posters who seemed to think whatever information they've digested all this while is purely factual. No offense, but it's like me coming here & totally believing your side of story..no matter however frank you seemed in your posts.



Quitty said:


> The ceasefire wasn't two hours, it was 26. It started long before troops were in Gaza and it was discussed - but rejected - by Hamas. Publicly.
> Israel maintained the ceasefire nonetheless. Hamas kept firing for the full 26 hours.


Replying to Crabface as well: The 2-hour ceasefire bit, I meant as a reply to the one posted by DocBach about evacuating & treating injured Palestinians. Hamas' rejection of the initial ceasefire is something that I think we all agree upon, they rejected it alright. I was merely conveying what the reasoning was - as per what my sources reported of course.



Quitty said:


> When you pick a fight, you're responsible for it whether you win or lose.


True enough, except according my "side" the one picking a fight may not be same as yours.



Quitty said:


> The fact that one side hits harder than the other does not make one side guiltier.
> And for what you've seen reported/pictured/filmed... Dude.
> You've just scorched your keyboard over biased media. Why do you think these were filmed?


I agree on the 'guiltier' point. But my initial remark was about the impression left on me of seeing the tendency of either side's target. Simply put, as of current all I'd been seeing is IDF randomly targetting & killing civilians more, whereas Hamas' kills lean towards IDF personnel more. "More".

Now now, please don't presume that I hadn't checked out the "opposite" sources as well. They had stuff filmed & shared too, you know. Why do YOU think those were filmed?


----------



## SD83

sangap said:


> I agree on the 'guiltier' point. But my initial remark was about the impression left on me of seeing the tendency of either side's target. Simply put, as of current all I'd been seeing is IDF randomly targetting & killing civilians more, whereas Hamas' kills lean towards IDF personnel more. "More".



(hopefully needles to say, but the following, as the previous posts, are based on my limited information  )

After the invasion started. Before (and even now), Hamas was constantly firing rockets at Israeli cities, and from what I heard, those are pretty much unguided missiles. Which means, as far as I understand it, that you can not aim at anything smaller than a village. 
So, even if the IDF is targeting Hamas fighters (and I don't think they wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians) and don't give a .... about civilian casualties, which I hope they are trying to avoid, Hamas just fired at random targets. They had no idea if their rockets were going to hit a police station, barracks, a school or a playground, and they didn't care at all, because they knew that maybe only one out of a hundred rockets might strike close enough to any person to kill someone. (EDIT: The only numbers I found in a quick search are from 2008, 3.700 rockets fired, 15 victims. So much for accuracy.)


----------



## Overtone

Well that's actually a good point for demonstrating that this operation is costing more Israeli life and more money than simply letting rockets fall 365 days a year! If more Israelis die this way, what exactly is the overriding objective? And what is it about the alternative of opening up trade, travel, etc and still having the ability to fight back if attacked that is so much worse than the status quo? At some point I lost track of just what it is that the Israeli government is willing to sacrifice everything else for. The only logical explanation is a long war of attrition to take more land and erase Palestinian identity. Hell, the debate these days is literally whether or not the term Palestinian is offensive to Jewish people! Dwight Howard got in trouble just for using the word!


----------



## sangap

SD83 said:


> (hopefully needles to say, but the following, as the previous posts, are based on my limited information  )



It's never needless! However I get the point, was rather getting tired of having to include "my sources said.." everytime 



SD83 said:


> After the invasion started. Before (and even now), Hamas was constantly firing rockets at Israeli cities, and from what I heard, those are pretty much unguided missiles. Which means, as far as I understand it, that you can not aim at anything smaller than a village.
> So, even if the IDF is targeting Hamas fighters (and I don't think they wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians) and don't give a .... about civilian casualties, which I hope they are trying to avoid, Hamas just fired at random targets. They had no idea if their rockets were going to hit a police station, barracks, a school or a playground, and they didn't care at all, because they knew that maybe only one out of a hundred rockets might strike close enough to any person to kill someone. (EDIT: The only numbers I found in a quick search are from 2008, 3.700 rockets fired, 15 victims. So much for accuracy.)



Thing is, no Hamas fighter can disguise as a child. Whose lifeless & bloodied bodies are what I'm seeing everytime I get updated on the situation. Different child, different little faces each day. That is what my main gripe with IDF's so-called defense against Hamas' attacks has been all along. Freakin' children, man. Not to mention families of 6s, 7s - all perish together in one single attack.

Furthermore I'm afraid those numbers you quoted allude more to the possibility that Hamas were actually targeting strategic buildings & such, as opposed to randomly intending to kill off any Israeli they could..there are Arabs in Israel as well, am I right? Plus, again as per what I've been informed Hamas too would notify the public before launching attacks..well at least in the recent airport attack. Of course, this remains just a possibility given that I have no real confirmation of what Hamas' true intentions were..other than retaliating themselves. To what, one wonders..


----------



## AgileButt

Anyone siding with Israel needs to, for lack of better words.. WAKE THE .... UP. 

Konichiwa


----------



## Quitty

Well, for the sake of the discussion -
absolutely no Hamas missiles were fired at Israeli army bases. None.
Ever.
They're too sparsely populated.
Hamas does not warn in advance, by the way. He did once, four days ago, and no rockets were fired at the advertised time. It was written off as 'psychological warfare' by our media.
It did spawn a pretty funny 'Hamas is bombing Tel-Aviv' event on FB, though...

As for children, it's hard to tell from an airplane. It's much easier by foot, which is why there are troops dying - so that we don't have to cause excess casualties to palestinian civilians.
While it's true we care more about international opinion than actual injustice, there's really no denying Israel is going through *a lot* of effort to avoid civilians. 
From leaflets to warning shots to infantry going in by foot, there was little reason to stop bombing from the air if we didn't care.
Do you really think we couldn't flatten Gaza out completely, from the air, by conventional means, within a week?.. This is an army, not your local guns store, and Gaza is 500 square kilometers all in all.

Konichiwhatthehelliswrongwithyoupeople.


----------



## DocBach

sangap said:


> Regardless, I'll tell you one thing; from the very first day of the "war", most the casualties I've seen reported/pictured/filmed were either mostly children/women/civilians on the Palestinian side, or mostly military personnel on the Israel side. The former has reportedly reached 600+ by now, whereas the latter still only 100+ max. To me, no words - however biased or unbiased - can possibly describe the current situation better than that. A no brainer of who's the actual intended target for either side, and who's the aggressor-transgressor between the two. Genocide is appropriate alright.



When I was in Iraq the local insurgency would purposefully use children and women to attack up, or even stage fake attacks in attempts to get us to kill them for photo shoots -- the biggest error you have in your judgement of this situation is your lack of awareness to how dirty these people fight. 

The eastern view of life and value of like is completely skewed from what you as someone who has been raised in a western society has. They purposefully attack from places where there is high civilian collateral (specifically women and children) to deter counter attacks from the Israelis who have incredibly restrictive rules of engagement, and the added bonus of propaganda material showing dead kids if they do attack. 

Do you know why there has been 600 civilian casualties and only 100 casualties that were military? Its because the IDF sends its soldiers to bare the brunt of the war, instead of hiding behind civilian populaces to use as shields and camouflage.


----------



## Explorer

AgileButt said:


> Anyone siding with Israel needs to, for lack of better words.. WAKE THE .... UP.
> 
> Konichiwa



Wake me up, friend. I'm still waiting to hear why Hamas has been building tunnels into Israel, with an answer that doesn't make it sound like those tunnels are for attacks.

I hope you're up to the task. Otherwise, that just makes you look like a sloganeer without any actual explanation, or even a moment's thought or reflection, as to why the terror tunnels are a peaceful venture.

And I'd rather not think that you were so thoughtless.

Are those terror tunnels really so hard to explain without making Hamas look bad? Again, it's been a few days, and although there have been responses about those who can see Israel's side of it, there haven't been any who claim to see Hamas' side while taking the factual existence of the tunnels into account, or attempting even a apologetic explanation. 

C'mon, folks. If I have it so wrong on the tunnels, why can't someone lay it out simply so it makes sense?


----------



## Skyblue

Overtone said:


> Well that's actually a good point for demonstrating that this operation is costing more Israeli life and more money than simply letting rockets fall 365 days a year! If more Israelis die this way, what exactly is the overriding objective? And what is it about the alternative of opening up trade, travel, etc and still having the ability to fight back if attacked that is so much worse than the status quo? At some point I lost track of just what it is that the Israeli government is willing to sacrifice everything else for. The only logical explanation is a long war of attrition to take more land and erase Palestinian identity. Hell, the debate these days is literally whether or not the term Palestinian is offensive to Jewish people! Dwight Howard got in trouble just for using the word!



There's no argument on the fact that Air strikes lead to a larger amount of civilians dead. No pilot in the world can avoid hitting civilians when he needs to hit a target building in the middle of a high populated zone. Why do we target the building then? because that's where Hamas is hiding. that's where he stores it's missiles. 

We recently switched to ground attacks in order to both try and minimize civilian casualties, and try and solve the terror-tunnels issue. That is also the reason there is a spike in Israeli casualties, and obviously they're all soldiers. Why do we do it if you end up with more dead soldiers? Because we are trying to accomplish certain targets with this operation- such as the aforementioned terror-tunnels, and that we cannot do with Air strikes. Trust me, it's not like we like sending our soldiers into battles like those. I have 2 friends who are inside Gaza, and and I'm worried as all F%&K that something will happen to them.

As for the "Palestinian term being offensive to Jewish"... never heard of it, and I find it amusing. 



sangap said:


> It's never needless! However I get the point, was rather getting tired of having to include "my sources said.." everytime
> 
> 
> Thing is, no Hamas fighter can disguise as a child. Whose lifeless & bloodied bodies are what I'm seeing everytime I get updated on the situation. Different child, different little faces each day. That is what my main gripe with IDF's so-called defense against Hamas' attacks has been all along. Freakin' children, man. Not to mention families of 6s, 7s - all perish together in one single attack.
> 
> Furthermore I'm afraid those numbers you quoted allude more to the possibility that Hamas were actually targeting strategic buildings & such, as opposed to randomly intending to kill off any Israeli they could..there are Arabs in Israel as well, am I right? Plus, again as per what I've been informed Hamas too would notify the public before launching attacks..well at least in the recent airport attack. Of course, this remains just a possibility given that I have no real confirmation of what Hamas' true intentions were..other than retaliating themselves. To what, one wonders..



As someone living in Israel I can assure you, either Hamas isn't aiming at strategic buildings, or they have seriously lousy aim. They have notified ONCE that they are going to shoot missiles, and like mentioned before, eventually didn't fire at the mentioned time. They fire relentlessly, they don't give any warnings, and most of the missiles, if not all, are targeted at civilian areas. 

As to the whole 30 Israeli dead against 600 Palestinian dead, it's silly, the way you put it anyway. We developed the Iron Dome to help protect our civilians. We build shelters. Obviously less civilians will die if they are protected. the Hamas targets both civilians, with it's missiles, and soldiers- in the ground battles inside Gaza. The soldiers, as good as they are (and I know they are), get hurt, and sometimes unfortunately die. But the number of casualties will obviously be lower. 

Why doesn't Hamas build shelters for the civilians? Why don't they help them get away from fighting zones? (I've heard reports about Hamas threatening them to stay, but I can't confirm if it's true...) 

I'm sure he can. But as it looks, he won't. 


Oh. And as Explorer said- I would LOVE for someone to explain the tunnels Hamas was, and is, building into Israel. The tunnels that tons and tons of money that's being transferred into the Gaza strip goes into. 

Konichiwhatthehelldoesthatsupposedtomean.


----------



## SD83

Skyblue said:


> As someone living in Israel I can assure you, either Hamas isn't aiming at strategic buildings, or they have seriously lousy aim.



Hard to aim if even professional weapons like the Iranian Fajr-5 are supposed to have a margin of error of 4%. I bet the Qassam are worse than that. But even at 5%, at 5 km range that would mean you can only target a circle of 250 m diameter. Rockets fired at Tel Aviv? 3 km radius. 
Even the most idiotic Hamas member can not believe that even 100 of those rockets per day will bring them any closer to "destroying Israel". All they do is cause damage, piss the Israelis off and in the end cause counter attacks. And, in my opinion, that is exactly their goal. Hamas wants Israel to strike back, Hamas wants Palestinean civilians, men, women and kids to die because without those victims, no one would follow them any more, no one would give them money. Without civilians dying in Palestine, Hamas would cease to exist, so Hamas does everything they can to avoid that. Which isn't much, but seems to suffice. Again, just my interpretation


----------



## Skyblue

SD83 said:


> Hard to aim if even professional weapons like the Iranian Fajr-5 are supposed to have a margin of error of 4%. I bet the Qassam are worse than that. But even at 5%, at 5 km range that would mean you can only target a circle of 250 m diameter. Rockets fired at Tel Aviv? 3 km radius.
> Even the most idiotic Hamas member can not believe that even 100 of those rockets per day will bring them any closer to "destroying Israel". All they do is cause damage, piss the Israelis off and in the end cause counter attacks. And, in my opinion, that is exactly their goal. Hamas wants Israel to strike back, Hamas wants Palestinean civilians, men, women and kids to die because without those victims, no one would follow them any more, no one would give them money. Without civilians dying in Palestine, Hamas would cease to exist, so Hamas does everything they can to avoid that. Which isn't much, but seems to suffice. Again, just my interpretation



An interesting theory, though I admit I'm leaning towards a different explanation. 
Hamas knows it has no way to actually beat the IDF- yeah, we won't get out of it without casualties, but we'll win. So they try to force the government to agree to their terms through the people- they'll fire lots of missiles, try and make us scared, disrupt our life as much as possible, and if they're lucky maybe even kill a few people, until the people will break and force the government to agree to the Hamas' terms. 

But who knows? we're just theorizing here


----------



## Overtone

Anyone see this before?


----------



## Overtone

As of yesterday on the Gaza side there have been 12 ambulances damaged or destroyed, an EMS clinic in a refugee camp closed due to damage, 2 UNRWA clinics closed due to damage, dead paramedics, killed EMS workers... Overall 15 facilities damaged including five hospitals, 10 clinics, a total of 13 closed facilities, 12 ambulances damaged, 29 injured health personnel, and 3 dead medical workers.

i wonder how it is that a paramedic can be a "human shield" because he is a first responder at a location that was JUST BOMBED! If the first strike was to get their targets, what was the second? And at what point do the casualties of strikes on targets "with human shields" become too many? 5? 10? 20? Should it be an entire extended family or is that not enough for anyone in the IDF to care?


----------



## Dog Boy

NBC News - Breaking News & Top Stories - Latest World, US & Local News

Israel is getting drunk on blood...


----------



## Skyblue

Overtone said:


> As of yesterday on the Gaza side there have been 12 ambulances damaged or destroyed, an EMS clinic in a refugee camp closed due to damage, 2 UNRWA clinics closed due to damage, dead paramedics, killed EMS workers... Overall 15 facilities damaged including five hospitals, 10 clinics, a total of 13 closed facilities, 12 ambulances damaged, 29 injured health personnel, and 3 dead medical workers.
> 
> i wonder how it is that a paramedic can be a "human shield" because he is a first responder at a location that was JUST BOMBED! If the first strike was to get their targets, what was the second? And at what point do the casualties of strikes on targets "with human shields" become too many? 5? 10? 20? Should it be an entire extended family or is that not enough for anyone in the IDF to care?





Dog Boy said:


> NBC News - Breaking News & Top Stories - Latest World, US & Local News
> 
> Israel is getting drunk on blood...



First and foremost- yes, unrelated civilians were hit in the last few days by the IDF. Every incident is been looked at thoroughly, to see how such things have happened. as a CID investigator myself I can testify that the IDF takes very seriously complaints about crimes and wrongdoings committed by soldiers and by the IDF itself. We never intend to harm civilians. 
You think we don't care how we are seen in the world's eyes? you think we don't care about innocent people being hurt? what kind of monsters do you think we are? I'm asking honestly. 

Now, for another thing. Do you have any idea how many missiles were shot from UN buildings? Hospitals? How many Hamas soldiers were hiding inside ambulances? A lot. These incidents are documented by the IDF and were given to the UN for inspection. 

We are sad for any uninvolved civilians being hit. And we try our best to avoid it.


----------



## Randy

Skyblue said:


> You think we don't care how we are seen in the world's eyes? you think we don't care about innocent people being hurt? what kind of monsters do you think we are? I'm asking honestly.



The fiery rhetoric thrown out by your Prime Minster (some justified, most not) and other officials, matched up with the volume of civilian deaths gives a 'monster-like' appearance. 

If all people who spoke on Israel's behalf reasoned in the way you do, perhaps the perception would be different (though, casualties likely speak louder) but as it is now, the rhetoric seems to align itself strongly with the deaths being drawn on ethnic/religious lines.

Every time I feel like giving the Israelis the benefit of the doubt, another hospital with more civilians than militants is destroyed and another unilateral justification that doesn't pass the 'smell test' is released. You can only say "well, we think it's because missiles came from there but we're investigating to make sure it was on the level" so many times before it sounds like a tired excuse.


----------



## Dog Boy

Randy said:


> The fiery rhetoric thrown out by your Prime Minster (some justified, most not) and other officials, matched up with the volume of civilian deaths gives a 'monster-like' appearance.
> 
> If all people who spoke on Israel's behalf reasoned in the way you do, perhaps the perception would be different (though, casualties likely speak louder) but as it is now, the rhetoric seems to align itself strongly with the deaths being drawn on ethnic/religious lines.
> 
> Every time I feel like giving the Israelis the benefit of the doubt, another hospital with more civilians than militants is destroyed and another unilateral justification that doesn't pass the 'smell test' is released. You can only say "well, we think it's because missiles came from there but we're investigating to make sure it was on the level" so many times before it sounds like a tired excuse.


 
Indeed...

I for one have heard enough.


----------



## Skyblue

I'm afraid I can only reply hastily as I need to get up in a few hours.

I understand your claim about our prime minister. I'm not a great fan of him myself (and obviously voted against him) and though I have not heard him say anything regarding the need to kill civilians or anything along these lines as far as I recall, but he is Right-winged in his opinions so I understand how he could have said similar things. As for other government officials (Such as Ayelet Shaked who was mentioned before), yes, we have extremists in our government. We also have Left-wing ones, but they obviously don't really pop up in the international news. (I think I can safely assume other countires have extremists in their governments)

As for the hospitals, I can testify that I've seen several videos of rockets being fired out of hospitals, and of course the ones that were found (by the UN themselves) inside a UN school. Also for terrorists firing out of ambulances (a friend of mine who is fighting in Gaza right now saw that in person) It's my first time hearing the specific numbers for how many hospitals were hit, and I'm afraid I can not claim this to be true or false- I simply don't know. I will try and do the research myself about that if I'll have the time. 
Also, for at least one UN-operated hospital, I know the IDF contacted the hospital's manager and told him that they will have to attack the building if the firing from it won't stop (after a few days that it has happened). After eventually doing so, there were several second-explosions, indicating more explosives of some kind were hidden in the building. 

Finally- I won't claim Israel is innocent in everything- mistakes happen. In war, even more. We even had our own men die of mistakes, that we made. We (as a country, and me personally) are terribly and utterly sorry for any uninvolved casualties. But calling us "murderers"? saying we are "Drunk on blood"? It might just be me and my humble opinion, but I don't feel that's fair. 

On another note, I'll be leaving for almost a week, so I'm afraid I'll be out of the discussion for a bit... I promise to read everything when I get back and comment accordingly. Hopefully a permanent cease-fire will be reached by then... May we all find peace as fast as possible.


----------



## Overtone

Even if ambulances were used that way, the fact that unrelated ambulances, operated by real health workers were also targeted seems an awful lot like a war crime. I can also show you a video of a rescue worker getting killed by a sniper as he searches rubble for relatives, which was very cold blooded. 

I don't think many IDF members individually are that malevolent, but the way the chain of command goes has lead to many deaths simply through the positions they put their soldiers in. There are endless stories from former IDF of witnessing callous killing of civilians that was either sanctioned, permitted, or encouraged. I believe the organization collecting stories is called Breaking the Silence. I would love to know why any Of those voices would shame their country and risk alienation for a lie or made up story.


----------



## Quitty

Overtone said:


> Even if ambulances were used that way, the fact that unrelated ambulances, operated by real health workers were also targeted seems an awful lot like a war crime. I can also show you a video of a rescue worker getting killed by a sniper as he searches rubble for relatives, which was very cold blooded.
> 
> I don't think many IDF members individually are that malevolent, but the way the chain of command goes has lead to many deaths simply through the positions they put their soldiers in. There are endless stories from former IDF of witnessing callous killing of civilians that was either sanctioned, permitted, or encouraged. I believe the organization collecting stories is called Breaking the Silence. I would love to know why any Of those voices would shame their country and risk alienation for a lie or made up story.



Oh, you mean the fake one with firecrackers and no blood?..







The ambulance, by the way, was shot with assault rifles and blown up from the inside, not hit by shrapnel. That means it was either blown up by Hamas for the sake of putting it on the net, or an IDF soldier shot at it, then threw a grenade inside.

As i said, i don't agree with half what my government is doing. This country is run by fascists, there's little point denying that.
However, they are not the cause of this war and have very little significance with regard to how it is conducted - that's up to the IDF higher-ups, and surprisingly they care more for Gaza civilians than the Israeli and Hamas administration combined.

Judging a warring side is a good, healthy procedure, just make sure you're always critical of both sides.
Then, just try and see if you can think of a reasonable alternative to everything you want stopped.

If you do, i'd be genuinely interested in what you come up with.


----------



## SD83

Quitty said:


> Then, just try and see if you can think of a reasonable alternative to everything you want stopped.
> 
> If you do, i'd be genuinely interested in what you come up with.



Thermonuclear warheads. Lots of them. To be a bit more serious, I see little hope. From what I read, a lot of countries around Israel are rather anti-Hamas these days, which might kill them slowly due to lack of funds and support. Maybe in 10 or 20 or 50 years, one could hope for real peace. The only faster route that I can think of that might work (and might also end up in a complete disaster) is for the IDF to stay in Gaza until every single Hamas fighter is dead or imprisoned, every tunnel is destroyed, every firearm is found and then find (or help establish) an Israel-friendly organisation and rebuild the destruction with them. Just going in, killing a bunch of bad guys, then say "deal with it" and go home is, in my opinion, not going to help. Again, if I grew up in Gaza and was told all the time that everything that happens is because of 'the Jews", I miht be fighting as well... when palestinean, jewish israeli and muslim israeli kids are going to the same school, to the same classes, when their parents have the same rights and obligations (and the same chances to get the same jobs, etc.), there might be peace. Which would also mean that both sides have to become secular nations. If God tells you not to work, let him take care of your food. If God tells you to kill the infidels, your God is an asshole and you should stop supporting him.


----------



## Explorer

I was reading different news reports about the amounts of weapons and IDF uniforms found both in the terror tunnels *and* in the UN facilities, stored there by Hamas.

Also was reading about Hamas launching attacks from the UN areas.

I feel that a lot of people who are excoriating Israel for being bad have had no comment on Hamas attacking from places where civilians and UN are human shields. How awful that Israel counterattacked on those locations... but no comment on Hamas' tactics, which apparently are hunky dory. wut?

Still waiting on an explanation on the terror tunnels almost a week later which doesn't make it look like Hamas is just out to provoke combat and to kill Israeli citizens. The terror tunnels represent a huge amount of the construction funds and materials which are meant for the poor civilians, and Hamas couldn't give less of a shit for those civilians. 

Those tunnels have been under construction for many years, part of some plan of Hamas which I suspect is decidedly less than peaceable. US satellite analysis finds that there might be more than 60 such tunnels from Gaza into civilian areas in Israel. To what purpose, oh defenders of Hamas?

And then I read about how awful Israel is to the civilians, without a mention of them being made human shields by Hamas while Hamas also steals from them. 
*
Anyway, five days on. Still waiting and hoping for that benign terror tunnel explanation!*


----------



## Quitty

If you're really looking for an explanation, it would appear this is it;
2014 Rosh Hashanah terror tunnel plot

Apparently, 150 Hamas operatives surrendered thursday and tipped this off.


----------



## flint757

Condemnation of Israel killing civilians is not support for Hamas.  The mere fact that this is how you perceive the situation is just sad. There is no hero and super villain, good and bad, black and white, etc. here. Hama's is clearly an asshole. I haven't heard anyone claim otherwise really either. Hama's being the 'bad guy' doesn't make Israel the 'good guys' though and it doesn't completely wash away any and all guilt for the innocent blood they have spilled in this fight. 

Lets change the perspective a bit. Let's say a terrorist group were running their business in the New York subway system. At the same time New Yorkers still use the subways daily. Would you consider it okay for the US government to just level the tunnels with citizens in it if it meant most of the terrorists would also be killed? Would you consider the US 'good guys' in this situation? 

Talk about trying to oversimplify a situation to justify any and all retaliatory action.


----------



## Quitty

flint757 said:


> Lets change the perspective a bit. Let's say a terrorist group were running their business in the New York subway system. At the same time New Yorkers still use the subways daily. Would you consider it okay for the US government to just level the tunnels with citizens in it if it meant most of the terrorists would also be killed? Would you consider the US 'good guys' in this situation?
> 
> Talk about trying to oversimplify a situation to justify any and all retaliatory action.



I think the point is that they probably would, if a satisfactory alternative was not offered.
Those subway terrorists of yours don't just stick to the subways, they do come out and harm civilians. Do you just let them?


----------



## Overtone

THE ambulance? 12 were attacked.


----------



## Overtone

Here's what amnesty international had to say about cast lead 
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/a...a74-4853-860f-0563725e633a/mde150152009en.pdf

It disputes that Hamas used human shields because there was no evidence that Hamas fighters forced civilians to any combat area or prevented them from leaving a combat area. Other heinous attacks on medical personnel occurred. There are also some damning quotes from IDF commanders of the shoot first, ask questions later nature.


----------



## Explorer

Quitty said:


> If you're really looking for an explanation, it would appear this is it;
> 2014 Rosh Hashanah terror tunnel plot
> 
> Apparently, 150 Hamas operatives surrendered thursday and tipped this off.



Yeah... but that doesn't help support the argument that Israel is bad. Hmm.

----



Overtone said:


> Here's what amnesty international had to say about cast lead
> http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/a...a74-4853-860f-0563725e633a/mde150152009en.pdf
> 
> It disputes that Hamas used human shields because there was no evidence that Hamas fighters forced civilians to any combat area or prevented them from leaving a combat area. Other heinous attacks on medical personnel occurred. There are also some damning quotes from IDF commanders of the shoot first, ask questions later nature.



Now, I have to ask... if armed gunmen set up in one of several school buildings, with other buildings used by civilians, would you personally consider that using human shields? Or would it just be an accident that the gunmen chose such locations instead of empty warehouse buildings and such?

What if the gunmen did so repeatedly?

Is Hamas using human shields in Gaza? - CNN.com



> Tuesday's discovery of rockets hidden in a vacant U.N. facility is the sort of evidence that Israel cites when it accuses Hamas of using civilians and their institutions as shields in the ongoing Gaza conflict. The rockets were found in a vacant school between two other U.N. schools being used as shelters for 3,000 displaced Palestinians, the United Nations said. It was the second such discovery at a vacant U.N. school in Gaza in a week.




Wow! Twice they accidentally chose a school! What are the odds that Hamas repeatedly chooses civilian areas unintentionally?


There comes a point where credulity is not just strained, but broken. 



BTW, I found out that plenty of journalists have been writing about actually seeing Hamas using human shield tactics.


Foreign Journalists Acknowledge Hamas' Human Shields Tactics | HonestReporting


And photographers


on the ground have captured plenty of pictures showing how Hamas goes out of its way to keep civilians out of harm's way...




















Using the logic of Amnesty International, does that mean those people aren't being forced to stay in a combat zone, so they are actively participating and willingly inserting themselves into the fray? In that case, no problem, as they're rejecting their civilian status, right?

(That little girl in that last picture clearly was walking into danger of her own free will. Who you gonna believe... Amnesty International, or your lying eyes?)


----------



## Overtone

There is no doubt that Hams tactics are getting Gaza civilians killed. Their tired shit needs to go, and they serve no constructive purpose. But if two empty schools held rockets that does not make it ok to bomb other schools with students present. Especially when said munitions have close to a zero percent probability of killing an Israeli if launched. That's why even if Hamas uses people as shields, Israelis should still be sensitive to those people. Give me a break with this warning call shit. Where are they supposed to go when the whole city is a bullseye and they are under siege? 

I am skeptical that the last picture you posted was a combat situation. The context of the rest is not that clear either. 

The story of checkpoints being closed in 2012 is new to me but very disappointing and sad. But that doesn't clear up the AI allegations that human shields were a fallacy in Cast Lead.


----------



## Overtone

See also
New Statesman | Jeremy Bowen's Gaza notebook: I saw no evidence of Hamas using Palestinians as human shields


----------



## sojourner

Bucks said:


> what kind of world do we live in, where I can log into a news website and watch live as Gaza is destroyed..again.
> 
> I'm a Jew, ethnically through my father. I don't identify with being Jewish at all and don't have any affinity to Israel. But through secular law I have a "right to return" to an area of land that ancestors of mine probably never lived in 1500 years old... it's complete madness.
> I say probably never, because it has been discovered that most ashkenazi's have no connection to Palestine what so ever, they converted in Europe around 800ad, unlike Mizrahi's who had lived with Arabs forever .
> 
> Norman Finkelstein said once, Gaza is as much military threat to Israel as Luxembourg was to the soviet union. Israel wont stop until they have all of Palestine.
> 
> Hamas, Hezbollah, the PFLP etc., are not terrorists.



Reminds me of this


----------



## DocBach

Overtone said:


> See also
> New Statesman | Jeremy Bowen's Gaza notebook: I saw no evidence of Hamas using Palestinians as human shields


 
So the other reporters who say they saw opposite are invalidated by this guys accounts?

Have you ever been involved in a conflict in the middle east? 

Please, tell me more about your first hand experience on how Islamic extremists wage warfare and how noble their rules of engagement are.


----------



## Randy

DocBach said:


> Have you ever been involved in a conflict in the middle east?
> 
> Please, tell me more about your first hand experience on how Islamic extremists wage warfare and how noble their rules of engagement are.



He said nothing that implied either of those things.


----------



## Overtone

I'm actually the guy who dragged Saddam out of his hidey hole. Do I get to have opinions now?


----------



## Quitty

Overtone said:


> I'm actually the guy who dragged Saddam out of his hidey hole. Do I get to have opinions now?


I think what DocBach is trying to say is that you might be humanizing a terrorist organization to an unwarranted extent.

I don't think this invalidates your claims.
I do, however, think you are wrong - about IDF's choice of targets, about Hamas use of human shields, about the relevance of Cast Lead (what's up with that, really?), 
and you'd have to admit that while my objectivity is in question, i should know about it more than you - so you shouldn't trust me, but you should agree i probably know the truth.
DocBach, being involved in fighting an Islamic terrorist organization lodged inside civilian populace, should also be fairly knowledgeable about how things are run. It's funny, most people I've seen who were ever actually involved in any such conflict tend to be pro-Israeli. That's either a funky coincidence, or you might just be humanizing a terrorist organization.


----------



## DocBach

Its silly to think that Hamas can't put on a nice face for free PR -- please world, look how bad we have it here behind our wall (that was put up because we kept blowing up discos and markets) -- send us more money so we can set up a new playgrounds like this space themed set like this one you see behind me at this school! 






Everyone has public affairs officials to help motivate people to support their cause, even terrorist organizations.


----------



## Explorer

Given how Israel has managed to abide by ceasefires, and how Hamas has had no problem breaking them, do you think the recent hospital casualties were caused by Israel intentionally breaking the ceasefire while not caring about the press reports?

Or, is it more likely that Hamas ignored yet another ceasefire and tried to pull off a rocket attack, only to have it go wrong?

----

BTW, I like how someone posted a first-person account in order to prove that your very own eyes are lying to you about those Hamas-attacking-from-among-the-civilians photos.


----------



## Randy

Quitty said:


> I think what DocBach is trying to say is that you might be humanizing a terrorist organization to an unwarranted extent.
> 
> 
> ...you might just be humanizing a terrorist organization.



Behold this incredibly pro-Hamas terrorist humanization



Overtone said:


> There is no doubt that Hams tactics are getting Gaza civilians killed. Their tired shit needs to go, and they serve no constructive purpose.





The biggest thing stuck in my craw in this entire conversation is the "if you don't agree with our methods, then you support the enemy" angle that gets so much play. I hear you and others continue to assert that you're speaking objectively and imply (or explicitly say) that you don't buy everything Israel says/does wholesale, and then you proceed to throw out the arguments that the furthest right of your country have doubled down on; near verbatim. For somebody who claims objectivity, there sure doesn't seem to be a lot of daylight between your and your PM's take on the situation. Feel free to prove me wrong.


----------



## Randy

Explorer said:


> BTW, I like how someone posted a first-person account in order to prove that your very own eyes are lying to you about those Hamas-attacking-from-among-the-civilians photos.



The words used have been "human shield". None of the pictures you posted displayed that. The article which you refer to alludes to the murky nature of things with regard to where some civilian activity meets with terrorist activity. That angle actually makes perfect sense with the pictures you posted.


----------



## Randy

Explorer said:


> Or, is it more likely that Hamas ignored yet another ceasefire and tried to pull off a rocket attack, only to have it go wrong?



Hamas ignored the ceasefires because they're terrorist shitheads. Mystery solved, so stop posting the same goddamn repetitive post and acting like you're proving anything with it. It's not being addressed by anyone else in here because's it's a futile, stupid point.


----------



## Necris

Graham: UN Becoming 'Anti-Semitic'
Sen. Graham: The United Nations Is &#8216;Becoming More Anti-Semitic&#8217; « CBS DC



Senator Lindsey Graham said:


> "I would, when it came to Israel, condemn the UN Human Rights report that holds Israel responsible for the activity here," Graham said on CNN's "State of the Union." "The UN Human Rights report is a joke. The UN is becoming more anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic."



Evidently merely choosing to investigate whether or not Israel has violated international law or has done enough to protect civilians now constitutes anti-semitism in his eyes.

If his statement is just empty rhetoric it was poorly thought out since I can't help but feel that sort of statement doesn't help how some people who may be uncertain of Israel perceive the country and it's allies.


----------



## Overtone

Thank you Randy for the support. I think you said everything that needed to be said.

Quitty, I find your insinuation insulting, both to me and the civilian casualties who have been so callously brushed aside by this idea that anything is just when you are fighting a terrorist organization. The fact that I myself call them that should tell you everything you need to know. If you still don't get it then there's not much point in me and you continuing any kind of conversation.


----------



## DocBach

Randy said:


> The words used have been "human shield". None of the pictures you posted displayed that. The article which you refer to alludes to the murky nature of things with regard to where some civilian activity meets with terrorist activity. That angle actually makes perfect sense with the pictures you posted.



So you mean, because Hamas hasn't been seen literally carrying people to use as armor using the phrase "human shield" to describe how they use schools and hospitals full of civilians as launch pads for rocket strikes isn't appropriate? 







What would you call hundreds of women and children on top of a building used as a command post with the intent to protect it from the Israeli's ROE's against purposefully harming civilians? Human roofing?


----------



## vilk

Necris said:


> Graham: UN Becoming 'Anti-Semitic'
> Sen. Graham: The United Nations Is Becoming More Anti-Semitic « CBS DC



Ok, the last time I checked, both Arabs and Jews are Semitic peoples. Am I confused? Wouldn't using the term 'anti-semitic' in this situation be kind of pointless since both sides of the conflict are semitic?


----------



## Quitty

Randy said:


> Hamas ignored the ceasefires because they're terrorist shitheads. Mystery solved, so stop posting the same goddamn repetitive post and acting like you're proving anything with it. It's not being addressed by anyone else in here because's it's a futile, stupid point.



Again, the point isn't that Hamas is a terrorist organization. That much is, i think, accepted.
The point is that certain things are inevitable when dealing with a group that doesn't mind civilian casualties. No, not everything is legit, but avoiding civilian casualties isn't hard, it's impossible.

There are many things that the Israeli administration has done wrong, but very few of them were brought up in this thread. What has been brought up is civilian casualties.
You think they are due to careless targeting and disregard for human rights. I think they're the result of fighting a terrorist organization. 


Bombing from the air will cause too many civilian casualties when your opponent hides ammunition in civilian buildings, so you go in by foot, causing distress to the local populace.
Infiltrating a hospital when armed fighters are shooting from the top floors will cause too many civilian casualties, so you shell the wall they're hiding behind, causing collateral damage and more casualties.
It's never clean and simple, and it's about minimizing damage, not avoiding it, because it's a terrorist organization. That's the point.


----------



## Overtone

DocBach said:


> So you mean, because Hamas hasn't been seen literally carrying people to use as armor using the phrase "human shield" to describe how they use schools and hospitals full of civilians as launch pads for rocket strikes isn't appropriate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would you call hundreds of women and children on top of a building used as a command post with the intent to protect it from the Israeli's ROE's against purposefully harming civilians? Human roofing?




Have you checked the source or context of this or any of your other images?

I reverse image searched the last one and found that it is from a photo set in 2006. From the looks of it, a propaganda shoot where Hamas was trying to show Israel that they "figured it out". Probably not a combat scenario either. Many wars later I think this is a little dated. 

Here is what I found to back up the date. It's my subjective opinion that this looks like propaganda photograpy rather than legit journalism during any conflict simply from the style of photo and lack of smoke, damage, etc. those people would be blown to bits already in today's war... Not much chance to hang like they are doing there. 

BBC NEWS | In Pictures | In pictures: Palestinian 'human shields'

Shows up 3 days ago on Breitbart but that doesn't make it current or relevant, especially if Op Cast Lead is somehow not relevant enough to bring up.


----------



## Overtone

And again I don't see anyone keeping them there. Is volunteering to be there punishable by death?


----------



## Crabface

http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=1072361

If this doesnt say everything about the current situation then i don't know what does.
Obviously its in hebrew so 95% of you guys wont be able to read it unless translated so i'll look for an article in english later when i have time.
But basically, 20 palestinians/gazans who went on an anti-war protest have just been executed by the Hamas for "cooperating with israel" by going on a protest.

Their dead bodies were then tied to motorbikes and dragged along the road as a demonstration.

The Hamas are simply ridiculous. They want their people to die. It's all about PR for them.


----------



## DocBach

The easiest way to say this is this;

Are there innocent casualties in war? Yes, almost everyone in both Gaza and the outskirts in Israel are suffering at least psychologically. Many more have been killed.

The difference is, is one side bound by strict rules of engagement where they purposefully try not to attack civilian centers to mitigate the amount of civilian casualties?

Does one side know this and purposefully exploit that by launching attacks and storing munitions in public centers?

The answer to all these questions is yes, if you want to believe it or not. I can tell you not from internet news sites but from three tours boots on the ground that insurgencies fight dirty, and they love to exploit civilian casualties. In 2008 in Mosul we had a huge problem with them having children throw RKG-3 grenades at us -- or even fake ones, because they WANTED us to kill children so they could show that to garner support. That's the mentality of these people.


----------



## Overtone

Really messed up times.

First of all to Quitty and the others there I hope for the safety and peace of everyone in your world. 

To DocBach, respect for that big time. I would have usually said that Iraq and Gaza have nothing to do with each other, but after the daily horror in Iraq and Syria that kind of thing seems to be spreading and I can't even really contest it any more. The last few years in Syria were tragic to watch, and what I have been hearing from Iraq in the news this month is beyond comprehension. But Hamas history was not that. This collaborator execution is like that, and maybe a few other things, but never on that level of brutality til now. So all I ask is you remember that many of the people caught up in it are not like the monsters that are part of that bigger, and insane game. It's more about politics and land than a really specific religious view, though of course Hamas is ugly and closed minded in its beliefs on many matters like that. It hurts me to see people like that anywhere in the Arab world. But for many Palestinians in Gaza its been a lifelong aspiration for freedom and the idea that it's up to them to demand their rights. Those people, caught up alongside the worst of Hamas, do not deserve anywhere near this level of punishment. 

So I hope you understand that we probably agree on a lot, but when I see pics like that I do try to find context. I am careful what I post from the Pal side and go for neutral or Israeli sources. We still have the myth that Palestinians danced in the streets because of 9/11 and many other stories and they all stick around. It does nothing to bring together people on it. Really at this point it's up to the people and not politicians, both in Israel and in the West Bank to try to keep coming together. Eventually Israelis as a democratic majority won't want the Palestinians enduring these things. But today things are still weighted more towards the settlers and the most idiotic of the Arabs. 


The other thing important to me is that I don't want everyone to be able to forget things the IDF did in Palestine and Lebanon like use cluster bombs or the kind of accounts that are part of Breaking the Silence.


----------



## Quitty

Overtone said:


> The other thing important to me is that I don't want everyone to be able to forget things the IDF did in Palestine and Lebanon like use cluster bombs or the kind of accounts that are part of Breaking the Silence.



Could you direct me to your sources?..
Cluster bombs, as far as i know (i've spent two tours in Gaza) were never used.
As for 'breaking the silence', they are currently joined with 'Waqf women' which are the kind fellas that photoshopped me beating a pregnant woman at a checkpoint. 

Call it personal gripe, but i wouldn't believe a word they say.


----------



## Overtone

I know you probably just hate Ha'aretz too. 

IDF commander: We fired more than a million cluster bombs in Lebanon Israel News | Haaretz

The whole inquiry where the IDF did all the investigating for themselves was such a joke. And then they called the UN report anti-Semitic.


----------



## Overtone

> On Monday, 25 members of the Abu Jame' family were killed when Israeli forces struck a house near Khan Younis, apparently without warning, the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem said. A Hamas militant was also killed.
> 
> The dead included 18 children and five women, three of whom were pregnant. The family was eating iftar, the meal that breaks the Ramadan fast.


Israel hits hundreds of targets in Gaza as soldier is confirmed missing | World news | theguardian.com

How is a whole house full of people acceptable for one militant?


----------



## Crabface

Overtone said:


> Israel hits hundreds of targets in Gaza as soldier is confirmed missing | World news | theguardian.com
> 
> How is a whole house full of people acceptable for one militant?



It is when they have been warned to get out of the house and have failed to acknowledge the warnings. If they volunteer to die "for the PR" then it is their fault, if they are being forced to stay by the Hamas then there is only so much Israel can do.
There is a misconception that, due to the dense populace and small size of Gaza, even if the civilians due escape from their homes there will be nowhere to go that is not also being bombed. The truth is quite simply that the whole of Gaza is not being bombed. Israel are targeting a small area of Gaza and if civilians aren't willing to escape to another village then they may die.

Israel do not need to do anymore than they have done to limit civilian casualties, in fact they have set a whole new standard that no other nation has ever come close to in terms of trying to keep enemy civilians alive. Yet they still come under irrational and disproportionate scrutiny from western media. Why isn't the news so obsessed with Syria, or Ukraine - where, quite frankly, things are just as bad if not worse?

When was the last time the USA or UK gave warning phone calls and sent pamphlets and sent ground troops in all to avoid the enemy civilian casualty? NEVER. This is only expected of Israel for some strange reason, and people still expect more.
Civilians die in wars, and as awful as it is, it will happen and Israel are not committing any war crimes at all in this sense. Why wasn't there an outcry when the USA and UK carpet bombed innocent German civilians in WWII? Or when the USA flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki? There are countless, and i mean COUNTLESS times, when western countries have killed innocent civilians during war without even sparing a thought for them and there has been know more than a whimper against it.

Do you know why? Because it is legal in war. Yes, war has rules, and harming innocent civilians as the byproduct of an act of defense against the enemy is allowed. Death counts are irrelevant. If the Hamas - elected by Palestinian majority had spent their money on defense mechanisms and hospitals and schools rather than weaponry and tunnels aimed to kill israelis with maybe there wouldn't be so many dead civilians. Maybe we wouldn't have had this problem in the first place.

People ask whether it's worth it in the first place... after all, 46 Israeli soldiers have died since the ground operations began. That is far more than the Hamas would've killed with their rockets. The reason this is necessary is because of the tunnels. The Hamas had been planning plenty of awful attacks using the tunnels to sneak past the borders. Imagine if the Israeli government ignored it in order to not cause any trouble and then in a few weeks time everyone in Israel woke up to the news of a night attack by the Hamas that has left 100 Israeli civilians dead.
What would everyone be saying then? And the Israeli civilians would be wondering what the government had been doing the whole time, after failing them and letting 100 people die.

Another topic I'd like to address is the whole idea of the "Free Gaza" movement. These people simply don't know what they're talking about.
It's true, Gaza is under siege by Israel in the sense that Israel - _*and Egypt*_, who people never seem to mention in this context - for some "odd and unbiased reason" control everything that goes in and out of Gaza. That said, not one Israeli soldier even sets foot inside of Gaza when there is not a war. Israel to not control anything that happens IN Gaza and certainly to not breach their humans rights - which is a humorous suggestion considering the fact that the Governing "political party" in Gaza, the Hamas, have absolutely no consideration for basic human rights whatsoever. The saying "handle your own problems before complaining about someone else's" is fitting.

Lets recap a bit of history.
When Israel first left Gaza and surrendered control of it many years ago people claimed that the new independently-run Gaza would be the hong-kong of the middle east, a heaven on earth, Blahblahblah.
This might have worked had it not been for the fact that they decided to spend all their funds on weapons in order to break peace rather than spending it on schools, housing and hospitals. So right there and then Hamas and Gaza sadly proved everyone wrong by ensuring that Gaza would be just another shithole.

Now, as they were using their money to build rockets that they fired over to Israel, Israel were legally allowed to regulate what goes in and out of the borders to ensure they do not get weaponry that could endanger Israel. This is not only allowed but standard procedure that _*any other country would follow.*_ But for some reason this legal and rightful sanction - or "siege" - is seen as some kind of greediness or something by some people who are either ignorant to the facts or simply morons. There is absolutely nothing in it for Israel. Why would they waste their funds on some place which they don't even enter.
The mistake that Israel did make in this situation, which i don't agree with at all, was the manner in which they regulated things and what they regulated.
That said, this "siege" is totally within Israel's defensive rights based on international law and as a result the only way for Hamas to receive weaponry is through the tunnels which they have built, which is just another reason for the current operation that is in action.

Finally, just remember that every single treaty that Israel has signed with the Hamas has been breached by the Hamas and every single ceasefire has been ended by Hamas rocket-fire. This is despite the fact that Israel has never breached a treaty with them and Israel have two long-standing treaties with Egypt and Jordan which have gone unbreached since the day they were signed.

I guess the conclusion of this post is:
1) There are plenty of Ill-Informed people out there who think that they are being very liberal and humanitarian by demonstrating against Israel, when it is quite the opposite.
2) I'm really tired and i can't remember the 2nd conclusion 
I'll try to remember and then I'll edit the post.

For anyone who wants to read more about this, I've found a great blog by Sam Harris about the situation. Worth a read.

Why Dont I Criticize Israel? : : Sam Harris


----------



## Crabface

I'd just like to add this article too. Just demonstrates the disproportionate criticism Israel gets.
7 Things to Consider Before Choosing Sides in the Middle East Conflict | Ali A. Rizvi


----------



## flint757

Two wrongs don't make something right. I'm very much against all of the actions you listed to justify Israel's killing of Gaza citizens. "They did it so why can't we" is a rather poor defense anyhow.

You are part of the problem and death counts absolutely do matter (especially unrelated deaths). Leaders in ALL nations make decisions literally without citizen consent ALL the time. Civilians do not deserve to die because corrupt people decide to do something corrupt (shocker). To be hyperbolic, what you're describing is like saying a kid through some rocks at me so I pulled out a pistol and shot him. Then later saying he should have bought a bullet proof vest rather than a lollipop that day. 

The situation in Palestine is complex, especially in regards to politics and its economic situation. If you are really willing to pretend that most of the people who die in Gaza are 'in on it' or 'dying for the cause' then that's your prerogative I guess. It isn't just a matter of legal right, but doing what is right in general. My government has the legal right to do a lot of things I would consider morally objectionable. It being legal doesn't really change that.

I'm not saying there were other options (although I'm sure there are many options), but blowing it off, calling it collateral damage, pretending that's just how things work, and justifying it by any means necessary is beyond wrong even if they did take the 'best' course of action. To look at it any other way is to intentionally dehumanize the situation and that is a slippery slope to go down. It's a dilemma. There are no right choices, only slightly better ones. Picking even the least worst option doesn't instantly make it right in a moral sense. Even in war it is important to not lose ones humanity. 

As for criticism against Israel, if a nation wants to elevate itself it has to hold itself to a higher standard. Criticizing Israel because they are being held to a higher standard is not applause for Hamas by any means. To brush off all criticism as unjustified is equally asinine as well. That last article you linked was incredibly biased just by its first point alone (and continued to be up until its last point which still wasn't without some bias). ANY criticism brought against Israel leads to the inevitable "it's because they are Jews" bullshit. 

One other point I'd like to raise is this:

"If Hamas is so bad, why isn't everyone pro-Israel in this conflict?"

It seems a lot of Pro-Israeli, and obviously Israelite's themselves, consider these to be the only two options. In doing so they seemingly choose to interchange all of Palestine with Hamas as if they are one in the same. They are not and that has been the point most of the dissenters have been pointing out.


----------



## heregoesnothing




----------



## Addison90

I love when a biased article try too look neutral by criticizing both sides


----------



## asher

Crabface said:


> It is when they have been warned to get out of the house and have failed to acknowledge the warnings. If they volunteer to die "for the PR" then it is their fault, if they are being forced to stay by the Hamas then there is only so much Israel can do.



Look, I don't know that much about the situation to really be able to comment, but this is absurd.

"We're going to bomb your house, and if you die it's your fault."


----------



## Overtone

This is 44% of Gaza that Israel is declaring a target and needs evacuation. 





This is a whole neighborhood leveled by bombs in under an hour
WATCH: Whole Gaza neighborhood destroyed in an hour | +972 Magazine

People are hearing bombs drop before their "evacuation time" is up and are afraid to leave anymore. Where do you go? The idea of warning calls is a joke. "We are destroying the building your whole family lives in. Figure something out."


----------



## Overtone

Crabface said:


> I'd just like to add this article too. Just demonstrates the disproportionate criticism Israel gets.
> 7 Things to Consider Before Choosing Sides in the Middle East Conflict.|.Ali A. Rizvi



This is a truly laughable article! "The reason why the Palestinian casualties are greater is because Israel is better at protecting its people." 



And I never could find your article on the 20 protestors outside of a VERY small handful of Hebrew websites. It's been a day... The story would have broken by now for real. I am skeptical of your information after these two articles... I don't care how long you lived there.


----------



## Crabface

Do you guys really not get it?
The responses to what I wrote have been quote simply flawed in logic and missing many points that i addressed.
1) Israel do not elevate themseleves to a higher standard, the put thenseleves at an equal standard to every other country in the world, yet they are forced to do far more to "keep level" in the public eye. How on earth is it fair for israel to be disproportionately criticised compared to countries like russia and syria and Iraq, who do far worse things. There is quite simply an unhealthy obsession with Israel. Now, call it what you want but i'd be hard pressed to find strong explanation for this obsession that doesnt at least partially invlolve the fact that Israel is a Jewish country. I wont get into that right now because westerners have and incredibly hard time admitting bias or racism and therefore tend to blow this off as a weak argument. Its everywhere though. Im not saying that everyone is intentionally anti-semitic - or "anti-zionist, which is a ridiculous term in the first place - but there is some kind of mental block that makes it logical for people to put Israel under so much more scrutiny than anyone else.
I dont see crowds of 100,000s of people protesting against ISIS or Russia, who are killing far more people. The Syrian government have killed 180,000 of THEIR OWN PEOPLE in the last 2 years. Thats a ridiculous number. But where are the mass protests against that?

You guys are talking as if it is plainly obvious that a country should always go through all these procedures to protect civilians. The simple fact is that Israel have done far more than any other country has ever done
done in order to prevent opposing civilian deaths and has set a new standard that no other country is ever going to meet being it will not be seen as nesessary for them. Only Israel need to go through these "standard" procedures.

Another point I'd like to make is in response that two wrongs dont make a right.
1) the kids with rocks and guns analogy is so bad its laughable.
Its more like this:
One kid repeatedly throws rocks at another kid. The other kid throws bigger rocks at the first kid and the first kid gets mad that he is being bullied.
The second kid then explains that he shouldve spent his time and money on productive things for him amd his family rather than picking a fight.
100% fair and logical.
If a robber picks a fight with Mike Tyson, is big old Mike not allowed to kick the shit out of him just because hes stronger?

You talk about me dehumanizing the situation. This is not true. All i was saying is that war is not humane in the first place. Civilians will die. Israel are the only cpuntry who have gone through so much to protect them, regardless. Do you not think that is Israel wanted they cluld flatten gaza in a day? When was the last time the USA protected opposition civilians? Never. Were all the non-militants that died when the USA carpet bombed germany counted for? Or when they killed hundreds of thousands in Japan?
How come only Israel are held to these standards?
This is war and, believe it or not, civilians die. But everything that Israel has done is this sense is legal and would be done by any other nation, if not worse.

Morality doesnt come into play here, because picking the "least worst option", as you put it, is actually the least efficient way for israel to protect themselves, yet theyre doing it.
Again, remember that of israel had not gone through this their own civilians wouldve died, and then the outcome is exactly the same except the terrorist agrressors wouldve won, israel wouldve launched a tougjer attack as a result and many more people wouldve died. On top of that people wouldve been questioning what the israeli government had been doing to protect its civilians.

half of these are points i made in the last post yet you seems to have skimmed right past them.

Just because Israels action are killing people does not mean they are unnecessary.
Again, the numbers are not the point. I may have put it badly here because i am typing on my phone and its very spontaneous and unorganized, but i also covered this on my last post. If you really continue to contest the justification then you are quite simply not reading the posts.

In response to asher;
If someone tells you to evacuate the area because they are aboit to demolish it and you stay you are a moron who is asking for death. Simple as that. How does this not apply in gaza for some reason? Amd if they are being forced to stay in their homes then there is only so much Israel can do. What they are doing IS necessary and justified and they have gone through far more than anyone else to prevent civilian deaths. If civilians do still end up dying i. This situation how are Israel still to blame. Again, no other country would ever come under nearly as much scrutiny as Israel if they were doing this.

You cannot win a PR war against people who do not value their own lives or the lives of the peopld around them, and that is israels problem. Many of them will happily die in order to go paradise whilst maming Israel look bad.
This is where the Sam Harris article i posted comes in.
"Conveniently", noone seems to have criticised it. Maybe because it true?
Also, how a out instead of just calling the other article biased you point things out which are debatable and defend you point of view. Otherwise its just called denial. Im aware that some of that article is biased, but even so 90% of it is accurate.


----------



## Crabface

Overtone said:


> This is a truly laughable article! "The reason why the Palestinian casualties are greater is because Israel is better at protecting its people."
> 
> 
> 
> And I never could find your article on the 20 protestors outside of a VERY small handful of Hebrew websites. It's been a day... The story would have broken by now for real. I am skeptical of your information after these two articles... I don't care how long you lived there.




Report: Hamas Executed 20 Palestinian Anti-War Protestors in Gaza

Also, that video is laughable if anything. These are rockets which are capable of destroying houses. Ive seen it with my own eyes. Just because there is a video of ONE which doesnt go detonate doesnt mean they all misfunction. That is an absurd idea and obviously very thought out.

Also, Israel IS better at defending its people than hamas. If hamas hadnt repeatedly attacked israel in the first place and planned to use the tunnels none of this wouldve happened. How is that for failing to defend your people. They literally did not have to do ANYTHING and they wouldve been safe and protecting their people by not being agressive.
You must have a very short memory because isiterally addressed this in my post last night.
Hamas funding couldve gone anywhere. It went to qeapos designed to kill jews. That is why we have this war in the first place. By simply putting their money elsewhere.they aouldve been defending themselves.


----------



## Crabface

BBC News - Gaza conflict: Hamas vows no Israel ceasefire
This is what israel are dealing with.
Morality doesnt even come into play here.
Most nations wouldve done far worse than israel in Gaza a long time ago without thinking twice about the civilians.


----------



## Overtone

> In an audio statement on Tuesday, Qassam Brigades commander Mohammed Deif said the ceasefire "will not take place unless the siege is lifted and the border crossings are all open".



Hamas demands end to siege before truce - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Hamas has stated terms that were rejected by Israel, just as Israels terms were rejected by Hamas. 

In Role Reversal, Hamas Offers Ceasefire and Israel Rejects It - The Wire

UN ceasefire also rejected by Israel
PM rejects UN ceasefire calls; Ban warns Israel faces isolation | The Times of Israel

Keep trying crabby


----------



## downburst82

Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001-2014)

Just a little food for thought. The American war on terrorism has resulted in 18,000 - 20,000 civilian deaths (in Afghanistan)



ps: Just wanted to add while I think that # is unfortunately high I don't pretend to understand how hard it is to deal with a deeply embedded complex terrorist organization..I also don't pretend to have any idea on what an acceptable # of "collateral damage" is. I just wanted to point out that lots of innocent people die in any serious military conflict, its always horrible. Sometimes its proven to be justified but then to what extent? There are no easy answers to something like War and there are really no answers to innocent people dying but we still accept that sometimes it has to happen.


----------



## Crabface

Overtone said:


> Hamas demands end to siege before truce - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
> 
> Hamas has stated terms that were rejected by Israel, just as Israels terms were rejected by Hamas.
> 
> In Role Reversal, Hamas Offers Ceasefire and Israel Rejects It - The Wire
> 
> UN ceasefire also rejected by Israel
> PM rejects UN ceasefire calls; Ban warns Israel faces isolation | The Times of Israel
> 
> Keep trying crabby




Thats it. Just goes to show what you know. Did you even read any of those articles or did you just do a google search for relevant headlines?
Every single one of those articles just support what im saying.

Article 1: I have addressed this siege. It is necessary because without it weapons move freely into gaza without even any regulation. I have addressed this already. In 2005 Gaza were given total freedom and Israeli forces completely cleared the area. When the Hamas used this freedom to obtain weapons and attack israel, rather than using the freedom to build schools amd workplaces, israel legally "Sieged" gaza's borders by regulating and controlling everything that goes in and out, alongside egypt... who people seem to forget about.

Article 2: Hamas rejected the original ceasefire, which israel accepted, and carried on firing rockets and then backtracked on the decision afterwards. Take it how you will. Hamas have offered numerous ceasefires and then continued to fire rockets during the ceasefires.

Article 3: The ceasefire fails to recognise the threat that the Hamas pose to israel through the tunnels.

This is all written in these articles which only support my statements and which you obviously didnt bother reading.

"Keep trying Overtone".
And try not to sound so arrogant in the process. Doesnt help that you dont even.know what youre posting.


----------



## Overtone

The point being neither side ever gives a shit about a ceasefire. They never have. If you post one about Hamas not giving a shit I will balance it out with one about BB not giving a shit. I acknowledge Hamas doesn't give a shit and that's why I posted articles that included information on that. But I have yet to see you acknowledge that most of the time when "ceasefires" come up it's a bluff on both sides.


----------



## Overtone

Crabface said:


> Report: Hamas Executed 20 Palestinian Anti-War Protestors in Gaza



Look, I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if the one source is a guy on a news show translating something, I'm going to reserve judgment. 

We seem to be going in circles because you keep bringing up Hamas. I made it clear where I stand on them. all I want is to remind people that the IDF has been unjust before. When asked for sources I provided them. Then the discussion went right back "yeah, but *Hamas*..." Also it's important to show that in reality, any kind of escape to safety is not an option in Gaza when the whole neighborhood is coming down.

I'm also on a mobile device, but I'm trying not to let that hold me back.


----------



## Crabface

Overtone said:


> Look, I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if the one source is a guy on a news show translating something, I'm going to reserve judgment.
> 
> We seem to be going in circles because you keep bringing up Hamas. I made it clear where I stand on them. all I want is to remind people that the IDF has been unjust before. When asked for sources I provided them. Then the discussion went right back "yeah, but *Hamas*..." Also it's important to show that in reality, any kind of escape to safety is not an option in Gaza when the whole neighborhood is coming down.
> 
> I'm also on a mobile device, but I'm trying not to let that hold me back.



Ok, so we're in partial agreement here.
The difference between hamas not caring for a ceasefire unless its on their terms and Israel rejecting a ceasefire due to the terms is that Hamas are in no position to negotiate here, especially when theyre basically saying that they'll only accept a ceasefire if Israel allow them to start trading weapons again, which will only make things worse for israel so a ceasefire wpupd be pointless. Israel is far stronger and any reasonable leadership that values militant and civilian life would comply with Israels demands for a ceasefire. The problem is that Hamas dont care for the lives of the Gazan populace. In fact, deaths of civilians are good for the hamas.

I agree that at times the IDF have been unjust before. Not on this occasion though. That is why i keep on bringing up the hamas. Believe it or not, hamas are very relevant in this conflict.

The civilian deaths are awful, but it has to be remembered that Israel are only doing this to protect their own civilians. Israel have no other reason to be on Gaza. Their own soldiers are dying, the whole world is villifying them and if Israel really wanted to destroy gaza they wouldve done it by now.
Had the tunnel plan not been foiled many israeli civilians would have died.
I really think that the best thing Israel can do right now is focus solely on destroying the tunnels and then getting the hell out of Gaza ASAP. Nothing else is worth the fighting, especially not missiles which the Iron Dome seems to handle rather well 90% of the time.

So yeah, i reckon we actually agree on some things here.

With that all said, i'd appreciate it if you stopped being a smartass and adding little quips at the end of your posts every time. We can debate without that childishness.
When i mentioned I was typing on a mobile device i was simply apologising for any possibility of my posts being disorganised or difficult to follow.
You really dont need to try and pull witty remarks about it.


----------



## asher

Crabface said:


> In response to asher;
> If someone tells you to evacuate the area because they are aboit to demolish it and you stay you are a moron who is asking for death. Simple as that. How does this not apply in gaza for some reason? Amd if they are being forced to stay in their homes then there is only so much Israel can do. What they are doing IS necessary and justified and they have gone through far more than anyone else to prevent civilian deaths. If civilians do still end up dying i.



You can't compare peace time demolition with notices posted months in advance and police muscle to forcefully evict people _so the building doesn't fall on them_ with bombing housing. Apples to oranges.

I've got a gun levelled at you. I tell you I'm going to shoot where I'm aiming in two seconds if you don't move. You're telling me if I shoot and kill you it's your fault for not moving? I still have the gun, intended to shoot to kill and did so.

I'm not saying this isn't the militarily correct response for the IDF to be taking. But treat it like what it is.



> This situation how are Israel still to blame. Again, no other country would ever come under nearly as much scrutiny as Israel if they were doing this.



So what?

This has no actual bearing on the validity or justification of any of Israel's actions. Further, I would argue that this is in fact a good thing, and that *many other countries should also be subject to such scrutiny, starting with my own*.


----------



## Crabface

asher said:


> You can't compare peace time demolition with notices posted months in advance and police muscle to forcefully evict people _so the building doesn't fall on them_ with bombing housing. Apples to oranges.
> 
> I've got a gun levelled at you. I tell you I'm going to shoot where I'm aiming in two seconds if you don't move. You're telling me if I shoot and kill you it's your fault for not moving? I still have the gun, intended to shoot to kill and did so.
> 
> I'm not saying this isn't the militarily correct response for the IDF to be taking. But treat it like what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> This has no actual bearing on the validity or justification of any of Israel's actions. Further, I would argue that this is in fact a good thing, and that *many other countries should also be subject to such scrutiny, starting with my own*.



I dont agree with that analogy. I think a better analogy would be something like:
Theres a gunman behind you whom i need to kill. I'm holding a gun that can pierce the two of you and if you dont move out of the way i will fire and kill you both.
It possibly is my fault that you have died if you dont move, but it is a necessary thing to do. And if you intentionally dont move in order to protect the gunman or because you want to be killed then you are engaging in combat, at which point it is your fault.

When talking about the scrutiny that israel are constantly under it wasnt in order to validate or justify israels actions (although, as ive said many time, i do think theyre justified), it was just in order to demonstrate the bias there is against israel in the western world compared to other nations.
*Note: When i say bias against israel, it isnt in terms of this specific Israel vs Hamas conflict but overall. More like how Israel are compared to the USA or Uk or syria or russia etc. And the standards that they are held to.*


----------



## Overtone

Crabface said:


> Ok, so we're in partial agreement here.
> The difference between hamas not caring for a ceasefire unless its on their terms and Israel rejecting a ceasefire due to the terms is that Hamas are in no position to negotiate here, especially when theyre basically saying that they'll only accept a ceasefire if Israel allow them to start trading weapons again, which will only make things worse for israel so a ceasefire wpupd be pointless. Israel is far stronger and any reasonable leadership that values militant and civilian life would comply with Israels demands for a ceasefire. The problem is that Hamas dont care for the lives of the Gazan populace. In fact, deaths of civilians are good for the hamas.
> 
> I agree that at times the IDF have been unjust before. Not on this occasion though. That is why i keep on bringing up the hamas. Believe it or not, hamas are very relevant in this conflict.
> 
> The civilian deaths are awful, but it has to be remembered that Israel are only doing this to protect their own civilians. Israel have no other reason to be on Gaza. Their own soldiers are dying, the whole world is villifying them and if Israel really wanted to destroy gaza they wouldve done it by now.
> Had the tunnel plan not been foiled many israeli civilians would have died.
> I really think that the best thing Israel can do right now is focus solely on destroying the tunnels and then getting the hell out of Gaza ASAP. Nothing else is worth the fighting, especially not missiles which the Iron Dome seems to handle rather well 90% of the time.
> 
> So yeah, i reckon we actually agree on some things here.
> 
> With that all said, i'd appreciate it if you stopped being a smartass and adding little quips at the end of your posts every time. We can debate without that childishness.
> When i mentioned I was typing on a mobile device i was simply apologising for any possibility of my posts being disorganised or difficult to follow.
> You really dont need to try and pull witty remarks about it.



I hear you. I still don't see how anybody could see the video I just posted, and the map of the 3km corridor, and still think that the civilians in Gaza have much choice as to whether or not they end up being killed by an IDF attack. And what about the kids? Whether their parents choose to stay behind or seek possible shelter is not their choice. The analogy with Asher needs a baby strapped to the chest of the "human shield" in that example for it to really apply to this situation. 

I'm not looking for antagonism either. But when I read your posts it makes me angry because it seems like if you had seen the childrens' bodies being pulled from the rubble you wouldn't be able to be this casual about it. It's not up to me to make sure you've seen that, but once you have it changes a lot of things. You were also the first to get personal, calling me ill informed and with a bad memory.


----------



## Captain Shoggoth

Just addressing Crabface's point on the focus ONLY being on Israel: I agree to a point that it is a problem with Muslims not being able to hold their own accountable (similar perhaps to you with Israel in this case) but there are literally hundreds of British Muslims who have gone to FIGHT in the Syrian war, and I see endless outpourings of donations, with members of my family cursing Assad more violently than they do Netanyahu (which is a big deal, believe me). So I think your position there (albeit simply by virtue of being unaware, which isn't your fault) is incorrect.


----------



## Crabface

Overtone said:


> I hear you. I still don't see how anybody could see the video I just posted, and the map of the 3km corridor, and still think that the civilians in Gaza have much choice as to whether or not they end up being killed by an IDF attack. And what about the kids? Whether their parents choose to stay behind or seek possible shelter is not their choice. The analogy with Asher needs a baby strapped to the chest of the "human shield" in that example for it to really apply to this situation.
> 
> I'm not looking for antagonism either. But when I read your posts it makes me angry because it seems like if you had seen the childrens' bodies being pulled from the rubble you wouldn't be able to be this casual about it. It's not up to me to make sure you've seen that, but once you have it changes a lot of things. You were also the first to get personal, calling me ill informed and with a bad memory.



I have seen plenty of videos of dead children. Its disgusting and hurts to see but the reality is that if not for the accidental deaths of palestinian children that occur when attempting to nullify the threat of the Hamas then it would be dead israeli children instead, intentionally murdered by the Hamas.
You actually make a good point about the analogy - and it certainly makes the dilemma more complex - but again, im not sure how far morality can realistically go in these situations. Its really just a choice between "Us or Them".

Im sorry if you found anything i said earlier offensive or personal, it was unintentional and i was simply venting my frustration at having to repeat myself. I was wasnt even aware it was in response to you. So again, apologies.


----------



## Captain Shoggoth

Crabface said:


> You actually make a good point about the analogy - and it certainly makes the dilemma more complex - but again, im not sure how far morality can realistically go in these situations. Its really just a choice between "Us or Them".




What on earth else are you supposed to go by if not morality??? "us and them" thinking keeps us stuck in the stone age in some regards. It is an intolerable way to think in the 21st century IMO. 

Crabface, Hamas have repeatedly said they would acquiesce to 2-state solution with 1967 borders (that said I feel that this too is an imperfect solution). Surely therefore Israel has had many occasions on which to do so, not least considering the 20 years between those acquisitions and the foundation of Hamas, so why is it so reluctant to give up its grabbed land in favour of peace?



asher said:


> So what?
> 
> This has no actual bearing on the validity or justification of any of Israel's actions. Further, I would argue that this is in fact a good thing, and that *many other countries should also be subject to such scrutiny, starting with my own*.



this x a million


----------



## Crabface

Captain Shoggoth said:


> Just addressing Crabface's point on the focus ONLY being on Israel: I agree to a point that it is a problem with Muslims not being able to hold their own accountable (similar perhaps to you with Israel in this case) but there are literally hundreds of British Muslims who have gone to FIGHT in the Syrian war, and I see endless outpourings of donations, with members of my family cursing Assad more violently than they do Netanyahu (which is a big deal, believe me). So I think your position there (albeit simply by virtue of being unaware, which isn't your fault) is incorrect.



Unfortunately, your family isnt representative of the whole world. The only statistic you need to know is the comparitive size between demonstrations against israel vs demonstrations against syria.
Again, if you asked anyone people who was worse; Netanyahu or Assad 99% would say assad... because its really almost more than obvious.
But, when have these 100,000s of people who demonstrate against israel (most without even knowing what exactly theyre talking about) demonstrated against syria? Maybe 20% of them.
And its undeniable whos worse.
There is a genuine bias against Israel.
In cambridge there is a weekly anti-israel demonstration in the town center. I have NEVER seen an anti-syria or iraq demonstration. And they kill there own people in far higher numbers.


----------



## Randy

ITT: Rational people who don't necessarily agree with Crabface concede points to Crabface, Crabface concedes nothing.


----------



## Captain Shoggoth

Crabface said:


> Unfortunately, your family isnt representative of the whole world. The only statistic you need to know is the comparitive size between demonstrations against israel vs demonstrations against syria.
> Again, if you asked anyone people who was worse; Netanyahu or Assad 99% would say assad... because its really almost more than obvious.
> But, when have these 100,000s of people who demonstrate against israel (most without even knowing what exactly theyre talking about) demonstrated against syria? Maybe 20% of them.
> And its undeniable whos worse.
> There is a genuine bias against Israel.
> In cambridge there is a weekly anti-israel demonstration in the town center. I have NEVER seen an anti-syria or iraq demonstration. And they kill there own people in far higher numbers.




Did you miss my point about there being a national phenomenon in my community of people going to fight and die in Syria?


----------



## Crabface

Captain Shoggoth said:


> What on earth else are you supposed to go by if not morality??? "us and them" thinking keeps us stuck in the stone age in some regards. It is an intolerable way to think in the 21st century IMO.
> 
> Crabface, Hamas have repeatedly said they would acquiesce to 2-state solution with 1967 borders (that said I feel that this too is an imperfect solution). Surely therefore Israel has had many occasions on which to do so, not least considering the 20 years between those acquisitions and the foundation of Hamas, so why is it so reluctant to give up its grabbed land in favour of peace?
> 
> 
> 
> this x a million



The Israeli settlements are some of the worst things israel have done and they are ridiculous. Israel shouldve left the settlements a long time ago. I would be all for a 2 state solution with the 1967 borders...
Not with hamas in charge though. The Hamas are literally around in order to kill Jews and a 2-state agreement would work with them for exactly 3 seconds before they breach the agreement and start attacking israel with newfound power that Israel will have entrusted them with.


----------



## asher

Crabface said:


> I dont agree with that analogy. I think a better analogy would be something like:
> Theres a gunman behind you whom i need to kill. I'm holding a gun that can pierce the two of you and if you dont move out of the way i will fire and kill you both.
> It possibly is my fault that you have died if you dont move, but it is a necessary thing to do. And if you intentionally dont move in order to protect the gunman or because you want to be killed then you are engaging in combat, at which point it is your fault.



It's *absolutely* your fault. And it's your fault *even if they want to be a shield* because you're the one pulling the trigger knowing you're going to kill them.

This is completely objective and separate from the vagaries of moral judgement or flawed attempts to ascribe motive to everyone living in those houses.


----------



## Overtone

It's cool man, it's a frustrating topic. I know you must have lost one or two better types out posts to the mobile device genie as did I. You didn't offend me or cross any lines. 

Captain shoggoth made a good point about Syria. The Syrian people are paying the ultimate price fighting Assad. In Lebanon and Jordan the refugees are being taken in, and some support had been given to FSA fighters. My friends and I have been active socially to remind the many expat Assad supporters of what they condone. We haven't been silent on that either. I agree that much more of the Arab world needs to be conscious and unite on being against violence regardless of the aggressor. My best friend posts to remind people Syria is still going on. And we always point out what a hypocrite Assad is by talking big about Israel but going hard on his own people instead.


----------



## Crabface

Randy said:


> ITT: Rational people who don't necessarily agree with Crabface concede points to Crabface, Crabface concedes nothing.



 Good of you to see it that way.
I'm debating, and I have conceded quite a few points actually. If there is something that someone says which leaves me stumped then I will, and I have, changed my point of view.



> It's absolutely your fault. And it's your fault even if they want to be a shield because you're the one pulling the trigger knowing you're going to kill them.
> 
> This is completely objective and separate from the vagaries of moral judgement or flawed attempts to ascribe motive to everyone living in those houses.



Perhaps fault was the wrong word to use, because it is indeed your fault if you pull the trigger, but if you have a reason to shoot based on the fact that this gunman whom the woman is protecting is aiming his gun at your family then it becomes a bit more complex than simply stating who pulled the trigger.



> Did you miss my point about there being a national phenomenon in my community of people going to fight and die in Syria?



I didn't, but thats not the point that i was addressing. Of course there are still plenty of people who do protest Assad, I'm not denying that. And these muslims who go and fight there are great people and I have nothing but respect for them. BUT, as a worldwide phenomenon Israel tend to just get a bit more stick. Thats all I'm saying, I am not denying anything that you have mentioned.


----------



## DocBach

Something that a lot of us unfamiliar with the culture over there keep failing to recognize is we are viewing the situation as outsiders through our own moral compass and lens from a western outsider point of view. You don't really imagine a reality where kids are taught in classes and by elders that blowing themselves up for Allah is a respectable life goal; sure, there are people out there who say "holy crap, that's crazy, I want no part of it," and regularly those people end up having their heads cut off for being too moderate. 

Hamas does not want borders changed to previous lines; they want Israel to not exist. They don't have learning institutions that teach them logic and reason, they have fundamentalists teach them that Islam is the true way of life and anybody who does not accept that should be killed. Until the people of Palestine who don't want that say get the .... out and let Hamas keep winning elections and running everything like a religious dictatorship from the middle ages, people are going to keep getting their houses bombed. 

(Interesting video interview from one of the Hamas founding member's son; Mosab Hassan Yousef (Son of Hamas Founder) tells the truth about Hamas. - YouTube)


----------



## Overtone

It's such a shame that the situation is that the population of Gaza are trapped with people like that and little from the outside world. When it comes to proper education, taking care of families in need, etc. there are so many people in the world ready to help. There is great stuff going on in the West Bank, being overseen by respected charities and foundations from many parts of the world including the US. Those groups were helping a lot in Gaza before. Then Hamas was elected, politically isolated after the arrest of many parliament members in the West Bank, and then Gaza became even more closed in with the borders as fighting ensued, both with the PA and with Israel. Hamas was always around, but for Gaza the last few years it's been like Hamas is all that is around, because movement is too restricted. The longer this goes on, the more of a problem the next generation is going to have finding a way to a good coexistence. The trauma now is a pretty bad start. 

The whole thing of having a party that is like Hamas in control should have never happened, and it should never broken off into two governments instead of one state. If they were going to arrest the politicians, why were they eligible for positions (or their party eligible to have positions) in the first place? I don't know who is accountable for that, but it was a terrible mistake. Hamas does have different wings supposedly, but I don't see why they couldn't have been outlawed from elected positions as a party after a certain point in history.


----------



## flint757

Crabface said:


> ...
> Perhaps fault was the wrong word to use, because it is indeed your fault if you pull the trigger, but if you have a reason to shoot based on the fact that this gunman whom the woman is protecting is aiming his gun at your family then it becomes a bit more complex than simply stating who pulled the trigger.
> ...



This is the number one problem with your position the way you are stating it. You are presupposing that EVERY death in Gaza, that isn't an Israeli of course, is dying to 'protect' Hamas. You are also basically interchanging Hamas with the Palestinians as well. While I have no doubt that some of them are acting as intentional 'shields' and that some of them 'support' Hamas, to assume they all do is just ridiculous. Look at the Western World and you see nearly half of each countries population alone hating the guy currently in power. Then you have elections that are far from honest happening all over the world and in many cases newly elected leaders who end up making things worse than they were before even though they promised the opposite. Once a group who is willing to kill you without blinking an eye gets in power how do you expect the citizens of that nation to elect them out. The fear alone is enough to keep individuals like that in power. 

Anyhow, my point is that you are living in your own little world if you think everyone in Gaza is there solely to be a shield for Hamas and supports their actions 100%. I've even heard some Israelis in this thread state they don't completely support their own nations administration. So why is it so hard for you to comprehend that they likely don't either. From what I understand, a large part of the region under siege is poverty stricken and overcrowded. Where exactly do you expect them to go? Even in rich nations like the US when a disaster happens it takes hours/days to clear people out and fix the problem, not minutes. They are being told one thing by one side and something else by the other, bombs are going off in the streets, the area is under attack and, as you've nicely stated, as long as there is a terrorist standing behind you, you might get shot. Top that with their families, homes and lives being where they live and it isn't really hard to conceive a valid reason why they might not leave their homes.


----------



## Crabface

flint757 said:


> This is the number one problem with your position the way you are stating it. You are presupposing that EVERY death in Gaza, that isn't an Israeli of course, is dying to 'protect' Hamas. You are also basically interchanging Hamas with the Palestinians as well. While I have no doubt that some of them are acting as intentional 'shields' and that some of them 'support' Hamas, to assume they all do is just ridiculous. Look at the Western World and you see nearly half of each countries population alone hating the guy currently in power. Then you have elections that are far from honest happening all over the world and in many cases newly elected leaders who end up making things worse than they were before even though they promised the opposite. Once a group who is willing to kill you without blinking an eye gets in power how do you expect the citizens of that nation to elect them out. The fear alone is enough to keep individuals like that in power.
> 
> Anyhow, my point is that you are living in your own little world if you think everyone in Gaza is there solely to be a shield for Hamas and supports their actions 100%. I've even heard some Israelis in this thread state they don't completely support their own nations administration. So why is it so hard for you to comprehend that they likely don't either. From what I understand, a large part of the region under siege is poverty stricken and overcrowded. Where exactly do you expect them to go? Even in rich nations like the US when a disaster happens it takes hours/days to clear people out and fix the problem, not minutes. They are being told one thing by one side and something else by the other, bombs are going off in the streets, the area is under attack and, as you've nicely stated, as long as there is a terrorist standing behind you, you might get shot. Top that with their families, homes and lives being where they live and it isn't really hard to conceive a valid reason why they might not leave their homes.



I totally i agree with all of your points here, But i was never denying them.
Everything youve said is correct but i just want to make it understood that I was never at all implying that the Hamas have full support of their citizens, not even close, and i have stated so a few times.
I was simply making a point about the complexities of these situations. If you thinks its as simple as saying "Israel must not kill anyone" youre as twisted as someone who believes Israel has justification to kill everyone.
*Note: When I say "you" it is not on a personal basis, but rather just demonstrative speach.*
It never is obvious where the boundaries are in war amd thats why its always difficult to judge what is happening.


----------



## Overtone

I agree that it's unreasonable to expect no collateral damage. But when you have 70% civilian casualties and scenes like this:







And the Israeli govt is calling it a "pinpoint operation" and says they are doing everything they can to minimize civilian casualties, I have to be skeptical.

I found this article sums up some of the things we covered nicely and btw I agree with the author that while Hamas may not by legal definition used human shields, they certainly aren't afraid to utilize people in the way described, which is only a shade less bad. But it's this conclusion that I liked...



> The argument over moral responsibility for civilian Palestinians often makes a fundamental mistake by assuming that culpability is zero-sum: that either Israel is responsible because it uses unnecessarily overwhelming force in civilian areas or Hamas is responsible because it attacks Israel from within civilian communities.
> 
> This fundamentally misses the point; both sides independently bear responsibility for the degree to which their tactics lead to civilian deaths. If one side abdicates that responsibility then this does not absolve the other. Both sides, by treating moral responsibility as zero-sum, are giving themselves permission to overlook their own role in driving up the civilian casualty rate, and thus continuing the killing.
> 
> More symbolically, treating moral responsibility as zero-sum &#8212; Hamas is free of blame because Israel bombs too much; Israel is free of blame because Hamas embeds itself among civilians &#8212; assumes that Palestinian civilian deaths only matter for the degree to which they make one side look better or worse. And that lack of regard for the hundreds of Palestinian civilians killed, the apparent sense that their lives only matter at the moment of their death so that it can be blamed on one side or another, is perhaps the most fundamental truth of the Israel-Gaza war.



http://www.vox.com/2014/7/30/5937119/palestinian-civilian-casualties-gaza-israel


----------



## Overtone

If I wanted to be a douche, I'd post this and say "religion of peace." What I will say that it looks like this definitely is a genocide in some Israelis' eyes... Or they want it to be.

&#8211; &#8220;I Killed 13 Children Today&#8221; &#8211; Serving Israeli Soldier Gloats On Twitter


----------



## BouhZik

Edit: nevermind... Everything has been said and repeated.


----------



## Crabface

BouhZik said:


> Wait wait.... Run away? Hamas using civilans as human shield??
> 
> Gaza is one of the most populated place in the world by density. 1,7 million people on that small piece of land. Closed at the south by Egypt, north and east by Israël. Where do you want to hide 1,7 million people from being bombed when tsahal pull the trigger? Run away by the sea?? There is civilians EVERYWHERE in Gaza, in LARGE numbers!! So of course, if you launch bombs over gaza, you launch bombs over civilians! Hamas will or not! So telling Hamas is using civilians as human shield is an easy an poor excuse for Israël.
> 
> After several weeks, less than 50 people were killed on Israël side. As a terrorist group, Hamas is pretty incompetant if you ask me... Meanwhile, thousands of Womans and childs are dying, and still you can find people ok with the means used by Isreal. What a fvcking shame. Zionist lobby can make people swallow some pretty big bullshit. Nice propaganda.



How about you read the whole thread before posting your BS, ok? This has been discussed a lot and from your post i can safely assume you know ....-all about the conflict.

Is firing weapons from schools, hospitals and Civilian houses and UN buildings not using human shields? Of course it is. Your assumption that a terrorist organisation like the hamas are fair in combat is quite frankly ridiculous.
Less than 50 soldiers have been killed on the Israeli side because Israel spend their funds on protection such as the Iron Dome, rather than terrorism.

Lastly, please do not use words such as "Zionist lobby" here. This has nothing to do with Zionism and i doubt you even know what zionism means if thats how you use it - as if its a derogatory term.
Anyone who denies Israels right of existence is quite simply anti-semitic or has the shortest memory in the world. Where were all the jews who were being systematically murdered and kicked out of every country in europe supposed to go? Not only is there a right for their own state, it is also a necessity. Zionism =/= Israeli Politics. If you have a problem with Israeli politics thats fine, as long as you are well informed (which you are obviously not, bouzhik), but do not call it zionism.
But thats for a different thread and certainly not a topic that needs to be raised here.

I just ask one thing, dont reply until youve read the whole thread, so that no one has to repeat themselves and so that the debate can be a little more informative.


----------



## Crabface

Overtone said:


> If I wanted to be a douche, I'd post this and say "religion of peace." What I will say that it looks like this definitely is a genocide in some Israelis' eyes... Or they want it to be.
> 
> &#8211; &#8220;I Killed 13 Children Today&#8221; &#8211; Serving Israeli Soldier Gloats On Twitter



This is ....ing disgusting and i am ashamed that people like this serve in the army, but i can assure you that stuff like this does not go unpunished in the israeli army.

Wow...
That is disgusting.


Also, id like to mention that the article you posted in your previous post was an excellent read and quite an accurate representation of whats going one.

Edit: Id just like to mention that i have never heard of judaism being coined as the religion of peace before as some kind of unanimous agreement. That is simply a term thrown around as a bias about every religion. Many people call Islam the religion of peace too.
The Torah is just as violent as any other sctripture out there. The only difference is far fewer people take exactly what is written in it seriously.
Also, i dont think sarcastically saying "religion of peace" would be relevant anyway. This doesnt have anything to do with religion here. That man is proud that he.killed an arab, not a muslim, and he was probably driven by hate rather than religious motivation.
I'm not saying this in defense of judaism... in fact im 100% atheist and i see no reason to defend any religion. I just dont think its a relevant topic here.


----------



## asher

Crabface said:


> This is ....ing disgusting and i am ashamed that people like this serve in the army, hut u can assure you that stuff like this does not go unpunished in the israeli army.



Can you back that up? Color me skeptical that it does.


----------



## Crabface

asher said:


> Can you back that up? Color me skeptical that it does.



I can back it up by saying that the Israeli army is very strict about matters such as this. I have a whole family who have served and are serving in the army, and some of them have been sentenced to short amounts of time in army jail for things not nearly as bad. Not even war related. I would be extremely surprised, and ashamed, if this man went unpunished. Id personally have him kicked out of the army and sentenced to army jail but i dont know what standard procedure is for punishment, as i only join the army next year.
But, as silly as it may sound, i believe it would be safe to trust me that this man will get severely punished.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Might want to post some links anyways, because this thread has demonstrated pretty clearly that people won't just take anyone at their word on such a hotbutton issue (and frankly, they shouldn't). Of course, people will just question the validity and bias of any link you post anyways, but it's worth a try.


----------



## Crabface

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Might want to post some links anyways, because this thread has demonstrated pretty clearly that people won't just take anyone at their word on such a hotbutton issue (and frankly, they shouldn't). Of course, people will just question the validity and bias of any link you post anyways, but it's worth a try.



IDF vows to punish soldiers' racist online incitement | The Times of Israel

Israeli Soldiers Punished for WhatsApp Leaks of Dead Comrades' Names

Female IDF soldiers punished for racy photos - Israel News, Ynetnews

So yeah, hopefully this is enough to show that the IDF are very strict about discipline and making sure people dont step out of line or pass any boundaries.

If its not convincing enough for you guys... well i tried and i definitely trust that this man will be punished. We'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## Overtone

The other actions in that article are also a pretty bad time. Crowds cheering "no school in Gaza the children are dead" and "Gaza is a graveyard"' I hear that was to piss off a larger anti war protest. Horrid comments by elected officials. The people in the OP cheering. The reactions to the lynching of Mohammad Kadir. While we talk about whether or not the civilians in Gaza deserve their deaths, we can't forget that there are some in Israel outspokenly supporting MORE slaughter.


----------



## Crabface

Overtone said:


> The other actions in that article are also a pretty bad time. Crowds cheering "no school in Gaza the children are dead" and "Gaza is a graveyard"' I hear that was to piss off a larger anti war protest. Horrid comments by elected officials. The people in the OP cheering. The reactions to the lynching of Mohammad Kadir. While we talk about whether or not the civilians in Gaza deserve their deaths, we can't forget that there are some in Israel outspokenly supporting MORE slaughter.



Absolutely. Its embarrassing to see.
That said, it is important to remember that:
1) This is hardly the Israeli majority and actions are not being taken on the behalf if these peoples opinions.
2) There are plenty of people doing the same against israel in all of the neighbouring arab countries, so it is not something that israel can be individually judged on because this is happening everywhere. Obviously this absolutely does not justify what these people are doing, but it does show that it is not only in israel.

Also, i might be stating the obvious here, but the article is ridiculously biased. It is only picking out the very worst of Israel and ignores any palestinian equivalents to what is happening or any other side of the story. It also conveniantly ignores all the anti-war protests going on in israel
Whilst what is written in the article is true, it has been written solely to make israel look bad and ignores anything that may make israel look "good".
They are author pf the article picked out selective truths whilst ignoring others. The whole article is basically a white lie.
Again, that is not in any way meant to justify the actions mentioned in the article, only that it should be taken with a pinch of salt.


----------



## BouhZik

Crabface said:


> Zionism =/= Israeli Politics.



are you kidding me? with Netanyahu at the head of the country? lmfao .........


----------



## Dog Boy

Crabface said:


> Where were all the jews who were being systematically murdered and kicked out of every country in europe supposed to go?


 
Plans for Mass Jewish Settlement in Ethiopia (1936-1943) | Tezeta


----------



## Crabface

Dog Boy said:


> Plans for Mass Jewish Settlement in Ethiopia (1936-1943) | Tezeta



Again, this thread is absolutely not the place for this discussion now.
And what difference would it have made if the jews got a state in palestine or ethiopa. It still wouldve "displaced" all the people who already lived there. The only difference between the two options is that one is surrounded by muslim countries who hate jews.
The point i was making was that jews needed a state of there own. I made no reference to where.

Anyway. This is not the place for this discussion.

Lastly:
Bouhzik - .... off. Youd better be a troll and not really be so damn stupid. Your neg rep ratio isnt helping you out here though.


----------



## asher

How is the history of the modern state of Israel not relevant discussion?


----------



## Randy

It's funny that it was relevant when he brought it up, but it's not relevant when somebody takes the bait. I detect a theme here.


----------



## Dog Boy

asher said:


> How is the history of the modern state of Israel not relevant discussion?


 
Indeed!

Here's a little ditty written by the Jews for Justice in the Middle East. (actually its quite long) 

The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict


----------



## Crabface

asher said:


> How is the history of the modern state of Israel not relevant discussion?



Because the fact that Israel exists is not up for debate anymore and this war in gaza is not about Israels right to exist. The only possible relation ot has with this discussion is the fact that hamas does not recognise Israels right to exist.



> It's funny that it was relevant when he brought it up, but it's not relevant when somebody takes the bait. I detect a theme here.



When did i bring it up Randy?
How about you stop mocking me and join the discussion if you have something inportant to say? Being a mod does not make you smarter than anyone else and your smartass remarks do not help at all. If you think im wrong about something just tell me why, how about that?
I could sot around all day making not-so-witty remarks about people here if i wanted to. Instead im trying to take part in this debate properly. If you think im n idiot or something for trying to have a discussion then so be it but i dont think your remarks are necessary unless you add some substance to them.


----------



## asher

Crabface said:


> Because the fact that Israel exists is not up for debate anymore and this war in gaza is not about Israels right to exist. The only possible relation ot has with this discussion is the fact that hamas does not recognise Israels right to exist.



Dude.

Nobody (here) is questioning whether Israel exists or not. Nobody is even questioning Israel's right to exist.

That isn't even _close_ to a comprehensive summary of the various complex factors that go into the history of the modern state of Israel, many of which are incredibly important because they directly or indirectly set the stage for things that are happening today.


----------



## Crabface

asher said:


> Dude.
> 
> Nobody (here) is questioning whether Israel exists or not. Nobody is even questioning Israel's right to exist.
> 
> That isn't even _close_ to a comprehensive summary of the various complex factors that go into the history of the modern state of Israel, many of which are incredibly important because they directly or indirectly set the stage for things that are happening today.



What i was saying wasnt relevant was the debate about Israels right to exist, which i mentioned because Bouhzik mention zionism. I simply explained it to him and why it wasnt relevant. I dont know how you took that as me saying that the history of israel isnt important but when you questioned me in your previous post i assumed you were talking about israels right to exist... not their whole history, because thats what i was coining as irrelevant.

This is simply a misunderstanding between us then. Of course Israels history is very relevant. Just not the whole argument about zionism, which bouhzik mentioned.

Im just not sure how you got to the conclusion that i was talking about the history of Israel before your previous post, as i clearly mentioned zionism.


----------



## asher

It's probably got something to do with me mentioning the history of the modern state and you replying directly to that.

It's still totally relevant though. Even if the question is settled now, it's an extremely important factor in what has passed, which in turn heavily influences what's going on now. These things are important to understand.


----------



## Crabface

When i replied to that i assumed you were talking about zionism because thats all i had mentioned beforehand. i didnt understamd how youd junped from zionism to history of the modern state of israel so i just assume that youd worded your post weirdly.

And of course its important to understand all of that but i feel like thats something you should research before coming into the conversation, it doesnt necessarily need to be discussed here as if this thread is a history lesson.


----------



## Randy

Crabface said:


> When did i bring it up Randy?
> How about you stop mocking me and join the discussion if you have something inportant to say? Being a mod does not make you smarter than anyone else and your smartass remarks do not help at all. If you think im wrong about something just tell me why, how about that?
> I could sot around all day making not-so-witty remarks about people here if i wanted to. Instead im trying to take part in this debate properly. If you think im n idiot or something for trying to have a discussion then so be it but i dont think your remarks are necessary unless you add some substance to them.



You can look back and read my more elaborate explanations if you so choose.

My comments toward you weren't because I lack a substantive argument, it's because you've made obvious your debate skills primarily involve sticking your fingers in your ears and blurting out whatever it is you want to say, and selectively disregarding information when it suits you. It's gotten to the point that most of the people in here have stopped debating you because it's _*a painful waste of time*_.

As an example, you talk about investigating/prosecuting IDF soldiers for wrongdoing and denounce atrocities, only when it's beyond the shadow of a doubt because it's there written in their own words. One guy brags about killing a bunch of kids, let's throw the book at him. Several hundred kids die in other incidents "well, nobody bragged about it so they were probably just giving the Hamas fighters a backrub when bombs came in". The juxtaposition of somebody admitting to taking pride in killing children seems to produce no correlation between that mindset and other incidences, apparently? Even speculatively?

The vigor with which you insist things are being done on the 'up and up' with little to no evidence other than your assurances, IMO, sharply implies your positions come from your relationship with people on one side of the conflict rather than anything remotely resembling a neutral position.

With regard to your personal attacks toward me and the other user earlier, I'll chalk them up to being in the middle of a heated debate and I won't ban you but name calling and hurling expletives at members won't be accepted on this forum and if I see it again, you're gone.


----------



## Crabface

Randy said:


> You can look back and read my more elaborate explanations if you so choose.
> 
> My comments toward you weren't because I lack a substantive argument, it's because you've made obvious your debate skills primarily involve sticking your fingers in your ears and blurting out whatever it is you want to say, and selectively disregarding information when it suits you. It's gotten to the point that most of the people in here have stopped debating you because it's _*a painful waste of time*_.
> 
> As an example, you talk about investigating/prosecuting IDF soldiers for wrongdoing and denounce atrocities, only when it's beyond the shadow of a doubt because it's there written in their own words. One guy brags about killing a bunch of kids, let's throw the book at him. Several hundred kids die in other incidents "well, nobody bragged about it so they were probably just giving the Hamas fighters a backrub when bombs came in". The juxtaposition of somebody admitting to taking pride in killing children seems to produce no correlation between that mindset and other incidences, apparently? Even speculatively?
> 
> The vigor with which you insist things are being done on the 'up and up' with little to no evidence other than your assurances, IMO, sharply implies your positions come from your relationship with people on one side of the conflict rather than anything remotely resembling a neutral position.
> 
> With regard to your personal attacks toward me and the other user earlier, I'll chalk them up to being in the middle of a heated debate and I won't ban you but name calling and hurling expletives at members won't be accepted on this forum and if I see it again, you're gone.



Ok, you know what? Sorry.
But you are assuming things about what i think.
1) When asked for evidence i have provided it.
2) Of course there is a possibility that there are more soldiers doing similar things to that soldier, i was simply making clear that as a whole, these are not israels intentions and that every country has people like that and its unfair to judge israel based on his actions. Also, after a second look at that article i have a feeling that the whole thing is fake. After looking up this soldier on google i found no suggestion that he even exists other that other articles copying the story from the original source. Judgement is reserved here.
3) I am absolutely not "sticking my fingers in my ears and blurting out random things".
When there is something that i disagree with i clearly state my argument against it. That is not selectively disregarding them. It is disagreeing.
I am more than aware that there has been plenty of wrongdoing by israel here. I am just trying to demonstrate it propotionately. Maybe in doing so i have done so defensively on israel s behalf and therefore seemed biased but that is absolutely not my intentions. Sorry if it seems that way. In trying to give this a bit of proportion what my point of view looks like from your computer screen may be a lot more distorted and pro-israel than it actually is.
Apologies there.
If it helps, my opinion of the conflict is really very similar to the one stated in the article that Overtone posted in the last page, i think. I'll repost it for reference in a minute.
4) I apologise for any name-calling that may have occured, although i must say that in yoir case, randy, it wasnt really name calling but rather calling you out. I was simply very frustrated that Id been putting a lot of time and effort into these post and your response has basically been "lol".
Its frustrating and insulting. Sorry if my response to that insulted you but i hope you understand my frustration, because quite frankly, the conversation has moved on from the last time you posted something of substance, so responding to my posts with "lol" does not really show for much if your previous posts are outdated.
Sorry about any other name-calling that may have occured. I let some.of the sarcastic remarks get to me when i shouldnt have.
Anyway. I apologise again for any misunderstandings.


Side note: Unnecessary neg reps are unappreciated. Especially when i have refrained from using them. Its just childish.


----------



## Quitty

Randy said:


> As an example, you talk about investigating/prosecuting IDF soldiers for wrongdoing and denounce atrocities, only when it's beyond the shadow of a doubt because it's there written in their own words. One guy brags about killing a bunch of kids, let's throw the book at him. Several hundred kids die in other incidents "well, nobody bragged about it so they were probably just giving the Hamas fighters a backrub when bombs came in". The juxtaposition of somebody admitting to taking pride in killing children seems to produce no correlation between that mindset and other incidences, apparently? Even speculatively?
> 
> The vigor with which you insist things are being done on the 'up and up' with little to no evidence other than your assurances, IMO, sharply implies your positions come from your relationship with people on one side of the conflict rather than anything remotely resembling a neutral position.
> 
> With regard to your personal attacks toward me and the other user earlier, I'll chalk them up to being in the middle of a heated debate and I won't ban you but name calling and hurling expletives at members won't be accepted on this forum and if I see it again, you're gone.



Fascist assholes exist on both ends, always. It's not that i'm not bothered by them, but a nation should be judged by its behavior towards them -
that idiot of a soldier is in prison as of yesterday. There are plenty more to go around, and i'm very much aware that this war isn't against the residents of Gaza but the fascist assholes of yonder,
but you keep beating around the bush.

When the IDF isn't in Gaza, Gaza's residents don't have to know we're fascist scum.
Their warmongers (Hamas isn't the only one), however, insist on having a strong, life-threatening affect on Israel's civilian populace, even during peacetime. There literally isn't any peacetime with Islamic extremists.
That means we need a solution, and the relevant question is; 
Do you have one to offer?

Kindly convince me that 'any solution' isn't better than 'no solution'.


----------



## asfeir

Maybe a two states solution..


----------



## Skyblue

asher said:


> Can you back that up? Color me skeptical that it does.


Though I can not offer links to verify that at the moment, but I can assure you that it definitely happens as my position in the IDF for the last 3 years was doing just that. I was an investigator in the army CID, and a big part of what we deal with is these kinds of war crimes. It's definitely being investigated and does not go unpunished.




Dog Boy said:


> Plans for Mass Jewish Settlement in Ethiopia (1936-1943) | Tezeta


I don't think anyone disagrees that the jewish people once lived in Israel. We have countless holy sites in Israel, and many archeological and historical evidence to support that. Why, would we not come back to our land of origin? why would we settle in Ethiopia? (Jews were smuggled out of Ethiopia by the way from the 60's to the 80's- they were not holding up very well there at all)
There were plans to buy land in Uganda instead of Israel, but it was eventually decided that Israel would be the place where we will try to form our country. 




BouhZik said:


> are you kidding me? with Netanyahu at the head of the country? lmfao .........


Would you mind reading up what Zionism means? Quoting from Wikipedia: "Zionism (Hebrew: &#1510;&#1460;&#1497;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465;&#1504;&#1493;&#1468;&#1514;, translit. Tsiyonut) is a nationalist movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel."
The whole article is obviously longer, feel free to look it up and read a bit. 
How does that correspond to Netanyahu...? I don't think I understand, so if you care to enlighten me, please do. 

@Overtone: This is disgusting. I am saddened that these people live among us. I will ask all of you to remember- not all Israelis are like him. not even close. 
Just as I don't judge the whole american nation based on that one time I stumbled upon a Klan guy, don't judge our whole country by one unimaginably stupid guy.

EDIT: might have just repeated some answers. Wasn't focused and didn't read the thread clearly enough... being tired isn't the time for this thread I guess lol. Time to start reading up...


----------



## Dog Boy

Skyblue said:


> I don't think anyone disagrees that the jewish people once lived in Israel. We have countless holy sites in Israel, and many archeological and historical evidence to support that. Why, would we not come back to our land of origin? why would we settle in Ethiopia? (Jews were smuggled out of Ethiopia by the way from the 60's to the 80's- they were not holding up very well there at all)
> There were plans to buy land in Uganda instead of Israel, but it was eventually decided that Israel would be the place where we will try to form our country.


 
I'm not sure where Abraham first heard the voice of the Lord but I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the area we call Palestine. Calling Israel the land of your origin is misleading. Its a land that was conquered by the Jewish people. They made a go of it there but then so did the Romans and MANY others. (There is still a Christian Quarter of Jerusalem, right? And a Muslim, Jewish and Armenian Quarter.) My point is a LOT of people have historical claim that land. David's empire lasted about 73 years. Wow.

As for settling in Ethiopia why not? The majority of Jews at the time were all for it. (did you read the article?) The Ethiopians and their government welcomed you. El Duce actually floated the idea first and the Brits eventually came around. There were already 50k jews living there and had claimed to live there for 2000 years! Up until modern times the Emperor of Ethiopia was addressed as "The Lion of Judah". The ARK OF THE COVENANT is purported to be there. It doesn't get more holy than that for you guys, right?

"Is this tradition linked to the church's claim to hold the ark, which Ethiopians call Tabota Seyen, or the Ark of Zion? "It's no claim, it's the truth," Paulos answered. "Queen Sheba visited King Solomon in Jerusalem three thousand years ago, and the son she bore him, Menelik, at age 20 visited Jerusalem, from where he brought the ark of the covenant back to Aksum. It's been in Ethiopia ever since."

Keepers of the Lost Ark? | People & Places | Smithsonian




So much for history...

In the real world its who ever has the military might to hold on to disputed lands that can write and re-write the window dressing of history. In the real world its no more your land than it is the next conquerer's. Eventually modern Israel will fall. You have some pissed off neighbors...

Maybe the 50,000 square miles of uninhabited Ethiopia wasn't such a bad idea?


----------



## Randy

Crabface said:


> Ok, you know what? Sorry.
> But you are assuming things about what i think.
> 1) When asked for evidence i have provided it.
> 2) Of course there is a possibility that there are more soldiers doing similar things to that soldier, i was simply making clear that as a whole, these are not israels intentions and that every country has people like that and its unfair to judge israel based on his actions. Also, after a second look at that article i have a feeling that the whole thing is fake. After looking up this soldier on google i found no suggestion that he even exists other that other articles copying the story from the original source. Judgement is reserved here.
> 3) I am absolutely not "sticking my fingers in my ears and blurting out random things".
> When there is something that i disagree with i clearly state my argument against it. That is not selectively disregarding them. It is disagreeing.
> I am more than aware that there has been plenty of wrongdoing by israel here. I am just trying to demonstrate it propotionately. Maybe in doing so i have done so defensively on israel s behalf and therefore seemed biased but that is absolutely not my intentions. Sorry if it seems that way. In trying to give this a bit of proportion what my point of view looks like from your computer screen may be a lot more distorted and pro-israel than it actually is.
> Apologies there.
> If it helps, my opinion of the conflict is really very similar to the one stated in the article that Overtone posted in the last page, i think. I'll repost it for reference in a minute.
> 4) I apologise for any name-calling that may have occured, although i must say that in yoir case, randy, it wasnt really name calling but rather calling you out. I was simply very frustrated that Id been putting a lot of time and effort into these post and your response has basically been "lol".
> Its frustrating and insulting. Sorry if my response to that insulted you but i hope you understand my frustration, because quite frankly, the conversation has moved on from the last time you posted something of substance, so responding to my posts with "lol" does not really show for much if your previous posts are outdated.
> Sorry about any other name-calling that may have occured. I let some.of the sarcastic remarks get to me when i shouldnt have.
> Anyway. I apologise again for any misunderstandings.
> 
> 
> Side note: Unnecessary neg reps are unappreciated. Especially when i have refrained from using them. Its just childish.



Fair enough.


----------



## Randy

When Genocide is Permissible | Yochanan Gordon | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel



> Judging by the numbers of casualties on both sides in this almost one-month old war one would be led to the conclusion that Israel has resorted to disproportionate means in fighting a far less- capable enemy. That is as far as what meets the eye. But, it&#8217;s now obvious that the US and the UN are completely out of touch with the nature of this foe and are therefore not qualified to dictate or enforce the rules of this war &#8211; because when it comes to terror there is much more than meets the eye.
> 
> I wasn&#8217;t aware of this, but it seems that the nature of warfare has undergone a major shift over the years. Where wars were usually waged to defeat the opposing side, today it seems &#8211; and judging by the number of foul calls it would indicate &#8211; that today&#8217;s wars are fought to a draw. I mean, whoever heard of a timeout in war? An NBA Basketball game allows six timeouts for each team during the course of a game, but last I checked this is a war! We are at war with an enemy whose charter calls for the annihilation of our people. Nothing, then, can be considered disproportionate when we are fighting for our very right to live.
> 
> The sad reality is that Israel gets it, but its hands are being tied by world leaders who over the past six years have insisted they are such good friends with the Jewish state, that they know more regarding its interests than even they do. But there&#8217;s going to have to come a time where Israel feels threatened enough where it has no other choice but to defy international warnings &#8211; because this is life or death.
> 
> Most of the reports coming from Gazan officials and leaders since the start of this operation have been either largely exaggerated or patently false. The truth is, it&#8217;s not their fault, falsehood and deceit is part of the very fabric of who they are and that will never change. Still however, despite their propensity to lie, when your enemy tells you that they are bent on your destruction you believe them. Similarly, when Khaled Meshal declares that no physical damage to Gaza will dampen their morale or weaken their resolve &#8211; they have to be believed. Our sage Gedalia the son of Achikam was given intelligence that Yishmael Ben Nesanyah was plotting to kill him. However, in his piety or rather naiveté Gedalia dismissed the report as a random act of gossip and paid no attention to it. To this day, the day following Rosh Hashana is commemorated as a fast day in the memory of Gedalia who was killed in cold blood on the second day of Rosh Hashana during the meal. They say the definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes over and over. History is there to teach us lessons and the lesson here is that when your enemy swears to destroy you &#8211; you take him seriously.
> 
> Hamas has stated forthrightly that it idealizes death as much as Israel celebrates life. What other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely?
> 
> News anchors such as those from CNN, BBC and Al-Jazeera have not missed an opportunity to point out the majority of innocent civilians who have lost their lives as a result of this war. But anyone who lives with rocket launchers installed or terror tunnels burrowed in or around the vicinity of their home cannot be considered an innocent civilian. If you&#8217;ll counter, that Hamas has been seen abusing civilians who have attempted to leave their homes in response to Israeli warnings to leave &#8211; well then, your beginning to come to terms with the nature of this enemy which should automatically cause the rules of standard warfare to be suspended.
> 
> Everyone agrees that Israel has the right to defend itself as well as the right to exercise that right. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has declared it, Obama and Kerry have clearly stated that no one could be expected to sit idle as thousands of rockets rain down on the heads of its citizens, placing them in clear and present danger. It seems then that the only point of contention is regarding the measure of punishment meted out in this situation.
> 
> I will conclude with a question for all the humanitarians out there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly stated at the outset of this incursion that his objective is to restore a sustainable quiet for the citizens of Israel. We have already established that it is the responsibility of every government to ensure the safety and security of its people. If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals?


----------



## asher

*Genocide is never, ever, acceptable.*


----------



## Randy

I'm sure those siding with constantly justifying Israel in this conflict will chime in and say this guy is an outlier, and I'll agree that he is, but just like I mentioned in my post about the IDF soldier, I believe there are shades of this same opinion shared among 'less extreme' supporters of Israel. 

The number of times pictures of young children have been displayed with them standing near or around Hamas fighters as a response (and an ad hominem justification) for the number of civilian deaths leads me to believe the "they had it coming" contingent is a fairly common one. If you can draw the line to say anybody willfully standing near a combatant is responsible for what happens to them, it's not much of a stretch to say anybody that stays in a city run by terrorists is also responsible for what happens to them. In that respect, justification of genocide is simply implied; much like the proverbial racist who shields themself from criticism just because they don't use "the 'N' word".


----------



## Crabface

Of course genocide isnt acceptable, even in these circumstances.
Ridiculous article. Not even going to try and defend this guy.


----------



## Randy

Worth mentioning (though I'm sure everybody watching this thread is well aware of this by now):

Gaza cease-fire unravels; Israeli soldier captured - CNN.com

To me, despite my defense of the civilians of Palestine, this is not at odds with my opinion on what's been going on. Hamas gets too much latitude being treated as a legitimate party (the notion of agreeing to a ceasefire and expecting they'd abide) when they really are a terrorist organization, period. They may do some community related things for the people in Gaza but that doesn't change the fact they use terror, misdirection and unconventional methods (faking ceasefires being one of them) to fight their war. 

Their actions throughout this have been disgusting, though none of them come as a surprise to me.

I guess where the 'rubber meets the road' on this, something needs to seriously be done to separate the peaceful Palestinians from Hamas. There's a serious case of 'battered person syndrome' going on in Gaza.


----------



## Crabface

Randy said:


> Worth mentioning (though I'm sure everybody watching this thread is well aware of this by now):
> 
> Gaza cease-fire unravels; Israeli soldier captured - CNN.com
> 
> To me, despite my defense of the civilians of Palestine, this is not at odds with my opinion on what's been going on. Hamas gets too much latitude being treated as a legitimate party (the notion of agreeing to a ceasefire and expecting they'd abide) when they really are a terrorist organization, period. They may do some community related things for the people in Gaza but that doesn't change the fact they use terror, misdirection and unconventional methods (faking ceasefires being one of them) to fight their war.
> 
> Their actions throughout this have been disgusting, though none of them come as a surprise to me.
> 
> I guess where the 'rubber meets the road' on this, something needs to seriously be done to separate the peaceful Palestinians from Hamas. There's a serious case of 'battered person syndrome' going on in Gaza.



I have a strong feeling that Hamas have been planning a capture like this for a while, and the ceasefire was the perfect opportunity.
Hamas, and every other terrorist organisation in the middle-east, knows that captured soldiers are Israels weak spot. One of the only weak spots Israel have, but its very weak.
Kidnappings will get Israel _*every single time.*_

This could either go very right for the Hamas, or very, very wrong (unfortunately also for Palestinian civilians) - depending on whether Israel decide to use negotiation or force to get this soldier back.

100% agree that there must be attempts to try and separate civilians from Hamas in this war, because otherwise things will only get worse, but Hamas need stopping at the same time.


----------



## Overtone

Skyblue said:


> Though I can not offer links to verify that at the moment, but I can assure you that it definitely happens as my position in the IDF for the last 3 years was doing just that. I was an investigator in the army CID, and a big part of what we deal with is these kinds of war crimes. It's definitely being investigated and does not go unpunished.
> ...
> @Overtone: This is disgusting. I am saddened that these people live among us. I will ask all of you to remember- not all Israelis are like him. not even close.
> Just as I don't judge the whole american nation based on that one time I stumbled upon a Klan guy, don't judge our whole country by one unimaginably stupid guy.
> 
> ...



Since you are someone to ask, what have been some of the more severe crimes and corresponding punishments you have seen?

Of course I remember that, and is have heard many good things about most Israelis and believe them. I hope you will know it's the same for Palestinians. With regards to those kinds of people who are like that soldier, such as the ones cheering the dead children, does it make you question things to see them applauding this operation so much?



Randy said:


> Hamas gets too much latitude being treated as a legitimate party (the notion of agreeing to a ceasefire and expecting they'd abide) when they really are a terrorist organization, period. They may do some community related things for the people in Gaza but that doesn't change the fact they use terror, misdirection and unconventional methods (faking ceasefires being one of them) to fight their war.
> 
> Their actions throughout this have been disgusting, though none of them come as a surprise to me.
> 
> I guess where the 'rubber meets the road' on this, something needs to seriously be done to separate the peaceful Palestinians from Hamas. There's a serious case of 'battered person syndrome' going on in Gaza.



I raised some important questions before about who should be accountable for Hamas ever being _eligible_ to be in power in such a way. Almost as big of a political failure is that it was able to be that you have two different parties running the two areas!

Also I have to just come out and say it that I think that from Ariel Sharon onwards the treatment of Palestinians has been very antagonistic and detrimental. It's ridiculous how much people in the West Bank have lost in terms of access to land and the ability to travel. Eating away at the land is bad enough, but isolating populations within different parts of the West Bank is very oppressive. Just getting from Ramallah to Jerusalem has gone from a short ride to a two hour ordeal of multiple checkpoints and having to change cars because of different papers and plates bring needed, multiple times. 
Terrorism is obviously not the answer to it - it's what enables it! Most Palestinians have NOT chosen terrorism, but find very little they can do to make their situation better.


----------



## Explorer

I'm very saddened by the interview I heard with the Hamas official who was explaining why Hamas didn't want various ceasefires. The reporter kept pressing him, because he kept talking about how Israel wouldn't let up, so the reporter would say, but why are you rejecting a ceasefire for the sake of the civilians? 

I think Hamas has an awesome strategy to make Israel look bad. 

I wish the UN had some power to took at Hamas' lack of concern for the civilians it supposedly serves, and to combine that look with scrutiny of Hamas embezzling funds meant for civilians to finance weapons and terror tunnels, and then to do something about it.


----------



## DocBach

Randy said:


> Hamas gets too much latitude being treated as a legitimate party (the notion of agreeing to a ceasefire and expecting they'd abide) when they really are a terrorist organization, period.


 
Hamas is the legally elected representative of the people of Palestine. 

And this is their new, advanced anti-countery battery artillery system;

Hamas using children as human shields - YouTube

You see, counter battery artillery works by a radar detecting where a mortar or rocket attack has come from, and automatically sends a fire mission against it. Meaning that artillery crewmembers will shoot artillery back at the originating point of the attack to attempt to kill it before it can shoot again -- and will never know that there is a group of kids singing behind the mortar tube.


----------



## vansinn

I'll still say that Is-Ra-El was placed on stolen land, paid by the Rothchilds.
Any country that has it's land taken by force and then over decades continuously shrunken to the point of genocide, even with fuel cut off to the (AFAIK) sole power plant, so even hospitals cannot function, is bound to keep fighting back.

I do wonder how come Is-Ra-El must receive huge financial support, like the just done emergency deal on finance to their Iron Dome - so they can protect themselves..

A two-state scenario was suggested earlier in this thread. This is exactly what was suggested by the General who advised on running the '67 campaign, after which he clearly said that there could never be peace unless having exactly a two-state arrangement.
Again, read the book The General's Son..

I read somewhere that Israel was starting to team up with one of the Arab oil countries, that they normally don't like anyways; but oh well, finances..
Why on earth doesn't Israel simply get a huge pile of those oil finances, and start building their own artificial island. Noone to bother, having their very own homeland.. 

Adding a little different something to the debate, here's Russell Brand on a Fox show - sorry, _debate_ - on the topic:


----------



## DocBach

vansinn said:


> I read somewhere that Israel was starting to team up with one of the Arab oil countries, that they normally don't like anyways; but oh well, finances..
> Why on earth doesn't Israel simply get a huge pile of those oil finances, and start building their own artificial island. Noone to bother, having their very own homeland..


 
Recently, Israel made calls for the world to recognize Kurdistan, which now controls Kirkuk (which sits on top of one of the largest oil reserves in the world) as a soveriegn nation and declared the Kurdish people to be an ally of Israel. The Kurdish people currently reside in Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran but do not officially have a country of their own making them the largest population of a displaced ethnic group without their own country.

As for Russell Brand -- I'm not sure a stoned comedian has the best grasp of understanding on Middle Eastern policies or politics and spent the majority of his bantering making fun of Shaun Hannity's mannerisms than actually touching on the subject of Hamas being full of assholes who purposefully use aid donations the world gives them to continue to smuggle/stockpile/try to use weapons of warfare instead of powering their power plants, running their hospitals, etc.

One huge point of all these conflicts is Israel's major territorial expansions have not been a pre-emptive action; almost all of them have been the end result of aggressions ignited by their neighbors.... You think by now the Arab states would realize that they don't really have a chance against a first-rate, modernized Army, yet they keep trying to goad the Israelis into fights which always ends up badly for them.


----------



## Crabface

Russell Brand doesnt even have the slightest grasp of whats going on. Just another B-Rate celebrity trying make his views heard.
The state of Israel was not taken by force. The establishment of the state of Israel was legally voted for by the UN. When the arab countries didnt agree with the decision they declared war against the newly established state of Israel and they lost.

Also, vansinn, rothchilds had nothing to do with Israel's establishment. All he ever did was fund Pre-Establishment Jewish settlements. Which was not illegal or unfair in any way because before Israel there was never an established state in palestine. It was no mans land, and Rothchild simply funded it.

In other, unrelated news, I still insist that Am-er-i-ca was placed on stolen land and taken by force and mass genocide, therefore i refuse to spell Am-er-i-ca properly.
Dont get get me started on aus-tra-li-a.


----------



## aaaaaaaa

Crabface said:


> Russell Brand doesnt even have the slightest grasp of whats going on. Just another B-Rate celebrity trying make his views heard.
> The state of Israel was not taken by force. The establishment of the state of Israel was legally voted for by the UN. When the arab countries didnt agree with the decision they declared war against the newly established state of Israel and they lost.
> 
> Also, vansinn, rothchilds had nothing to do with Israel establishment. All he ever did was fund Pre-Establishment Jewish settlement. Which was not illegal or unfair in any way because before Israel there was never an established state in palestine. It was no mans land, and Rothchild simply funded it.
> 
> 
> 
> In other, unrelated news, i still insist that Am-er-i-ca was placed on stolen land and taken by and force and mass genocide, therefore i refuse to spell Am-er-i-ca properly.
> Dont get get me started on aus-tra-li-a.



yup, just an extremely brainwashed human

watch it and get it 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73NtxQ0OLnQ

Palestinian officials are liars, every info you get from their Health officials is purely from Hamas

Hamas controls Gaza in every aspect of life,Army,Hospitals,Prison system,UN shelters(which are nothing less then a rockets storage bases).. basically everything


----------



## aaaaaaaa

asher said:


> *Genocide is never, ever, acceptable.*


Just another brainwashed Islamist's puppets:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73NtxQ0OLnQ


----------



## aaaaaaaa

Overtone said:


> See also
> New Statesman | Jeremy Bowen's Gaza notebook: I saw no evidence of Hamas using Palestinians as human shields


haha another liar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu-e5qWXx-k


----------



## asher

aaaaaaaa said:


> Just another brainwashed Islamist's puppets:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73NtxQ0OLnQ



... what? I'm a brainwashed Islamist puppet for saying that genocide is never an acceptable solution to anything?


----------



## aaaaaaaa

asher said:


> ... what? I'm a brainwashed Islamist puppet for saying that genocide is never an acceptable solution to anything?


sry meant to quote the other guy who talked about genocide


----------



## Randy

I'm still not entirely sure that makes what you said any less offensive. 'Islamist puppet' sure sounds like a dog-whistle race baiting term.


----------



## Randy

DocBach said:


> One huge point of all these conflicts is Israel's major territorial expansions have not been a pre-emptive action; almost all of them have been the end result of aggressions ignited by their neighbors.... You think by now the Arab states would realize that they don't really have a chance against a first-rate, modernized Army, yet they keep trying to goad the Israelis into fights which always ends up badly for them.



Calling bullshit on this one. 

New Israeli settlement expansion condemned - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Israel's constant expansion is well illustrated and that fact mixed with the existence of the blockade are exactly the justifications of Palestinian frustrations with Israel and likely the source of their support for Hamas. The anti-Semitic rhetoric is a smokescreen for a less diabolical super villain intention; control of money and land just like everywhere else in the history of the world.

On a personal note, I find the assertion that Israel is grabbing up pieces of land they have no right to as some sort of strategic military expansion to be insulting to my intelligence. Israel is so concerned with protecting themselves that they decide to build condos in contentious land. Sounds legit.


----------



## Explorer

vansinn said:


> ...the Rothchilds.



Oh my god, vansinn, I'm sorry to do this, but you had to go and bring up...

*THE PENTAVIRATE!*


----------



## DocBach

Seriously, the Middle East is characterized as being a bunch of stone-aged nutjobs because that is the way that they live their lives. You can try to use rationale and logic all you want, but from a western point of view its nearly impossible to understand just how crazy these people are. 

The blockade and Gaza and 1000 townhomes built in track housing aren't the root of the conflict here, it goes back to biblical times and deals with insane interpretations of ancient books. Money and land are the small ticket items in this conflict, both sides won't stop because both sides believe there is some divine intent for them to win.


----------



## aaaaaaaa

Randy said:


> Calling bullshit on this one.
> 
> New Israeli settlement expansion condemned - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
> 
> Israel's constant expansion is well illustrated and that fact mixed with the existence of the blockade are exactly the justifications of Palestinian frustrations with Israel and likely the source of their support for Hamas. The anti-Semitic rhetoric is a smokescreen for a less diabolical super villain intention; control of money and land just like everywhere else in the history of the world.
> 
> On a personal note, I find the assertion that Israel is grabbing up pieces of land they have no right to as some sort of strategic military expansion to be insulting to my intelligence. Israel is so concerned with protecting themselves that they decide to build condos in contentious land. Sounds legit.




Haahah nice link, Aljazeera, the Hamas' media

Israel has every right to have any land from the countries that tried to destroy it

There was never a Palestinian state nor people,The Arabs rejected and still rejecting the 2 states for 2 people, They want only 1 Nazi-like state for Arabs only, read the Hamas charter and get it already


----------



## Overtone

Does this guy belong here?


----------



## Overtone

DocBach said:


> Seriously, the Middle East is characterized as being a bunch of stone-aged nutjobs because that is the way that they live their lives. You can try to use rationale and logic all you want, but from a western point of view its nearly impossible to understand just how crazy these people are.
> 
> The blockade and Gaza and 1000 townhomes built in track housing aren't the root of the conflict here, it goes back to biblical times and deals with insane interpretations of ancient books. Money and land are the small ticket items in this conflict, both sides won't stop because both sides believe there is some divine intent for them to win.



Things are never going to get better unless attempts to cordon off more and more if the WB are permanently ended. Thus the settlement expansion, walls, and access restrictions are very much relevant. 

I respect your service but your generalizations about Arab people become offensive after being repeated so many times with zero acknowledge of anybody's humanity thus far. It's kind of shocking that you could actually be in the Middle East and not see the kind of warmth and care that permeates most peoples hearts.


----------



## Crabface

I will say that the Israeli settlements and territorial expansions are completely put of place and ridiculous. Israel should not be doing it. They literally have no good reason. The ONLY expansion I will ever defend Israel for is the land that Israel took during the 1967 war.

With all that said, that has nothing to do with gaza as that is primarily in the west bank. The settlements have no effect on gaza as Israel are not settling there.

The blockades do effect Gaza, obviously, but there wouldnt have been these blockades in the first place had rockets not been fired from Gaza into israel even after Israel completely cleared out of gaza in 2005 and forced thousands of Israeli settlers out of their homes in the process.
Israel gave Gaza freedom, and the leaderships there abused it. Therefore the blockade is not only necessary but also legal. Otherwise the hamas have easy ways to simply import weaponry.
That said, israel have been regulating things that they have no reason to regulate, such and standard everyday necessities. Thats just Israel being dickheads and i cannot defend something like that.


----------



## Overtone

Palestine-Israel Journal: <b>Hamas and Palestinian Religious Moderation</b>

Really good read on the different political parties and freedom movements of Palestine. Most are moderate or secular. For a long time that is what dominated, and many Islamic parties found no support. The events during the time leading up to the election of Hamas cannot be ignored. So I strongly contest that the Palestinian cause is a religious one just because Hamas is a religious party and narrowly won an election. How can secular parties, Muslims, and Christians all have the same general aspiration of statehood if it is for religious reasons?

Crabface - the West Bank settlement expansion was a signal that the PA was failing to do anything in the face of attrition. It lost them a lot of support because they didn't manage to do anything abut that or the wall. Without that, could Hamas have won? Probably not.


----------



## DocBach

Overtone said:


> I respect your service but your generalizations about Arab people become offensive after being repeated so many times with zero acknowledge of anybody's humanity thus far. It's kind of shocking that you could actually be in the Middle East and not see the kind of warmth and care that permeates most peoples hearts.


 
My point is their view of humanity is completely different than your view of humanity.

Would you say that forcing your 15 year old daughter to blow herself up in front of a police station because she had a boyfriend and it dishonored your family warmth and care from the heart? How about having your kids throw grenades to intentionally try to get them to be shot so you can put the footage up on websites to call for more jihad?

When you see people do things like this on a daily basis you end up having little faith in a culture's humanity as it is so different than how we define humanity from a western viewpoint. 

It is a different world with different rules.


----------



## aaaaaaaa

DocBach said:


> My point is their view of humanity is completely different than your view of humanity.
> 
> Would you say that forcing your 15 year old daughter to blow herself up in front of a police station because she had a boyfriend and it dishonored your family warmth and care from the heart? How about having your kids throw grenades to intentionally try to get them to be shot so you can put the footage up on websites to call for more jihad?
> 
> When you see people do things like this on a daily basis you end up having little faith in a culture's humanity as it is so different than how we define humanity from a western viewpoint.
> 
> It is a different world with different rules.



yup, they even say that all the time; They love death as thew Jews love life

That's their Jihad-Ideology


----------



## Overtone

I'm sorry you only were able to see that and are only able to see that about millions upon millions of people who have never so much as carried a gun.


----------



## Overtone

For the record. 

BBC News - Gaza conflict: Missing Israeli soldier Hadar Goldin 'dead'

The Israeli soldier believed kidnapped is bless his soul dead. It was confirmed by DNA testin and there is no body, leading me to believe t may have been friendly fire.


----------



## Overtone

Overtone said:


> I'm sorry you only were able to see that and are only able to see that about millions upon millions of people who have never so much as carried a gun.





This story at the beginning shows REAL Arabs


----------



## aaaaaaaa

Crabface said:


> I will say that the Israeli settlements and territorial expansions are completely put of place and ridiculous. Israel should not be doing it. They literally have no good reason. The ONLY expansion I will ever defend Israel for is the land that Israel took during the 1967 war.
> 
> With all that said, that has nothing to do with gaza as that is primarily in the west bank. The settlements have no effect on gaza as Israel are not settling there.
> 
> The blockades do effect Gaza, obviously, but there wouldnt have been these blockades in the first place had rockets not been fired from Gaza into israel even after Israel completely cleared out of gaza in 2005 and forced thousands of Israeli settlers out of their homes in the process.
> Israel gave Gaza freedom, and the leaderships there abused it. Therefore the blockade is not only necessary but also legal. Otherwise the hamas have easy ways to simply import weaponry.
> That said, israel have been regulating things that they have no reason to regulate, such and standard everyday necessities. Thats just Israel being dickheads and i cannot defend something like that.



So Arabs can live and build their homes, but the Jews can't(in the west bank)?

The Gazans should be grateful Israel supplies them free water and electricity despite their massive rocket launching and terror tunnel buildings

Israel should stop the terror once and for all, siege Gaza for a few weeks until the Hamas surrender, carpet bomb every area where they shot rockets from(after giving pre-24Hour warning to the non-involved citizens)
This way no citizen who wants to live will die,The Hamas will have a huge pressure from the people to surrender,No country can take a real siege for more than a few weeks

There is no country in the world that was so helpful to it's own enemies like Israel, it's a disgrace that Israel supports Hamas so badly


----------



## DocBach

Overtone said:


> I'm sorry you only were able to see that and are only able to see that about millions upon millions of people who have never so much as carried a gun.


 
Yeah, maybe I guess if I didn't see mass suicide bombings all the time, women and children and other people you would presume to have innocence used as weapons frequently, people saying its OK to have sex with little boys because women are only for babies and people killing each other over interpreting different passages differently in an ancient book, I might see more humanity in the region. 

I frequently tried to see humanity over there, and usually it ended up with someone randomly exploding. I suppose it makes me look at people who are taught that killing themselves for their god gets them an eternity in paradise cautiously.


----------



## aaaaaaaa

DocBach said:


> Yeah, maybe I guess if I didn't see mass suicide bombings all the time, women and children and other people you would presume to have innocence used as weapons frequently, people saying its OK to have sex with little boys because women are only for babies and people killing each other over interpreting different passages differently in an ancient book, I might see more humanity in the region.
> 
> I frequently tried to see humanity over there, and usually it ended up with someone randomly exploding. I suppose it makes me look at people who are taught that killing themselves for their god gets them an eternity in paradise cautiously.


dude it's all about the 72 virgin goats they get


----------



## heregoesnothing

Strange quote by David Ben Gurion - The First Prime Minister of Israel: "If I were an Arab leader..."


----------



## Overtone

DocBach said:


> Yeah, maybe I guess if I didn't see mass suicide bombings all the time, women and children and other people you would presume to have innocence used as weapons frequently, people saying its OK to have sex with little boys because women are only for babies and people killing each other over interpreting different passages differently in an ancient book, I might see more humanity in the region.
> 
> I frequently tried to see humanity over there, and usually it ended up with someone randomly exploding. I suppose it makes me look at people who are taught that killing themselves for their god gets them an eternity in paradise cautiously.



Are you suggesting that the Palestinian cause is represented only by Islamic fundamentalist extremist insurgents? I posted evidence enough that the Palestinian cause includes many secular and moderate contingents.


----------



## DocBach

No, I'm suggesting that the people Palestine elected as their official governing body who is waging a campaign against Israel is made up of Islamic fundamentalist extremist insurgents who have a history of suicide bombing in crowds, indiscriminate rocket attacks against urban centers, and having children surround mortar and rocket sites. 

Hamas publicly declares they want the destruction of the Jewish state. Are there people in Palestine who want nothing to do with conflict and just want to live their lives? Of course. But they are being brought to the forefront of this conflict as Hamas continues to wage guerrilla attacks. 

Are they wrong to want self determination? I don't think so. Are their methods necessary as they don't have an actual standing Army? Perhaps. Do I still find purposefully engaging behind civilians a detestable way to fight? Yes, I do.


----------



## Skyblue

Overtone said:


> For the record.
> 
> BBC News - Gaza conflict: Missing Israeli soldier Hadar Goldin 'dead'
> 
> The Israeli soldier believed kidnapped is bless his soul dead. It was confirmed by DNA testin and there is no body, leading me to believe t may have been friendly fire.


One and a half hours after the humanitarian cease-fire has started, a suicide bomber came out of a tunnel that was dug under a musque, exploded, killed an IDF officer and another IDF soldier, while other Hamas soldiers opened fire from other directions. Hadar was apparently Kidnapped into the tunnel, and after a short chase inside the tunnel by the IDF it was deemed too dangerous to continue and the IDF soldiers retreated. Eventually, it was established that Hadar was apparently killed as well in the incident, but whether the are no remains or the body was taken by Hamas is unclear at the moment. 

Hamas, by the way, declared they kidnapped Hadar but shortly after denied knowing anything about the kidnapping, though admitting an incident such as I described above happened (and they claimed, as mentioned in the article, they have lost contact with their soldiers there). 

Not even once it was thought the soldiers were killed by our own forces. (it's the first time I hear about something like that) 

Just wanted to set that straight. 


Also, news update- As of now, even though rockets are still constantly being fired from Gaza to Israel, the IDF is retreating out of Gaza. I heard in our news our government decided not to negotiate with Hamas, especially after they broke the cease-fire and the whole kidnapping incident, so we'll see how that's going to work. 

Lastly, I would like to ask anyone in this thread- and especially the new-comers, so to say- please be respectful. No one here is bashing religions of any kind, and I personally don't think we should take Hamas, a terror organization, as an example for the entire palestinian population. Please keep the debate civilised.


----------



## Randy

Almost exactly what I've been assuming has been the tactic

Questions of Weapons and Warnings in Past Barrage on a Gaza Shelter


----------



## Lance Thrustgood

aaaaaaaa said:


> There was never a Palestinian state nor people...



You might want to crack open an encyclopedia once in awhile. The Philistines are mentioned many times in the Bible. They resided in basically what is the Gaza Strip. The Kingdom of Israel fought many battles with them as well. I don't know, maybe you've heard the story of David and Goliath.

Philistines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy

Map - Philistines & Israelite Tribes 1200 - 1020 BCE - 175 - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org

Goliath - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Crabface said:


> Also, vansinn, rothchilds had nothing to do with Israel's establishment. All he ever did was fund Pre-Establishment Jewish settlements. Which was not illegal or unfair in any way because before Israel there was never an established state in palestine. It was no mans land, and Rothchild simply funded it.



The real historical facts of the matter don't mesh with your statements regarding the Rothschild influence on the region. Plans for the acquisition of the Ottoman Turkish territory of Palestine by any mean necessary began roughly in 1882 with the Rothschild funded Anglo-Egyptian War followed up in 1897 at the First Zionist Congress.

Then in 1901, the Zionists offered to reduce Turkey's foreign debt (owed to Zionist bankers) in exchange for Palestine. The Sultan of Turkey refused the offer. Subsequently, the British government offers to give the African colony of Uganda to the Zionists to establish a Jewish homeland but they refused and insisted on having Palestine.

Moving forward to 1905 Russian professor Sergei Nilus publishes a full version of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion Shortly afterwards in 1908 a group of Rothschild funded subversives called the "Young Turks" undermined the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire by staging an uprising and then during WWI in 1915 the Young Turks carried out the genocide of 1.5 million Orthodox Christian Armenians.

Simultaneously in 1915 the SykesPicot Agreement is forged and then through 1916-1918 the Arab Revolt is instigated by the Britain to defeat the Ottomans with the promise of Palestine and the Levant to go to the victorious Arabs. In addition the The Balfour Declaration, is personally delivered to Baron Walter Rothschild. It reads as follows:

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

There are many other examples of the Rothschild empire influencing events in the favor of Israel up to this present day. Get your facts straight. You can look up all this stuff online.


----------



## sangap

11 pages of various facts, counter-facts, history lessons, counter-lessons, debates, arguments, apologies, back to more debates later..how about just this for actual solution?







Might not seem fair to Israel, but hey given that it's been decades of non-peace since they gracefully "settled down" in a land surrounded by those they claim to have forever hated them to begin with (wonder why they still went there in the first place then, and wonder why the hateful Egypt & Jordan are still co-operating with them) - and after seemingly losing hope of attaining peace to the point that the solution is to just bomb/shell everyday hoping that a Hamas guy or weapon is in one of the buildings/structures/houses/vehicles/beaches, I think this is the best solution for the peace-hungry people of Israel.

Their civilians' safety assured, they can avoid more unfortunate deaths that they have been soooo careful to avoid thus far..I mean it's been what; only like 1000+ civilians with just 300+ children dead right? Peanuts considering the wise assurance(s) of some of their peace-concerned supporters; they could've just wiped out the whole of Gaza from day one. Nevermind that even after these careful pin-point considerations, there's still no signs of Hamas slowing down either. Otherwise these self-defense killings will just continue until either both sides suffer even more casualties, or the whole Gazan people being eradicated. Not to mention the possibility that another major war may or may not be on the cards should any other countries decide to intervene....I mean "assist".

I'm sorry for the average American who won't be so welcoming of them, but your leaders have been bandying the "freedom" slogan about for a while now that it should very well apply to this solution as well; seeing as your leaders are already BFFs with the Israeli government anyways. Why not take it up a notch & be friendly good loving neighbors..nay, communities too? Win-win-win situation for all. If the USA somehow politely declines though, how about the ones responsible for bringing them to that mess of a region in the first place; the Greeaat Britain again taking up the responsibility then? Let's see..I'm of the impression that Cambridge loves the Israelites, for starters?

Plus Israel could just move back when the Middle East finally finishes killing each other..those stoned-age barbarians always do, right? Or just wait til they weaken one another out, then just go and "liberate" them altogether. Less casualties, less resources, less hassle, less everything on your end..the only, THE end that matters 

*Edited some typos. Apologies, keyboard was getting too scorching hot.


----------



## Skyblue

sangap said:


> 11 pages of various facts, counter-facts, history lessons, counter-lessons, debates, arguments, apologies, back to more debates later..how about just this for actual solution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might not seem fair to Israel, but hey given that it's been decades of non-peace since they gracefully "settled down" in a land surrounded by those they claim to have forever hated them to begin with (wonder why they still went there in the first place then, and wonder why the hateful Egypt & Jordan are still co-operating with them) - and after seemingly losing hope of attaining peace to the point that the solution is to just bomb/shell everyday hoping that a Hamas guy or weapon is in one of the buildings/structures/houses/vehicles/beaches, I think this is the best solution for the peace-hungry people of Israel.
> 
> Their civilians' safety assured, they can avoid more unfortunate deaths that they have been soooo careful to avoid thus far..I mean it's been what; only like 1000+ civilians with just 300+ children dead right? Peanuts considering the wise assurance(s) of some of their peace-concerned supporters; they could've just wiped out the whole of Gaza from day one. Nevermind that even after these careful pin-point considerations, there's still no signs of Hamas slowing down either. Otherwise these self-defense killings will just continue until either both sides suffer even more casualties, or the whole Gazan people being eradicated. Not to mention the possibility that another major war may or may not be on the cards should any other countries decide to intervene....I mean "assist".
> 
> I'm sorry for the average American who won't be so welcoming of them, but your leaders have been bandying the "freedom" slogan about for a while now that it should very well apply to this solution as well; seeing as your leaders are already BFFs with the Israeli government anyways. Why not take it up a notch & be friendly good loving neighbors..nay, communities too? Win-win-win situation for all. If the USA somehow politely declines though, how about the ones responsible for bringing them to that mess of a region in the first place; the Greeaat Britain again taking up the responsibility then? Let's see..I'm of the impression that Cambridge loves the Israelites, for starters?
> 
> Plus Israel could just move back when the Middle East finally finishes killing each other..those stoned-age barbarians always do, right? Or just wait til they weaken one another out, then just go and "liberate" them altogether. Less casualties, less resources, less hassle, less everything on your end..the only, THE end that matters
> 
> *Edited some typos. Apologies, keyboard was getting too scorching hot.


I'll answer that just for giggles, but do you really think the Jewish people will give up a land filled with historic marks of their people and their religion? 
Our founding fathers and mothers of our religion are buried here. The temple used to stand here (and the western wall is it's only remains). If I'll start pointing out historical events we could go on till tomorrow... Even if you'll persuade the secular israelis to move, you'll never be able the persuade the religious ones. 

If it was that simple, we would have taken the Uganda option back in the 40's.


----------



## sangap

Skyblue said:


> I'll answer that just for giggles, but do you really think the Jewish people will give up a land filled with historic marks of their people and their religion?
> Our founding fathers and mothers of our religion are buried here. The temple used to stand here (and the western wall is it's only remains). If I'll start pointing out historical events we could go on till tomorrow... Even if you'll persuade the secular israelis to move, you'll never be able the persuade the religious ones.
> 
> If it was that simple, we would have taken the Uganda option back in the 40's.



Thanks for answering. Respect for all religions is a must, thus in my opinion let the secular ones; the ones fed up of the never-ending violence move elsewhere. The religious one can feel free to opt to remain, under a moderate Palestinian (or you could just call it by any other name) government. Pre-Israel there were Jews staying in those lands before right, and there still are across the Middle East. I've been following the Palestinian cause for a while, and from what I gather "kill all Jews" is not in the agenda afterall. It's pretty much of a "give us the land back", so just give them what they want and see how it turns out.

Now IF it turns out that the ones remaining behind end up getting oppressed or not being allowed to practise the religion, then the tides will surely turn to the Israeli cause. Even the most ardent Palestinian supporters would be against such oppressive act, trust me. In between that, you get to enjoy peace AND you get to prove the world you were right all along.


----------



## flint757

Whether or not that is even a good idea, that ship has sailed probably 50 years ago. At this point Israel is the only home that many Israelis actually know and any outsider laying claim to it has likely never even lived there at all. I'm Polish and German. I don't have any right to go back there and demand property as I've never actually lived there nor do I hold citizenship to either nation. I'm not really 'pro-Israel' in this conflict, but I don't see leaving as a logical option to resolving it either. It likely wouldn't end the violence in the region anyhow.


----------



## DocBach

https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?v=10152167147172016


this might be a reason why ambulances have been bombed


----------



## DocBach

Randy said:


> Almost exactly what I've been assuming has been the tactic
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/w...chool-shelters-palestinians-in-gaza.html?_r=0


 
are you familiar with how counter battery artillery works? 

A radar station alerts a fire direction controller where it creates a fire mission to silence enemy indirect fire assets. Yes, artillery damaged a school.

A school that was being used as a firebase. Do you think it was still in session when Hamas was using it as an artillery firebase? Probably, children seem to be their favorite source of cover and concealment.


----------



## necronile

Lance Thrustgood said:


> You might want to crack open an encyclopedia once in awhile. The Philistines are mentioned many times in the Bible. They resided in basically what is the Gaza Strip. The Kingdom of Israel fought many battles with them as well. I don't know, maybe you've heard the story of David and Goliath.
> 
> Philistines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy
> 
> Map - Philistines & Israelite Tribes 1200 - 1020 BCE - 175 - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org
> 
> Goliath - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The real historical facts of the matter don't mesh with your statements regarding the Rothschild influence on the region. Plans for the acquisition of the Ottoman Turkish territory of Palestine by any mean necessary began roughly in 1882 with the Rothschild funded Anglo-Egyptian War followed up in 1897 at the First Zionist Congress.
> 
> Then in 1901, the Zionists offered to reduce Turkey's foreign debt (owed to Zionist bankers) in exchange for Palestine. The Sultan of Turkey refused the offer. Subsequently, the British government offers to give the African colony of Uganda to the Zionists to establish a Jewish homeland but they refused and insisted on having Palestine.
> 
> Moving forward to 1905 Russian professor Sergei Nilus publishes a full version of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion Shortly afterwards in 1908 a group of Rothschild funded subversives called the "Young Turks" undermined the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire by staging an uprising and then during WWI in 1915 the Young Turks carried out the genocide of 1.5 million Orthodox Christian Armenians.
> 
> Simultaneously in 1915 the SykesPicot Agreement is forged and then through 1916-1918 the Arab Revolt is instigated by the Britain to defeat the Ottomans with the promise of Palestine and the Levant to go to the victorious Arabs. In addition the The Balfour Declaration, is personally delivered to Baron Walter Rothschild. It reads as follows:
> 
> "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
> 
> There are many other examples of the Rothschild empire influencing events in the favor of Israel up to this present day. Get your facts straight. You can look up all this stuff online.



The Philistines has nothing to do with the Palestinians today...
And I wont even bother with conspiracies.


----------



## Overtone

DocBach said:


> are you familiar with how counter battery artillery works?
> 
> A radar station alerts a fire direction controller where it creates a fire mission to silence enemy indirect fire assets. Yes, artillery damaged a school.
> 
> A school that was being used as a firebase. Do you think it was still in session when Hamas was using it as an artillery firebase? Probably, children seem to be their favorite source of cover and concealment.



If you read in detail, the school was being used as a shelter. It was during morning prayers and most people were asleep inside. The fire came from some 200 yards away. The response area was so wide that the school building was also hit and the people asleep inside were killed. We keep being told about surgical precision, but the type of weapon used by the IDF is not a precision weapon.




> Inspection of the damage, a preliminary United Nations review that collected 30 pieces of shrapnel, and interviews with two dozen witnesses indicate that the predawn strikes on Wednesday, July 30, that killed 21 people at the school, in the crowded Jabaliya refugee camp, were likely to have come from heavy artillery not designed for precision use.
> 
> ...
> 
> But in the Jabaliya case, they provided no evidence of such activity and no explanation for the strike beyond saying that Palestinian militants were firing about 200 yards away.


----------



## Overtone

flint757 said:


> Whether or not that is even a good idea, that ship has sailed probably 50 years ago. At this point Israel is the only home that many Israelis actually know and any outsider laying claim to it has likely never even lived there at all. I'm Polish and German. I don't have any right to go back there and demand property as I've never actually lived there nor do I hold citizenship to either nation. I'm not really 'pro-Israel' in this conflict, but I don't see leaving as a logical option to resolving it either. It likely wouldn't end the violence in the region anyhow.



That's the truth! The whole idea is that nobody should have to give up where they were born in order to survive or have a good life, and nobody should be forced to leave. That goes for both sides equally!


----------



## asher

DocBach said:


> are you familiar with how counter battery artillery works?
> 
> A radar station alerts a fire direction controller where it creates a fire mission to silence enemy indirect fire assets. Yes, artillery damaged a school.
> 
> A school that was being used as a firebase. Do you think it was still in session when Hamas was using it as an artillery firebase? Probably, children seem to be their favorite source of cover and concealment.



The point is not that heavy artillery isn't precision and should be and how could they miss?!

The point is that they shouldn't have been firing heavy artillery here at all.


----------



## DocBach

asher said:


> The point is not that heavy artillery isn't precision and should be and how could they miss?!
> 
> The point is that they shouldn't have been firing heavy artillery here at all.


 
but its OK to fire unguided rockets and mortars from the school that people are using as shelter?

but people keep saying Hamas doesn't purposefully attack from civilian centers, there's no such thing as human shields;

Hamas using children as human shields - YouTube


----------



## Overtone

DocBach said:


> but its OK to fire unguided rockets and mortars from the school that people are using as shelter?
> 
> but people keep saying Hamas doesn't purposefully attack from civilian centers, there's no such thing as human shields;
> 
> Hamas using children as human shields - YouTube



By the same logic, if it's wrong of Hamas to do that (use imprecise weapons on civilian areas), it's wrong of IDF to do similar. 

Neither I or anyone here has said there are NO human shields. We said that it is more contested then the black and white you paint it in. We are also contesting the use of it as a blanket statement that applies to every civilian death. I don't see how you can spin the IDF shelling an area and massacring civilians 200 yards from their target, in a location that had been identified multiple times per day to the IDF as a shelters.


----------



## asher

DocBach said:


> but its OK to fire unguided rockets and mortars from the school that people are using as shelter?
> 
> but people keep saying Hamas doesn't purposefully attack from civilian centers, there's no such thing as human shields;
> 
> Hamas using children as human shields - YouTube



No. It's not.

But they are, and it's on Israel to not do the same thing.

They have the precision technology. They are obligated to use it.

Besides, read the damn article. The Hamas fire was from *two hundred meters away* here, and even heavy artillery isn't that inaccurate.


----------



## DocBach

The IDF isn't using schools, hospitals, ambulances, etc as firebases, it is returning fire from hostile incoming. That's the difference. They have their artillery/armor/etc away from their civilian centers -- and instead of shooting at them, Hamas still aims their rockets purposefully at Israeli population centers.

I'm not painting a black and white picture of Palestinians who are suffering, I am painting a black and white picture on the reason they are suffering: Hamas. 

The IDF didn't just bomb a school for no reason, it wasn't some carpet bombing campaign to purposefully make the people suffer. That is the difference. One side makes every effort to keep the war amongst civilians while the other tries not to -- and despite how Call of Duty and movies make it seem, warfare is not nearly as precise and clean as you would imagine, even with technology -- guided and smart weapons aren't pinpoint accurate, they are accurate to a certain area of impact, usually within 10's or 100's of meters from point of aim.


----------



## asher

Nobody is saying the IDF is using them as firebases  are you actually reading what we're saying? Have you actually read the report?


----------



## DocBach

A firebase is a location set up to conduct fire missions - I was saying and have been saying that Hamas sets up their firebases purposefully where civilians can be hurt or killed. I was responding to Overtone's logic that if Hamas does it, then the IDF shouldn't either -- which they don't. They don't use civilian centers as firebases, and they don't indiscriminately launch unguided munitions for no reason. 







The official UN report? Nope, but the news report I read said that they assume it came from heavy artillery in response to _enemy fire in the area_. 

Again, tell me more about how much you know about how precise precision warfare is -- tell me from your experience how indirect fire missions work. 200 meters is damn close for artillery strikes to hit, usually they have to be walked on to target for effect.

Counter battery artillery and counter battery radar might be phrases you'd like to google to understand how modern armies respond to enemy indirect fire -- sometimes, in war, like when the enemy is shooting their own fire mission, you don't have time for or the security to move in say infantry to neutralize the target, so you use other assets like artillery. The radar doesn't say "don't shoot this might be a school," and the Iron Dome doesn't kill mortar rounds which are being shot at real people, too. Sometimes bad stuff happens in a war -- and the good majority of the bad stuff happening to civilians is directly a cause of Hamas' actions using the populace as cover.


----------



## asher

DocBach said:


> A firebase is a location set up to conduct fire missions - I was saying and have been saying that Hamas sets up their firebases purposefully where civilians can be hurt or killed. I was responding to Overtone's logic that if Hamas does it, then the IDF shouldn't either -- which they don't. They don't use civilian centers as firebases, and they don't indiscriminately launch unguided munitions for no reason.



Too bad that's not what he was actually arguing:



Overtone said:


> By the same logic, if it's wrong of Hamas to do that (use imprecise weapons on civilian areas), it's wrong of IDF to do similar.





DocBach said:


> The official UN report? Nope, but the news report I read said that they assume it came from heavy artillery in response to _enemy fire in the area_.
> 
> Again, tell me more about how much you know about how precise precision warfare is -- tell me from your experience how indirect fire missions work. 200 meters is damn close for artillery strikes to hit, usually they have to be walked on to target for effect.



Hm. Not sure you read very carefully then, or what I said, where I explicitly claim that artillery is _not_ precision, and that's the whole problem:



> The New York Times emailed Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, a military spokesman, a map of where the strikes hit and asked him to point out where Israeli forces were operating, and from where in the 200-yard radius around the school they saw enemy fire; he did not respond.



And



> Artillery is a &#8220;statistics weapon,&#8221; *not a &#8220;precision weapon,&#8221; experts said*, generally fired from up to 25 miles away and considered effective if it hits within 50 yards of its target.
> 
> &#8220;Heavy artillery shelling into a populated area would be inherently indiscriminate,&#8221; said Bill Van Esveld, a Jerusalem-based Human Rights Watch lawyer who investigates war crimes. &#8220;You just can&#8217;t aim that weapon precisely enough in that environment because it&#8217;s so destructive.&#8221;



Emphasis mine. The IDF absolutely has more precise equipment, they should be using it.



DocBach said:


> Counter battery artillery and counter battery radar might be phrases you'd like to google to understand how modern armies respond to enemy indirect fire -- sometimes, in war, like when the enemy is shooting their own fire mission, you don't have time for or the security to move in say infantry to neutralize the target, so you use other assets like artillery. The radar doesn't say "don't shoot this might be a school," and the Iron Dome doesn't kill mortar rounds which are being shot at real people, too. Sometimes bad stuff happens in a war -- and the good majority of the bad stuff happening to civilians is directly a cause of Hamas' actions using the populace as cover.



Except the IDF totally has the information that it's a U.N. shelter, also as stated in the article:



> The C.L.A. always has on hand a list of the United Nations&#8217; 250 installations across Gaza, each of them topped with a United Nations flag. During the war, Mr. Turner&#8217;s agency has supplemented that with lists of the schools serving as shelters, accompanied by a reminder that *international law requires &#8220;all necessary actions and precautions that will prevent any damage to U.N. facilities.&#8221;*
> 
> Jabaliya was No. 11 on the three-page list emailed at 8:48 p.m. the day before the strikes.


----------



## DocBach

asher said:


> Hm. Not sure you read very carefully then, or what I said, where I explicitly claim that artillery is _not_ precision, and that's the whole problem:
> 
> 
> 
> And
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine. The IDF absolutely has more precise equipment, they should be using it.
> 
> 
> 
> Except the IDF totally has the information that it's a U.N. shelter, also as stated in the article:



Senior U.N. Official Admits Hamas Using Their Gaza Facilites To Launch Rockets | Truth Revolt

The UN has come out and said that Hamas has been using UN buildings in Gaza to launch attacks. 

I think you are unfamiliar how real war works; there isn't some big 4 star general in some huge command center who plots all of these attacks to purposefully kill kids in schools; 






An artillery fire direction center doesn't have eight million satellite feeds that pop up some warning saying DANGER: UN SCHOOL! UN SCHOOL! CALL IN AIR STRIKE INSTEAD!

They look like this:






with a couple of 18-19 year old conscripts that look like this:






who get a bunch of numbers on a screen that a computer that was old in the 80's says bad guys are shooting from over here in this area based on rough calculations, and call a 22 or 23 year old artillery lieutenant who says yeah permission to fire. Somewhere, those mortars being shot are landing near friendly troops, and sometimes, unlike in a magical perfect situation, precision guided munitions isn't instantly available from some care package or kill streak.

http://www.funker530.com/soldier-sprints-to-trench-while-mortars-explode-all-around-him-helmet-cam/

when you and your buddies are taking incoming mortars and the quickest option is artillery, you use artillery. 

It sucks, its war.


----------



## asher

And it's that Lieutennant's responsibility as part of his job to know where the hell the U.N. shelters are and tell them not to fire.

ed: really, I didn't know the definition of "vicinity" has changed from last time I used it:



> Ging: Yes, the armed groups are firing their rockets into Israel from the vicinity of UN facilities and residential areas, absolutely.


----------



## Randy

DocBach said:


> It sucks, its war.



War is a bunch of tweens haphazardly firing heavy artillery into populated areas, guesstimating where missile fire _might've_ come from? Twenty-eight years on this Earth, growing up with family and friends in the military (WWII all the way up until today) and that's my first time hearing that.


----------



## DocBach

asher said:


> And it's that Lieutennant's responsibility as part of his job to know where the hell the U.N. shelters are and tell them not to fire.
> 
> ed: really, I didn't know the definition of "vicinity" has changed from last time I used it:



Or, he had to make a quick decision to fire on an enemy position that was obscured in a civilian center to silence the enemy threat.

I don't know if you know this, but having to make calls like that sucks. 

Having to be shot by mortars sucks worse.


----------



## asher

DocBach said:


> Or, he had to make a quick decision to fire on an enemy position that was obscured in a civilian center to silence the enemy threat.
> 
> I don't know if you know this, but having to make calls like that sucks.
> 
> Having to be shot by mortars sucks worse.



The list isn't that long. That particular shelter is #11. It takes twenty seconds to scan it. _It's part of his job_.

And getting shot by 155mm shells sucks worse than mortars, should we go into death counts now?


----------



## DocBach

Yeah, basically Randy, that is how an artillery fire mission goes. 

Either soldiers on the ground with a spotter says "we need a grid or polar fire mission at these grids"

or an FDC radar detects enemy incoming and prints out an estimated grid coordinate and the big guns, dozens of miles away with no idea where they are shooting at (it exists to them as a 10 digit grid code plugged into a computer that tells them what angle and direction to point the gun) shoots until someone tells them to stop.

http://www.bes.co.il/FireFinder_RCS.htm
You can see in the pictures there how incredibly in depth and detailed the maps of what they are shooting are on their screens.

That explains how our Counter Battery Radar system works - the Israelis use a system called the Shilem;
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/gaza-civilian-death-toll-military-training-experts

This article explains how Shilem artillery missions are accurate within 2-300m, and how mistakes in the system before has caused civilian deaths in the past. It also references the Israeli's ROE saying they won't engage targets 100m away from designated civilian zones -- firing artillery on a mortar position 200m away from a school is acceptable according to their doctrine. 

If they have zones on their MGRS maps flagged off like a shelter he might have to call to someone higher up and ask permission based on ROE. The IDF isn't playing games this time around -- especially with the amount of fire they have been taken from "off limits" zones -- its his job to place artillery fire on the enemy. If the enemy is using playgrounds or hospitals as a shield, his job might mean he has to shoot at that.

Again, modern warfare isn't some super precise science. It is mostly tweens operating devices capable of massive death and destruction -- especially in the IDF, which a large number of soldiers are 18 year old conscripts who have mandatory service requirements.



asher said:


> And getting shot by 155mm shells sucks worse than mortars, should we go into death counts now?



Would the school and kids be destroyed if Hamas didn't decide shooting mortars from "the vicinity" was a good place to launch mortars?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu54aSM6QOE

Again, look at this - does it look like Hamas is making any effort to keep the effects of war against innocents?


----------



## Randy

DocBach said:


> Yeah, basically Randy, that is how an artillery fire mission goes.
> 
> Either soldiers on the ground with a spotter says "we need a grid or polar fire mission at these grids"
> 
> or an FDC radar detects enemy incoming and prints out an estimated grid coordinate and the big guns, dozens of miles away with no idea where they are shooting at (it exists to them as a 10 digit grid code plugged into a computer that tells them what angle and direction to point the gun) shoots until someone tells them to stop.
> 
> If they have zones on their MGRS maps flagged off like a shelter he might have to call to someone higher up and ask permission based on ROE. The IDF isn't playing games this time around -- especially with the amount of fire they have been taken from "off limits" zones -- its his job to place artillery fire on the enemy. If the enemy is using playgrounds or hospitals as a shield, his job might mean he has to shoot at that.
> 
> Our ROEs in Iraq were extremely limited, the IDF doesn't give a shit about public opinion when it comes to this though.



I don't know what your job was in the military but with that attitude, I sure as fvck hope it wasn't your job to make those decisions.

You arbitrarily cast out the idea of asking permission or taking a second guess at where to fire as being totally discretionary. The fact is, that chain of command clearly exists for a reason. When it doesn't, things that shouldn't be destroyed get destroyed and people who aren't supposed to be killed get killed.

To just say "whoops" and move off of this like it was a totally isolated accident and continue to operate the same way is absolutely dangerous logic.


----------



## flint757

'Israeli tech sucks and is run by incompetent teens' isn't a great excuse. That isn't my opinion of Israelis tech or military, but the fact that you felt the need to express the general age makes me think you believe with age comes competence (and what does how they look have to do with anything?). The only way stating it here supports your argument is if you are arguing they in fact are not.

'It's war' isn't exactly a blanket excuse for any and all things you do in battle either. It doesn't justify it nor does it excuse it even if it is the only option at your disposal. I see now that every one in full support here is perfectly content with looking at civilians as pure collateral damage rather than human beings. This is especially obvious since most of the supporters here are simply trying to throw the blame on the other party rather than simply acknowledging that their weaponry/soldiers killed innocent people irrelevant to the how or why of the situation. No one here who isn't in full support of Israel finds Hamas innocent nor do they likely support their cause so that point is honestly moot. At this point I think they have noticed the large amount of civilian casualties. If they aren't willing to adjust their game plan then the fault will begin to fall on them. Hamas won't be a valid excuse much longer. Really how can anyone call them human shields anyhow if Israel is perfectly content with killing civilians. Seems to me like Hamas picked a rather poor shield.

The fact that they don't care doesn't really make it any better. They do need to care about public opinion though because if the public turns on them so will their outside funding.


----------



## Randy

DocBach said:


> Again, look at this - does it look like Hamas is making any effort to keep the effects of war against innocents?



And they're the terrorists. Is Israel (the 'good guys' in this) offering that consideration? According to you, not really. The only favor they've been doing civilians is "not deliberately" shelling places that missiles are definitely not coming from. So we're celebrating Israel's choice to not literally wholesale commit genocide out in the open? Pretty low standards there.


----------



## asher

DocBach said:


> Would the school and kids be destroyed if Hamas didn't decide shooting mortars from "the vicinity" was a good place to launch mortars?
> 
> Again, look at this - does it look like Hamas is making any effort to keep the effects of war against innocents?



Ooh, scare quotes around the direct quote from the interview that are the key words to disprove that clickbait headline you linked!

That's a good, and unfortunately valid question. Because we're starting to see evidence that Israel may actually *be targeting these deliberately*... which was nearly a third of the NYT article. Certainly, behavior patterns that give some credibility to the thought. Even if it's not deliberate, they clearly don't give a damn that they're not hitting the mortars...

Fun food for thought about the threat of some mortar rounds responded to with heavy artillery, & etc:


----------



## DocBach

Randy said:


> I don't know what your job was in the military but with that attitude, I sure as fvck hope it wasn't your job to make those decisions.
> 
> You arbitrarily cast out the idea of asking permission or taking a second guess at where to fire as being totally discretionary. The fact is, that chain of command clearly exists for a reason. When it doesn't, things that shouldn't be destroyed get destroyed and people who aren't supposed to be killed get killed.
> 
> To just say "whoops" and move off of this like it was a totally isolated accident and continue to operate the same way is absolutely dangerous logic.



Attitude? I'm explaining to you how actual war on the ground works. A fire mission's chain of command doesn't go all the way up to a bunch of people in pressed suits with medals dangling off their chest sitting around some giant table pressing red buttons and bad guys get vaporized. For the record, I was an infantryman who patrolled the Dora district of Baghdad in 2005 and the city of Mosul in 2008. My unit took the most casualties of any unit to deploy to Iraq (1-184th Infantry). 

We constantly had to make judgement calls to defend ourselves, and more often than not we would break contact or take casualties to avoid harming civilians (never did we deliberately shoot at civilian targets). 

Someone made a call, someone has to make a call. It's pretty easy to be an armchair general on an internet forum, but the reality of war is nowhere near as clear as you think it is.



> That's a good, and unfortunately valid question. Because we're starting to see evidence that Israel may actually be targeting these deliberately... which was nearly a third of the NYT article. Certainly, behavior patterns that give some credibility to the thought. Even if it's not deliberate, they clearly don't give a damn that they're not hitting the mortars...



Yes, they are shooting back deliberately. The majority of Hamas' attacks are being fired from these areas; Israel is left with two choices, to either let themselves be bombarded or to shoot back. Not always are guided missiles and strike jets available for sorties, or available quick enough. 

The harsh reality of a war is people die -- and the way Hamas plans its battles specifically from dense urban centers, civilian casualties are way higher than they should be.


----------



## asher

Emphasis mine.



DocBach said:


> The harsh reality of a war is people die -- and the way Hamas plans its battles specifically from dense urban centers, *civilian casualties are way higher than they should be.*





DocBach said:


> We constantly had to make judgement calls to defend ourselves, and *more often than not we would break contact or take casualties to avoid harming civilians.*


----------



## DocBach

The emphasis should be on the fact that Hamas utilizes tactics that put the civilians at risk - the response isn't going to be a good one - its war, _it's literally the worst thing in the world_


----------



## Skyblue

asher said:


> Fun food for thought about the threat of some mortar rounds responded to with heavy artillery, & etc:



As Israel actually spent money and time on building shelters and developing systems for defending their citizens, and Hamas used the money to build tunnels and acquire weapons, it's pretty clear as to why the high ratio. Also, does that graph only refer to civilian casualties on the palestinian side, or are terrorism-involved people are included as well? 

Just to throw it out there- Israel is using quite a lot of precision weapons in this operation. I do know, that these missiles are way more expensive than standard artillery shells, so I'm guessing it goes into account when choosing which weapon to use at specific times. *Keep in mind that is merely an observation by me, and it is not in any way based on sayings of IDF personal or other Israeli officials.*
As sad it is to say, I'd guess money has a part in it, as in everything. 

In other news, rumors have it that by tomorrow morning a 72-hours ceasefire, agreed upon by both sides, will initiate. On top of that, there have been reports on an Israeli delegation is on it's way to cairo to discuss a permanent solution.


----------



## asher

This chart shows every person killed in the Israel-Palestine conflict since 2000 - Vox

And it does include the bus bombings & such.


----------



## Quitty

Skyblue said:


> In other news, rumors have it that by tomorrow morning a 72-hours ceasefire, agreed upon by both sides, will initiate. On top of that, there have been reports on an Israeli delegation is on it's way to cairo to discuss a permanent solution.


The Israeli delegation has been there for about a week now. The Israeli ceasefire has started 48 hours ago and Israeli forces are almost fully withdrawn by now.
Hamas has just refused to participate in the ceasefire until now.



Randy said:


> I don't know what your job was in the military but with that attitude, I sure as fvck hope it wasn't your job to make those decisions.
> 
> You arbitrarily cast out the idea of asking permission or taking a second guess at where to fire as being totally discretionary. The fact is, that chain of command clearly exists for a reason. When it doesn't, things that shouldn't be destroyed get destroyed and people who aren't supposed to be killed get killed.


Again, you ignore the fact that some solution to a problem is necessary.
No one likes killing people, but everyone likes it better than getting killed himself. The chain of command is important, but not every link has access to the same information - 
and without information, i'm not sure anyone's opinion is worth mentioning.


----------



## Randy

Quitty said:


> No one likes killing people, but everyone likes it better than getting killed himself.



Therein lies the fundamental difference between you and I.

I don't consider my own life so sacred that protecting the lives of myself and maybe one or two of my friends outweighs the lives of the dozen or more civilians (including children) that I might kill on a hunch. Fundamentally, I don't know what awaits us in the afterlife and I don't think I have the right to subject innocent people to that because of my own fears. 

If an extra minute or two of calling in intel before I decide where I'm sending a mortar round means likely saving innocent lives but risking my own, that's a risk I'd be willing to take.

TBH, a lot of what I'm hearing seems to draw a parallel between all these justifications and the theme that civilian Palestinian lives (even children) are worth less than Israeli civilian AND military lives.


----------



## asher

Or that every Palestinian is equivalent to Hamas.


----------



## Crabface

asher said:


> Or that every Palestinian is equivalent to Hamas.



No-one said that. In fact it's been denied on numerous occasions.
I agree with a lot of what randy has said here, but i do that that to a certain extent some people are taking "righteousness" too far. Whilst Quitty is describing it as if there is little distinction between civilians and Hamas in war (not because there shouldn't be but because its not possible), Randy is describing it as if it's all black and white and civilians CANNOT die, even if it endangers yourself or your friends.
Randy, it almost seems as though you are assuming that it is all so obvious. There is no certain moral ground to stand on here because everything ends up because a compromise.

Imagine this:
A man gives you a gun, and then points one at you and your wife, and then tells you that if you don't kill him and his 5 children and his wife then he will kill you and your wife instead. Would you actually let yourself and your wife die?
And if so, what makes that the more righteous decision? Or heroic? After all, you let your wife die, not only yourself. 
And do you not consider yourself a good person? Why do you deserve to die more than the aggressors family (not that they deserve to die)?

This is just a philosophical analogy here, I'm not trying to rebuke anything that you've said, I just don't think it's 100% in perspective.

I do think that both Randy andQuitty make some very legitimate points here. I do also think that some people here are picking on DocBach and opposing anything he says, whilst not bringing up an argument of their own, but rather resting on other poster's shoulders. I think that their isn't enough respect here for the points of view of someone who has obviously had first hand experience in situations like this. People who have no experience in these situations are assuming everything works like it should on paper. This is not science, its war.

I honestly believe that there is some kind of middle ground between Randy's opinion and Quitty's opinion which seems the most reasonable to me.


----------



## asher

Crabface said:


> No-one said that. In fact it's been denied on numerous occasions.





> Whilst DocBach is describing it as if there is little distinction between civilians and Hamas in war (not because there shouldn't be but because its not possible)



I'm sorry, want to try that again?

You realize that resolves down to "If they run, they're V.C., if they stand they're well-disciplined V.C.!" right?


----------



## Crabface

asher said:


> I'm sorry, want to try that again?
> 
> You realize that resolves down to "If they run, they're V.C., if they stand they're well-disciplined V.C.!" right?



If you look carefully, you may notice that I spelled it out for you.
Quitty did not say that there was no difference between civilians and Hamas. He said that in certain conditions and situations in war you dont have the liberty of fully taking that into consideration.
What you are trying to make it sound like, as opposed to what randy or Quitty said, is that Israel simply consider everyone Hamas from them start and therefore rationalise killing them all.
You are literally twisting words to make posters, and quite frankly Israel, look worse than they sometimes already do.


----------



## asher

"Little distinction in war" (he said all war) is going to, effectively, translate into "no distinction" on the ground; Israel has repeatedly illustrated a fairly callous disregard for the distinction.


----------



## Crabface

asher said:


> "Little distinction in war" (he said all war) is going to, effectively, translate into "no distinction" on the ground; Israel has repeatedly illustrated a fairly callous disregard for the distinction.



But do you realise the difference between how he put it and how you put it?
You are wording it as if Israel seem to think that Palestinian=Hamas.
Quitty is saying that although Israel certainly appreciate the difference, sometimes you do not have the liberty of considering that difference. Thats all. Right or wrong isn't even the question. All i'm arguing is that you're twisting what he says.
The outcome may be the same, but the moral ground is not, and It's not fair for you to twist someones morals. Because thats the difference between war and murder.
Where were your calls for the UK to stop their "Genocide" in Afghanistan when they killed 18,000 civilians, for an arguably even more debatable reason?

Also, in regards to to Israel's supposed "fairly calloused regard for the distinction", it may be calloused but there is still a far higher regard for distinction than there has ever been before by any other nation in the world.




In other happier news, I'm sure almost everyone has heard by now that the ceasefire has been successful, at least for now, and Israel have pulled their troops out of Gaza. Good news for everyone and it'll hopefully lighten up the mood a bit.


----------



## Quitty

Randy said:


> Therein lies the fundamental difference between you and I.
> 
> I don't consider my own life so sacred that protecting the lives of myself and maybe one or two of my friends outweighs the lives of the dozen or more civilians (including children) that I might kill on a hunch. Fundamentally, I don't know what awaits us in the afterlife and I don't think I have the right to subject innocent people to that because of my own fears.
> 
> If an extra minute or two of calling in intel before I decide where I'm sending a mortar round means likely saving innocent lives but risking my own, that's a risk I'd be willing to take.
> 
> TBH, a lot of what I'm hearing seems to draw a parallel between all these justifications and the theme that civilian Palestinian lives (even children) are worth less than Israeli civilian AND military lives.



Would it make it easier for you if i said it wasn't you, but the people you were protecting? Or the people you love?

It takes about 10 seconds to fire a prepared mortar or Fahjer launcher. 5 seconds later, the two-men team responsible is still in the blast radius, but after that they're gone - off to another post to fire another mortar or Fahjer launcher. Hamas isn't targeting the IDF. They're targeting civilians.

I'll be honest - I'm glad i didn't get re-drafted. It's a shitty war and i'd have some trouble sleeping if i was rummaging through civilian populace for a month now, but you're suggesting that we let Israeli civilians die and are still trying to make me realize that my objection means i like them better than the Palestinians.

They're no worse, but they are not any better and you still fail to realize that every Hamas operative alive is constantly endangering lives.



Crabface said:


> In other happier news, I'm sure almost everyone has heard by now that the ceasefire has been successful, at least for now, and have pulled their troops out of Gaza. Good news for everyone and it'll hopefully lighten up the mood a bit.


Yeah, i'll see you next year


----------



## asher

How many people actually die from those mortar attacks though? I'm genuinely curious, since the death counts indicate "almost nobody".


----------



## Quitty

asher said:


> How many people actually die from those mortar attacks though? I'm genuinely curious, since the death counts indicate "almost nobody".



578 Fahjers were dropped by 'Iron Dome', meaning they were 'good shots' so to speak.
As for the mortars, the entire area around Gaza is vacant due to the war. 

You can argue that the Palestinians have nowhere to vacate to, but that's not really relevant.
You might ask yourself what happens when we run out of ammo for 'Iron Dome', which we almost did. I've been asking that myself a lot lately.
I don't think 'just letting them keep shoot' is a valid option. Not even at the cost of civilian lives.


----------



## Crabface

Quitty said:


> Yeah, i'll see you next year



Haha yep. Very likely.


----------



## Skyblue

I'll skip the quoting if you'll excuse me, but I think, Randy, that you didn't completely understood what Quitty said- or at least, didn't take it as he meant it. I believe what he meant was saying that during war, you have to make very quick decisions, that many times boils down to a "my people or their people" sort of question. Where you identify rockets being fired at your country, at your people, and you have to act quickly- you know you might also hit unrelated civilians during it, but if you won't, your people might get hit, or even die. I can only assume that or most people, it will be easier to taking the chance of the other side being hit, rather then their own. 
Now, I'm not saying this in direct relation to any incident, but having friends that fought many times in different places, as well as Gaza, and after investigating many many soldiers about various actions done during action, I can say that it's very hard to judge someone's actions during war. 

As a side note, I can say that the IDF already started investigating soldiers about wrongdoings done during this operation. (I served in the IDF's CID, the unit in charge of these investigations, and I still have friends there..)


----------



## asher

So nobody is really at threat from the rockets or mortars?


----------



## Quitty

asher said:


> So nobody is really at threat from the rockets or mortars?



Well, 7 civilians dead, 30 something injured, i think. Fairly low risk.
Until someone tries to go home, or we run out of ammo.


----------



## Skyblue

asher said:


> So nobody is really at threat from the rockets or mortars?



As long as everyone living close to Gaza leaves their homes and run away, and we keep spending loads of money on the Iron Dome, yeah, I guess you can say (Iron Dome only has a 90% success rate, so there's still a slight danger)

What's your point with it? 

Also, while the mortars might not be a too great threat at the moment, the terror tunnels are a major one.


----------



## Crabface

Guys I just realised that I kept on mentioning DocBlach in my previous posts when I think I may have meant Quitty. Apologies and I'll edit the posts.


----------



## tedtan

Randy and a few others have taken the position that it is never OK for civilians to die in war. This is fine on paper, but we all know that theory doesn't always hold up in real world practice. And we also know that war is the ultimate case of shit hitting the fan, so this position is a bit idealistic. When the shit hits the fan, the fight or flight response kicks in and you do what you have to do (even if you didn't think you would actually do it before the shit hit the fan).

So while I don't condone killing civilians, neither do I pretend it's possible to avoid doing so unless we avoid war altogether. And while that sounds great on paper, it, too, is idealistic given mankind's history.


----------



## Randy

I wasn't implying you could avoid civilian causalities entirely, I meant that I don't think it was as high a priority as it should be.

This isn't the first war waged in an urban environment with civilians mixed in with non-uniformed combatants. Statistically, I don't feel like I've ever heard of a scenario with a comparable amount of collateral damage (read: civilians killed) over the same period of time.


----------



## Randy

Skyblue said:


> As a side note, I can say that the IDF already started investigating soldiers about wrongdoings done during this operation. (I served in the IDF's CID, the unit in charge of these investigations, and I still have friends there..)



Considering the 'blue wall' we have here in the United States, color me skeptical of how high my expectations are for an organization that investigates itself.


----------



## DocBach

Randy said:


> I wasn't implying you could avoid civilian causalities entirely, I meant that I don't think it was as high a priority as it should be.
> 
> This isn't the first war waged in an urban environment with civilians mixed in with non-uniformed combatants. Statistically, I don't feel like I've ever heard of a scenario with a comparable amount of collateral damage (read: civilians killed) over the same period of time.



















The hundreds of thousands of people of Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden, Vietnam would disagree if they weren't completely obliterated by indiscriminate ordinance.

One of the most stark realities of war in urbanized terrain is civilians on the battlefield will die; no matter how much you try to plan contingencies to avoid unnecessary loss of life, war is not a sterile perfect mechanism, especially when the enemy uses the populace as camouflage and armor -- if the IDF wanted to deliberately kill civilians, they have the ability to easily recreate any of the above scenes (They are a nuclear power). 

Right now, ISIS in Iraq is killing every military aged male they can that won't join up with them - there are reports that they've killed thousands in a single day. Mind you, some of these are surrendered soldiers, but many are literally just people of fighting age that don't want to take part on either side. Quite a bit of collateral damage, and this is happening right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3JwBQFSsMw

This is how the enemy wages war over there. They will use women and children as weapons, and indiscriminately kill by the masses because they're taught that its the will of Allah. It's really easy to argue the definition of humanity or how idealistically war _should_ be fought on a message board with other guitar enthusiasts without directly seeing their face of war in real life -- but the reality is, the hardliner Islamofascist groups (including much of Hamas) doing the killing over there have a very different idea on what the word humanity means, and have a much different vision of how war _is_ fought.


----------



## Skyblue

Randy said:


> Considering the 'blue wall' we have here in the United States, color me skeptical of how high my expectations are for an organization that investigates itself.



Can't argue with your feelings and doubts, but I'll testify myself- I've investigated dozens of soldiers (not so many as I served in the north, rather far from areas where there are daily military activities involving palestinians) about said actions (and many more on other offenses, ranging from drugs to rape). Some of the soldiers, those who were found guilty of course, were sent to jail. I can not bring proof to that right now, but maybe some exists on the web (though how high the chances are to find some in english, I don't know...) 

Military Police Corps (Israel) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That's a small segment about my unit, not sure if it'll add anything or change your opinion, but you're welcome to read.


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> I wasn't implying you could avoid civilian causalities entirely, I meant that I don't think it was as high a priority as it should be.


 
I got ya.

I agree that avoiding civilian casualties should be one of the highest priorities. And I also agree that the US media is doing a good job of making Israel look like they are failing in this regard, even intentionally going after civilians. But I don't really trust the media and I don't know what's going on on the ground (and probably never will) so I'm withholding judgment on this.




Randy said:


> This isn't the first war waged in an urban environment with civilians mixed in with non-uniformed combatants. Statistically, I don't feel like I've ever heard of a scenario with a comparable amount of collateral damage (read: civilians killed) over the same period of time.



I think this is partly due to the media coverage we have here stateside. The situation is a little different, but there were far more deaths resulting from the carpet bombing the US performed in WW2 (or Korea or Vietnam) than what we've seen in this conflict so far.

What I find problematic is Israel going after Hamas with surface to surface or air to surface munitions (guided or not) in areas where civilians are known to be. In contrast, the US has been far more likely to send in ground troops in similar urban situations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This has definitely resulted in more casualties to our troops, but it has also saved civilian lives as compared to simply bombing everything in the vicinity of the enemy's last known position.


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> What I find problematic is Israel going after Hamas with surface to surface or air to surface munitions (guided or not) in areas where civilians are known to be. In contrast, the US has been far more likely to send in ground troops in similar urban situations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This has definitely resulted in more casualties to our troops, but it has also saved civilian lives as compared to simply bombing everything in the vicinity of the enemy's last known position.



That's actually more what I was referring to. 

WWII and Vietnam were large scale aerial bombing (which has actually widely been criticized for human rights violations in the years since) of whole cities. My post was referring specifically to targeted 'building by building' urban combat like what you described, but I think my post must've been too vague.

Couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> nd I also agree that the US media is doing a good job of making Israel look like they are failing in this regard, even intentionally going after civilians



Mixed bag, depending on who you listen to. I'll chalk that one up to the typical politicization of non-political issues that goes on in the US (and other countries too) to inject drama into the narrative for the sake of increasing views or pushing the opinion of the staff there.


----------



## DocBach

tedtan said:


> I got ya.
> 
> 
> 
> What I find problematic is Israel going after Hamas with surface to surface or air to surface munitions (guided or not) in areas where civilians are known to be. In contrast, the US has been far more likely to send in ground troops in similar urban situations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This has definitely resulted in more casualties to our troops, but it has also saved civilian lives as compared to simply bombing everything in the vicinity of the enemy's last known position.



This isn't true - do you remember Shock and Awe? In a week we probably launched more surface to air or surface to surface (in the form of cruise missiles and artillery) into dense urban zones than the IDF has used since 2000 in a single week - we literally depleted our nation's store of Tomahawk missiles.

Or all of the times in the recent past where we've responded to a nation completely with air strikes? The difference isn't how the war is fought. The difference is based on the amount of public exposure the media provides to the war. You feel more personalized when you see images of apartment buildings being bombed than reading a scrolling ticker saying "the country of whereverstan was bombed by US F-18's today, 8 casualties reported." Even as late as 2008 we went on a patrol with a couple of Kiowa helicopter gunships overhead to blow up threats -- for example, their main armament is unguided rockets and machine guns, their targeting systems are literally crosshairs drawn on the cockpit glass with grease pens, and they would launch ordinance into urban areas all the time to support our operations on the ground.


----------



## asher

We're also a much bigger nation shooting at more than one city.

Doc, I'm not sure you posting references to things that are now close to unilaterally considered war crimes as "shit happens" is going to help much and I sincerely hope I don't need to actually explain that this time.

Oh, wait, every Muslim is taught it's the will of Allah to kill and every woman and child is a potential weapon.

That mindset explains almost everything, I think.


----------



## DocBach

asher said:


> We're also a much bigger nation shooting at more than one city.
> 
> Doc, I'm not sure you posting references to things that are now close to unilaterally considered war crimes as "shit happens" is going to help much and I sincerely hope I don't need to actually explain that this time.
> 
> Oh, wait, every Muslim is taught it's the will of Allah to kill and every woman and child is a potential weapon.
> 
> That mindset explains almost everything, I think.



So the size of the country changes what fact that for longer than 10 years we bombed the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq and didn't just solely use ground forces? I am telling you examples from personal experience how war is not nearly as clean and laser guided as you think. 

Again, I'm really thinking you have a fundamental lack of understanding how terrible war is -- it in itself is a crime against humanity. Bad stuff happens to all people involved, be it direct combatants or people stuck in the middle of it. I am saying that in a fight to the death, which war is, shit will happen. I'm not saying that it is a good thing. I am saying that the way that Hamas fights, and as the governing body of the Palestinian people, they put their citizens in positions that exposes them to more possibility of death.

I didn't say _all_ Muslims believe that it is the will of Allah to kill themselves. You are twisting my words -- I said that the Islamofacists that are waging the war believe that -- and have no qualms exposing women and children to violence, or even using them as tools to perpetrate violence. I have personally seen young women blow themselves up and have seen children be used to plant IED's and throw grenades. 

You can try to make me look like a racist or a bigot, I'm speaking from experience; the way of life and the way of thought is incredibly different in the less Westernized parts of the Middle East. I posted a video of ISIS killing people they gathered by the thousands in an assembly line of death. Do you think people who share your similar views of humanity would be doing something like that?

I guess the closest we have here to use as an example would be the deep south, which probably makes you scratch your head and go "wtf, what are these crazy bible thumpers thinking? How do they believe this," but multiplied about five million times in violence, veracity and craziness.

Here is a hypothetical question for you - if the roles were reversed, and Hamas had F-16 fighters and artillery, do you think they would be nearly as judicious in target selection?


----------



## tedtan

DocBach said:


> This isn't true - do you remember Shock and Awe? In a week we probably launched more surface to air or surface to surface (in the form of cruise missiles and artillery) into dense urban zones than the IDF has used since 2000 in a single week - we literally depleted our nation's store of Tomahawk missiles.
> 
> Or all of the times in the recent past where we've responded to a nation completely with air strikes? The difference isn't how the war is fought. The difference is based on the amount of public exposure the media provides to the war. You feel more personalized when you see images of apartment buildings being bombed than reading a scrolling ticker saying "the country of whereverstan was bombed by US F-18's today, 8 casualties reported." Even as late as 2008 we went on a patrol with a couple of Kiowa helicopter gunships overhead to blow up threats -- for example, their main armament is unguided rockets and machine guns, their targeting systems are literally crosshairs drawn on the cockpit glass with grease pens, and they would launch ordinance into urban areas all the time to support our operations on the ground.



We've definitely used similar tactics in recent years, and I'm sure we will again. But the point is that we're not simply lobbing a couple of dozen artillery shells at a hospital from a few clicks away and calling it good. And even in the shock and awe campaign, we weren't simply carpet bombing Baghdad. At least I hope that's not the kind of thing actually happening on the ground.


----------



## DocBach

tedtan said:


> We've definitely used similar tactics in recent years, and I'm sure we will again. But the point is that we're not simply lobbing a couple of dozen artillery shells at a hospital from a few clicks away and calling it good. And even in the shock and awe campaign, we weren't simply carpet bombing Baghdad. At least I hope that's not the kind of thing actually happening on the ground.



In Afghanistan, because the engagement distance is so great for most small arms, the general tactic is to suppress with machine guns and call in artillery and CAS (close air support). In recent years they have limited the proximity to villages that they can now be used, but depending on METT-TC (Mission, Enemy Troops, Terrain, Time, Civilian Considerations) sometimes such missions are approved.

In Iraq we utilized assets like artillery and air strikes regularly to support ground operations until about 2007, when the focus of the war shifted to COIN operations, counter-insurgency to try to win the populace over towards working together against an insurgency, but like I said previously we still had assets available and did make use of Kiowa strikes as late as 2008; here are some pictures I took of the results:
















One thing not to forget is the Israelis are not just using indirect or air dropped munitions, they've had infantry in Gaza as well, which is where the majority of their casualties were taken;

http://youtu.be/jpnxFQBUS_s

(the rest of the IDF KIA have been from indirect fire like the rockets/mortars) 

Modern warfare and armies will utilize a full spectrum of integrated assets during operations; each is a specific tool that allows the other to do its task ie counter battery artillery detects indirect fire against infantry on the ground, air strikes take out that area, so the infantry on the ground can maneuver forward, etc.


----------



## Explorer

I'm a little confused, because of some of the wording going on here.

Is anyone asserting that some soldier in Israel is saying, "There's a civilian building. Hit it!"?

Or is it more a matter of a system saying, "A rocket has been fired into Israel, so automatically return fire at the originating location"? 

I thought it was automatic counterfire.

In other words, is Hamas making the decision to fire, and thereby trigger the counterfire, from a civilian location... with the intention of harming their own civilian population?

For some reason, I'm getting the impression that some have been reasoning like this:


Hamas embezzling aid for civilians to buy arms and to build terror tunnels
Hamas hiding among the civilian population to use them as human shields when the automatic counterfire happens
 civilians dying because of Hama's choice of that shielding and those actions
Hamas not considering any ceasefires because fvck civilians, except for their PR value by dying
 therefore, Israeli war crimes!


----------



## DocBach

Explorer said:


> I'm a little confused, because of some of the wording going on here.
> 
> Is anyone asserting that some soldier in Israel is saying, "There's a civilian building. Hit it!"
> 
> Or is it more a matter of a system saying, "A rocket has been fired into Israel, so automatically return fire at the originating location"?
> 
> I thought it was automatic counterfire.
> 
> In other words, is Hamas making the decision to fire, and thereby trigger the counterfire, from a civilian location... with the intention of harming their own civilian population?
> 
> For some reason, I'm getting the impression that some have been reasoning like this:
> 
> 
> Hamas embezzling aid for civilians to buy arms and to build terror tunnels
> Hamas hiding among the civilian population to use them as human shields when the automatic counterfire happens
> civilians dying because of Hama's choice of that shielding and those actions
> Hamas not considering any ceasefires because fvck civilians, except for their PR value by dying
> therefore, Israeli war crimes!



The first part is happening when someone on the ground or aerial observation observes fire from a specific area, like a building for instance that ground forces cannot close with to engage directly -- the observer will call for a fire mission (either CAS, which is close air support in the form of bombs from jets or missiles/rockets from helicopters, or artillery). From what I understand of Israeli doctrine, the acceptable proximity for call for fire missions is 200m from civilians on the battlefield, so it isn't as much as "there's a civilian building, lets bomb it for fun" rather than "we have troops in contact and need support from other assets to either move on the objective or break contact." 

For the second part, you have a pretty good grasp on what is happening, sort of like Iron Dome, counter battery radar picks up incoming fire, triangulates within a couple hundred meters where it originated from, then counter battery artillery systems conducts a return fire mission -- all of this is done very quickly to try to destroy the enemy weapon systems before they can displace from the area. Pretty much to Hamas, civilians are a commodity, civilian deaths enrage the Palestinians towards supporting Hamas, and sells public support to the international community, and can also halt Israeli military operations if civilians are observed within their 200m "safe" zone.


----------



## Explorer

Ah. Okay.

I guess I just wonder when there is a group which has said definitively, "We want to completely destroy all the people of a nation!" (AKA genocide), and then people gloss over that spoken/written intention in order to accuse that target nation of genocide. 

I suppose stated intentions combined with action counts doesn't count for some....


----------



## Quitty

Explorer said:


> Ah. Okay.
> 
> I guess I just wonder when there is a group which has said definitively, "We want to completely destroy all the people of a nation!" (AKA genocide), and then people gloss over that spoken/written intention in order to accuse that target nation of genocide.
> 
> I suppose stated intentions combined with action counts doesn't count for some....


Well, i think their point is that if Hamas uses human populace as cover, IDF shouldn't shoot.

Which is moronic at best, but you can't teach people what it's like to have missiles landing on your home-town. They somehow think the numbers are what counts, which is what the media is often trying to sell.
If they weren't selling that, this would be a one sided war.


----------



## SavM

Quitty said:


> Well, i think their point is that if Hamas uses human populace as cover, IDF shouldn't shoot.
> 
> Which is moronic at best, but you can't teach people what it's like to have missiles landing on your home-town. They somehow think the *lives* are what counts, which is what the media is often trying to sell.
> If they weren't selling that, this would be a one sided war.


 
Not to be inflamatory, but....


----------



## Quitty

SavM said:


> Not to be inflamatory, but....



Who's?
I'm with you on not killing anyone, but until one of you brings up a decent solution to stopping Hamas attempting to murder civilians, i'll make do with what options we have. I can only assume someone in my government is sane enough to think the same.

Attempted murder isn't any better than murder. The fact that Hamas isn't as successful at murdering than they'd like doesn't make them any less of a threat.
It does, however, make the statistics look very uneven.


----------



## tedtan

DocBach said:


> Bad stuff happens to all people involved, be it direct combatants or people stuck in the middle of it. I am saying that in a fight to the death, which war is, shit will happen. I'm not saying that it is a good thing.



I understand this. You have to make the best decision you can with the information available to you in the time frame you have to work with and run with it. 

What I'm saying is that we need to do everything reasonable to eliminate, or at least minimize, as many civilian deaths as possible.




DocBach said:


> I am saying that the way that Hamas fights, and as the governing body of the Palestinian people, they put their citizens in positions that exposes them to more possibility of death... Here is a hypothetical question for you - if the roles were reversed, and Hamas had F-16 fighters and artillery, do you think they would be nearly as judicious in target selection?



Agreed.

But Hamas is a terrorist organization. As civilized countries, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard rather than allowing ourselves to be dragged down to the same level as the despicable terrorists.




DocBach said:


> In Afghanistan, because the engagement distance is so great for most small arms, the general tactic is to suppress with machine guns and call in artillery and CAS (close air support). In recent years they have limited the proximity to villages that they can now be used, but depending on METT-TC (Mission, Enemy Troops, Terrain, Time, Civilian Considerations) sometimes such missions are approved.
> 
> In Iraq we utilized assets like artillery and air strikes regularly to support ground operations until about 2007, when the focus of the war shifted to COIN operations, counter-insurgency to try to win the populace over towards working together against an insurgency, but like I said previously we still had assets available and did make use of Kiowa strikes as late as 2008



Did we target hospitals and schools full of women and children in those cases you mention?

Would you agree that there is a fundamental difference in using this type of munitions against enemy firebases, air strips, anti-aircraft installations, etc. versus using it in areas known to be populated by civilians?


----------



## tedtan

Explorer said:


> Is anyone asserting that some soldier in Israel is saying, "There's a civilian building. Hit it!"?
> 
> Or is it more a matter of a system saying, "A rocket has been fired into Israel, so automatically return fire at the originating location"?
> 
> I thought it was automatic counterfire.



A lot of this is the latter. But that machinery designed to automatically return fire is still under human control, and there are times when a human should intervene prior to the returning of fire. Such as when a location is known to harbor women and children, e.g., schools and hospitals.


----------



## tedtan

Quitty said:


> Well, i think their point is that if Hamas uses human populace as cover, IDF shouldn't shoot.
> 
> Which is moronic at best, but you can't teach people what it's like to have missiles landing on your home-town. They somehow think the numbers are what counts, which is what the media is often trying to sell.
> If they weren't selling that, this would be a one sided war.



The idea isn't "don't shoot", but to evaluate whether or not it is necessary to shoot.

For example, if you have observed Hamas fighters in or near a hospital, is it really necessary to return fire? How valuable are those Hamas fighters - are they leaders or just a couple of jackasses with Kalashnikovs or rockets? And if the latter, is it really worth endangering so many civilians for a low ranking nobody?


----------



## Skyblue

Reports today from several foreign news reports support Israel's claims that Hamas was firing rockets from populated areas, close to hospitals and also very close to the hotel the foreign reporters stayed at. There also have been reports on Hamas bringing reporters to staged bombed sites, and of Hamas HQ hidden in the basement of a hospital in Gaza. I have so far found one mention of that in the CNN website, but I am not familiar with all the news pages in other countries so I encourage you guys to check if similar reports are found in your country. 

Clock ticking on Gaza truce talks in Cairo - CNN.com


----------



## Randy

I don't think anybody's disputing the truthfulness of what you're saying (Hamas firing from anywhere and everywhere possible; along with a strong likelihood of deliberately selecting civilian heavy locations), and it has been widely reported in the US media.

EDIT: Those facts don't change my opinion. The issue here is that I feel like the arguments from people who share the same position as me are being received as 'black and white' where we're saying the Israelis are either deliberately shelling places housing innocent people, or that we're implying if Hamas fire weapons from populated areas, Israel needs to do nothing and let Hamas steamroll them. The majority of posts I've read that are a counterpoint to my position sure seem to read like that.

My point (and, as I interpreted it, the point of several of the other people posting in here) is that there means of minimizing civilian casualties that have been whitewashed over with "well, you gotta do what you gotta do, or Hamas is going to kill you and your whole family in a split second". 

Quitty seems to be getting particularly snippy, like he's either misinterpreting that point and thinks I'm/we're implying Israelis need to just "take it" or he's honestly being overly sensitive and thinks ANY amount of force is justified if you feel threatened; no matter how feeble the attempts of your attacker. As Crab mentioned earlier, I absolutely think there's a very robust area between both 'sides' where Israel has the right to protect itself but could be managing it's use of force in populated areas more responsibly. I know DocBach's been posting (ad nauseum, BTW) military fetishist specifics about how operations are carried out, but all of what he says still rides on moments of decision making and, IMO, a lot of those decisions have been bad ones. That's my opinion, and you're all free to your own.


----------



## Skyblue

Well, In our media coverage here it is mostly presented as "EVERYONE HATES ISRAEL, ONLY SHOW PICTURES OF DEAD CHILDREN IN GAZA" which I obviously never really believed is true, but I had no idea how matters are really presented almost anywhere else. I'm happy to hear the coverage wasn't all too one-sided. 

I also think people in this thread, especially the ones posting from Israel (such as I) only feel as if there's criticism on the subject of civilian casualties towards Israel, and none towards Hamas, which automatically puts us into a sort of defensive mindset. Especially when the UN, for example, keeps calling for investigations of war crimes supposedly committed by Israel, but almost doesn't mention the ones done by Hamas. So that doesn't feel fair to us, and it is probably carried into our answers in this discussion. Might only be me, though.


----------



## asher

I think given the absurd disparity in actual casualty numbers, which I've already posted, that scrutiny is wholly warranted.

Randy and Tedtan, you guys did a pretty good job of articulating what my position is.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Randy said:


> I know DocBach's been posting (ad nauseum, BTW) military fetishist specifics about how operations are carried out



I don't think that's entirely fair. Well, the ad naueum part is , but not the fetishist part. Doc was (is?) in the military himself and has a unique insight (for SSO, at least) into the sort of situation happening in the Middle East, and it seems more to me like he's just adding information to the discussion that might not have otherwise been introduced because that's his area of expertise, not like he's fetishizing the military. He's wearing his bias on his sleeve, clearly, but "fetishist" seems... unduly harsh, I suppose.

Then again, I'm coming from a position of bias myself, being ex-military (working in the intel field specializing in the ME, to boot), so when I see someone rambling on and throwing out a lot of military technical jargon, I don't think "fetish," I think "sergeant," .


----------



## flint757

Skyblue said:


> Well, In our media coverage here it is mostly presented as "EVERYONE HATES ISRAEL, ONLY SHOW PICTURES OF DEAD CHILDREN IN GAZA" which I obviously never really believed is true, but I had no idea how matters are really presented almost anywhere else. I'm happy to hear the coverage wasn't all too one-sided.
> 
> I also think people in this thread, especially the ones posting from Israel (such as I) only feel as if there's criticism on the subject of civilian casualties towards Israel, and none towards Hamas, which automatically puts us into a sort of defensive mindset. Especially when the UN, for example, keeps calling for investigations of war crimes supposedly committed by Israel, but almost doesn't mention the ones done by Hamas. So that doesn't feel fair to us, and it is probably carried into our answers in this discussion. Might only be me, though.



There's nothing to talk about in regards to Hamas. They are a terrorist organization that endanger lives. That is well understood I think. That's not exactly the bar you should be setting for yourself as a nation though, so it hardly warrants comparison. I'll chime in in agreement that it isn't the fact that y'all are killing Gaza citizens, but the fact that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of differentiation (at least that is the impression I'm getting here and elsewhere) between targets that are important/dangerous enough to warrant the 'collateral damage' and those that aren't. Going about it the way y'all have currently been doing things leaves the impression that you find people who are not Israelis to be of lesser worth. It sucks playing the part of the 'good guy' in a conflict. You have to play by a different set of rules as a side effect of that fact. To bring Hamas into this part of the discussion the way you'd like would be to lower yourselves to their level and I don't think that is what y'all want for your nation.

I personally think holding ones countrymen above everyone else to be an antiquated concept to say the least. A stranger is a stranger and a friend is a friend no matter their nationality. If they didn't do anything wrong then just because they aren't Americans doesn't mean they have less worth and therefore qualify to be considered 'acceptable' collateral damage in my eyes. We have people in my own nation who detest what our government has done in places like Guantanamo, not just toward our citizens, but to other nationalities as well. Why is it that everyone form Israel posting here seems to universally support what their government is doing on their behalf?

FWIW America, in general, largely seems to support what y'all have been doing and has for a long, long time now (from what I've seen at least). I'm not going to say the world isn't scrutinizing every decision y'all make, but your media is definitely trying to turn it into a bit of propaganda from how it sounds.


----------



## Skyblue

flint757 said:


> *There's nothing to talk about in regards to Hamas.* They are a terrorist organization that endanger lives. That is well understood I think. That's not exactly the bar you should be setting for yourself as a nation though, so it hardly warrants comparison. I'll chime in in agreement that it isn't the fact that y'all are killing Gaza citizens, but the fact that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of differentiation (at least that is the impression I'm getting here and elsewhere) between targets that are important/dangerous enough to warrant the 'collateral damage' and those that aren't. Going about it the way y'all have currently been doing things leaves the impression that you find people who are not Israelis to be of lesser worth. It sucks playing the part of the 'good guy' in a conflict. You have to play by a different set of rules as a side effect of that fact. To bring Hamas into this part of the discussion the way you'd like would be to lower yourselves to their level and I don't think that is what y'all want for your nation.
> 
> I personally think holding ones countrymen above everyone else to be an antiquated concept to say the least. A stranger is a stranger and a friend is a friend no matter their nationality. If they didn't do anything wrong then just because they aren't Americans doesn't mean they have less worth and therefore qualify to be considered 'acceptable' collateral damage in my eyes. You have people in my own nation who detest what our government has done in places like Guantanamo, not just toward our citizens, but to other nationalities as well. Why is it that everyone form Israel posting here seems to universally support what their government is doing on their behalf?
> 
> FWIW America, in general, largely seems to support what y'all have been doing and has for a long, long time now (from what I've seen at least). I'm not going to say the world isn't scrutinizing every decision y'all make, but your media is definitely trying to turn it into a bit of propaganda from how it sounds.



There are absolutely things to say about Hamas. They are the current leaders of the people in the Gaza strip. They are, in fact, hold responsibility for them (not talking about the casualties here). So if they're a terror organization, they get a free pass to do anything? "Oh, of course they're killing people they're terrorists". "Of course they hide in hospitals and UN buildings, they're terrorists". if you want to be a governing body, and more importantly, if you want to blame Israel for committing war crimes (and they are blaming), you can't be free from being criticized yourself. 

As to how come all us Israelis in this discussion support our government? Well, we don't  I understand why it might seem that why, but like everything life, it's not black and white. We agree with some of it's actions, with other we don't. In this discussion, I think we're mostly trying to give the israeli perspective on the situation. Though I think so far about 3-4 Israelis posted here, so even if we were all agreeing with the government... it's not that weird, really.


----------



## Quitty

I think, flint757, if you read my posts you'd know i'm not a big fan of the Israeli administration or its decision making. Based on this thread alone, i'd guess Skyblue isn't either.
This war might have been avoided had the Palestinians been given their own bloody country a decade ago, or if the jewish powers that be would consider integrating the non-hostile arab populace into Israel.
I don't think that's the point, though.

Nobody cares about a people as much as their government, that's a given.
You can keep addressing me in third person, Randy, but the Israelis shouldn't care about the Palestinians as much as they do about the Israelis - that's the Palestinian government's job and there's much that they could have done to avoid this if they weren't as concerned for their islamist funding.

Those two terrorists that launched rockets from near a hospital don't disappear into thin air - they go on and fire more rockets. They continue doing so until they are killed.
It's easy to dismiss those rockets as a nuisance, but those things kill. Every rocket fired is an attempted multiple-murder. They may not be successful this time, but they might succeed the next - 
and if we took 'acceptable losses' out of our vocabulary, where do you think they'd set the next launcher?


Interesting (and irrelevant) trivia; that Hamas bunker Skyblue (and not flint757, sorry) is referring to isn't really hidden. It is indeed beneath the hospital, we all know about it, that hospital - bunker included - was built by Israelis.
I guess they thought it would be used by civilians.


----------



## tedtan

Skyblue said:


> Well, In our media coverage here it is mostly presented as "EVERYONE HATES ISRAEL, ONLY SHOW PICTURES OF DEAD CHILDREN IN GAZA" which I obviously never really believed is true, but I had no idea how matters are really presented almost anywhere else. I'm happy to hear the coverage wasn't all too one-sided.
> 
> I also think people in this thread, especially the ones posting from Israel (such as I) only feel as if there's criticism on the subject of civilian casualties towards Israel, and none towards Hamas, which automatically puts us into a sort of defensive mindset. Especially when the UN, for example, keeps calling for investigations of war crimes supposedly committed by Israel, but almost doesn't mention the ones done by Hamas. So that doesn't feel fair to us, and it is probably carried into our answers in this discussion. Might only be me, though.



I think it's worth pointing out a few things just for clarity's sake.

First, Hamas (and other terrorist organization like Hezbollah, Taliban, etc.) are trash that are not fit to wipe our asses with. Those of us in the western world take this as pretty much a given, like saying the sky is blue, so we tend not to point it out. Its just assumed that the people we speak to know this, so my apologies for not making it clear earlier. I realize you're not in in the west, so this may not be common knowledge for you. But to be clear, we in no way support terrorists. In fact, we despise them.

Second, most of us on this board are from the US, and the US has been Israel's biggest supporter for a long time now, so we are not opposed to Israel or anything like that the way some in the middle east are. So no hating on Israel here.

Third, the US almost always tends to favor the underdog unless he is our enemy. So even though Israel is an ally, much of the popular press and populace are favoring Palestine because they are the underdog. (And the Palestinians do have a legitimate claim here; I can see both sides' position in this). Having said that, the press here is making it out to look like Israel is attacking civilian heavy areas without much concern for the civilians. I'm sure this isn't entirely true because, even if the media gets the facts right, they can't really convey the context in which the decision to fire was made. That decision may have been the right call at the time, but we'll never know because we only get to see the results.

Fourth, when we speak of Palestine and the civilians and so forth, we are speaking of the Palestinian people, not Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO, etc. Again, we do not support terrorists.

Fifth, when we are talking about Israel holding itself to a higher standard, we understand that Israel has a right to defend itself. But, as a developed, first world country with a modern military, Israel should hold itself to that standard. And make no mistake, that is the standard the rest of the world is holding you to. (And note here that yes, Americans can be hypocrites, too ).

Sixth, when the US invaded Afghanistan, and certainly when we expanded into Iraq, we took a lot or criticism for it. So don't be defensive about criticism, it comes with the territory. The only way to avoid it is to do nothing and stay off everyone's radar so to speak.

Last, we are not trying to say that Israel should not defend itself. We are just saying that the "shoot first and ask questions later" approach should be avoided when possible. Sure you have to make a snap decision and act quickly sometimes in order to defend yourself. But if you have time (and you do have the time in many cases where you're lobbing artillery shells at hospitals, schools, etc.) to determine if the casualties will actually be worth whatever gains you achieve with the attack. A low ranking foot soldier isn't worth much in the way of collateral damage; a high ranking leader might be, especially if he is known to have a lot of intelligence that might sway the war or end it early. This goes back to context.


----------



## tedtan

Skyblue said:


> There are absolutely things to say about Hamas. They are the current leaders of the people in the Gaza strip. They are, in fact, hold responsibility for them (not talking about the casualties here). So if they're a terror organization, they get a free pass to do anything? "Oh, of course they're killing people they're terrorists". "Of course they hide in hospitals and UN buildings, they're terrorists".



We're not giving them free pass. We're saying that Israel should not become a terrorist organization itself just because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Be the bigger man, so to speak.


----------



## tedtan

Quitty said:


> Those two terrorists that launched rockets from near a hospital don't disappear into thin air - they go on and fire more rockets. They continue doing so until they are killed.



And they will end up exposing themselves in a location where they can be dealt with without the collateral damage if you don't immediately go after their last known location.

You have to choose your battles.


----------



## DocBach

Randy said:


> I know DocBach's been posting (ad nauseum, BTW) military fetishist specifics about how operations are carried out, but all of what he says still rides on moments of decision making and, IMO, a lot of those decisions have been bad ones. That's my opinion, and you're all free to your own.



I'm trying to clarify to posters here how war, and the systems discussed, work from the ground perspective. There seems to be a lot of assumptions made by people who very clearly have little experience in modern conflicts, and I've tried to explain how modern militaries conduct warfare, as well as insight on how insurgencies conduct their own operations. 

I suppose you can hold your opinions about moments of decision making, but I still hold my opinion that until you have had to make decisions like that in regards to the lives of your friends with you or the enemy, it is unfair to make assumptions that the people on the ground are making decisions to kill arbitrarily without any regard or weight to their decisions.



Grand Moff Tim said:


> Doc was (is?) in the military
> 
> Then again, I'm coming from a position of bias myself, being ex-military (working in the intel field specializing in the ME, to boot), so when I see someone rambling on and throwing out a lot of military technical jargon, I don't think "fetish," I think "sergeant," .



I'm not in the military anymore, I'm a nurse now. I was however a non-commissioned officer in charge of an Infantry squad -- small unit tactics in urbanized terrain in the Middle East is something that I am pretty well experienced in.


----------



## Skyblue

tedtan said:


> I think it's worth pointing out a few things just for clarity's sake.
> 
> First, Hamas (and other terrorist organization like Hezbollah, Taliban, etc.) are trash that are not fit to wipe our asses with. Those of us in the western world take this as pretty much a given, like saying the sky is blue, so we tend not to point it out. Its just assumed that the people we speak to know this, so my apologies for not making it clear earlier. I realize you're not in in the west, so this may not be common knowledge for you. But to be clear, we in no way support terrorists. In fact, we despise them.
> 
> Second, most of us on this board are from the US, and the US has been Israel's biggest supporter for a long time now, so we are not opposed to Israel or anything like that the way some in the middle east are. So no hating on Israel here.
> 
> Third, the US almost always tends to favor the underdog unless he is our enemy. So even though Israel is an ally, much of the popular press and populace are favoring Palestine because they are the underdog. (And the Palestinians do have a legitimate claim here; I can see both sides' position in this). Having said that, the press here is making it out to look like Israel is attacking civilian heavy areas without much concern for the civilians. I'm sure this isn't entirely true because, even if the media gets the facts right, they can't really convey the context in which the decision to fire was made. That decision may have been the right call at the time, but we'll never know because we only get to see the results.
> 
> Fourth, when we speak of Palestine and the civilians and so forth, we are speaking of the Palestinian people, not Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO, etc. Again, we do not support terrorists.
> 
> Fifth, when we are talking about Israel holding itself to a higher standard, we understand that Israel has a right to defend itself. But, as a developed, first world country with a modern military, Israel should hold itself to that standard. And make no mistake, that is the standard the rest of the world is holding you to. (And note here that yes, Americans can be hypocrites, too ).
> 
> Sixth, when the US invaded Afghanistan, and certainly when we expanded into Iraq, we took a lot or criticism for it. So don't be defensive about criticism, it comes with the territory. The only way to avoid it is to do nothing and stay off everyone's radar so to speak.
> 
> Last, we are not trying to say that Israel should not defend itself. We are just saying that the "shoot first and ask questions later" approach should be avoided when possible. Sure you have to make a snap decision and act quickly sometimes in order to defend yourself. But if you have time (and you do have the time in many cases where you're lobbing artillery shells at hospitals, schools, etc.) to determine if the casualties will actually be worth whatever gains you achieve with the attack. A low ranking foot soldier isn't worth much in the way of collateral damage; a high ranking leader might be, especially if he is known to have a lot of intelligence that might sway the war or end it early. This goes back to context.



Just in case I wasn't clear, by the way- my comment on how there is no word about Hamas' actions is not directed to people in this forum. I know almost everyone here obviously understand Hamas is a terror organization. The problem is with the UN, and many countries. When a prime minister condemns Israel's actions in this military operation but doesn't say a word on Hamas' actions, it doesn't seem fair to us, the people who live in Israel. 

And like I said before- the media here is, most of the time anyway, makes it look like everyone's against us. So even though I know it probably isn't so, it's hard to say how the rest of the world sees us. 

On another note- Hamas officials are threatening to keep shooting rockets into Israel starting tomorrow, when the ceasefire ends, if their demands will not be met. Does that really seem to them as a good way to get their goals? I really don't see how that's gonna work for their favor.


----------



## tedtan

DocBach said:


> I'm trying to clarify to posters here how war, and the systems discussed, work from the ground perspective.



That's how I read it; a practical,"this is how it is when shit goes down" perspective.




DocBach said:


> I'm not in the military anymore, I'm a nurse now. I was however a non-commissioned officer in charge of an Infantry squad -- small unit tactics in urbanized terrain in the Middle East is something that I am pretty well experienced in.



Grand Moff Tim called it.


----------



## DocBach

Skyblue said:


> And like I said before- the media here is, most of the time anyway, makes it look like everyone's against us. So even though I know it probably isn't so, it's hard to say how the rest of the world sees us.



I would say the average American does not even know Israel and Gaza aren't a part of Afghanistan, which is probably a city located somewhere in Iraq. Depending on what Facebook meme's they've read or what talking head they may have caught a sound byte of, they will either say "Israel is committing genocide against Palestine" and other people going "FVCK YEAH ISRAEL KILL EM." 

Most are completely apathetic to the situation.


----------



## Quitty

tedtan said:


> And they will end up exposing themselves in a location where they can be dealt with without the collateral damage if you don't immediately go after their last known location.
> 
> You have to choose your battles.


True, but that also equals another missile, so potentially, more dead civilians.
And again, if you keep avoiding hitting them near the hospital, launching from the hospital would be the obvious solution.
I suppose that's exactly what happened - that hospital wasn't hit by an airstrike, it was a tank shell. Ground troops were in because the 'easy' targets bank was spent.
When Israeli PR is complaining that Hamas is using civilian buildings and personnel as shields, i don't think it's just PR-speak. I think they genuinely can't find anymore Hamas that aren't lodged inside a hospital or hiding behind a UN building.

Regardless, i just want to point out that this is an academic discussion. I agree with you completely.


----------



## Crabface

I'd just like to mention that although it is obvious to almost everyone on this forum that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, and that governments realise that too, a lot of the public opinion is against biased Israel and they do tend to think that Hamas is a legitimatr government rather than a terrorist organisation, and that tends to be the basis of a lot of their arguments. By public opinion i dont mean news outlets like CNN or Fox, neither do i mean the governments. I mean normal people. Russell Brand for example. He seems to genuinely believe that Hamas is a legitimate governing body, and lots of seemingly uneducated protesters who have sided against Israel seem to share that view.
So while news and governments opinion may be backing Israel, public opinion is certainly very against Israel - especially in europe.

Just thought i'd put that out their in response to Skyblue's unsureness about the western worlds view on the situation.


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> That's how I read it; a practical,"this is how it is when shit goes down" perspective.



My favorite "this is how it is when shit goes down" clinical post was the one with the 60+ year old pictures of leveled buildings. Incredibly relevant and up to date stuff there, and not at all indicating bias. 

Good job educating all of us on modern warfare, Doc. Keep it up.


----------



## DocBach

Randy said:


> My favorite "how it is shit when shit goes down" clinical post was the one with the 60+ year old pictures of leveled buildings. Incredibly relevant and up to date stuff there, and not at all indicating bias.
> 
> Good job educating all of us on modern warfare, Doc. Keep it up.



It was a direct response to the statement that you couldn't recall a situation where civilians in urban areas were killed as collateral damage -- you didn't specify "since guided weaponry was invented." It was a relevant example showing how if Israel was really waging wanton genocide, and firing unguided munitions without any regard it could easily recreate the scenes I showed as an example.


----------



## Randy

The multiple large images accompanied by invoking WWII came across as misinterpreting what I said deliberately and then throwing it back at me in a hyperbolic way. That very heavily implied bias based on opinion, in a scenario where you (and apparently others) were claiming your approach was purely factual. I disagree(d).

If your point was simply that Israel could do much worse if their only goal was genocide, fine, point taken. I'm pretty sure dropping a nuclear bomb on Palestine would probably garner some unwanted attention that would curtail their overall goals if that were the case. The "death of a million paper cuts" seems a lot less obvious, though in this case, seems that it's garnered it's own degree of unwanted attention. That's assuming the goal is genocide, which is a bridge I'm not necessarily willing to cross.


----------



## DocBach

Randy said:


> If your point was simply that Israel could do much worse if their only goal was genocide, fine, point taken. I'm pretty sure dropping a nuclear bomb on Palestine would probably garner some unwanted attention that would curtail their overall goals if that were the case. The "death of a million paper cuts" seems a lot less obvious, though in this case, seems that it's garnered it's own degree of unwanted attention. That's assuming the goal is genocide, which is a bridge I'm not necessarily willing to cross.



The best way to describe Israel's (semi-annual) campaigns against Hamas would be "mowing the lawn" -- sort of how you described death by paper cuts. Every couple years Hamas amasses enough munitions to start a large scale rocket campaign. The IDF retaliates by launching sorties against the rocket sites; their objective is to cripple Hamas' ability to launch rockets for the near future -- hence, destroying as many rockets as they can to physically diminish Hamas' stockpile and entering Gaza with infantry and engineers to manually destroy tunnels to prohibit or at least slow weapons entering Gaza to Hamas. Both sides will eventually agree to a ceasefire, then build their stockpiles back up (letting the lawn get a little scruffy there) for the next round the next year or so.

I don't imagine the scenario changing at all. Both sides believe they have a divine claim to the region -- nothing is scarier than people who believe god is unconditionally on their side.


----------



## Randy

DocBach said:


> I don't imagine the scenario changing at all. Both sides believe they have a divine claim to the region -- nothing is scarier than people who believe god is unconditionally on their side.



Hey, finally something we agree on!


----------



## asher

Hamas needs Likud and Likud needs Hamas.


----------



## DocBach

asher said:


> Hamas needs Likud and Likud needs Hamas.



Sort of, they both are each other's boogie men to convince their populations that weapons and war are a great idea.


----------



## Xaios

Crabface said:


> I'd just like to mention that although it is obvious to almost everyone on this forum that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, and that governments realise that too, a lot of the public opinion is against biased Israel and they do tend to think that Hamas is a legitimatr government rather than a terrorist organisation, and that tends to be the basis of a lot of their arguments. By public opinion i dont mean news outlets like CNN or Fox, neither do i mean the governments. I mean normal people. Russell Brand for example. He seems to genuinely believe that Hamas is a legitimate governing body, and lots of seemingly uneducated protesters who have sided against Israel seem to share that view.



Just so we're clear, I'm most assuredly on Israel's side in this conflict. However, and not to be pedantic, Hamas was technically elected as the governing body of Gaza. Whether there were shenanigans involved in the election, I can't say. Whether or not they're worthy of that charge is also another question entirely. However, they're about as legitimate a government as you can get there.


----------



## Quitty

Xaios said:


> Just so we're clear, I'm most assuredly on Israel's side in this conflict. However, and not to be pedantic, Hamas was technically elected as the governing body of Gaza. Whether there were shenanigans involved in the election, I can't say. Whether or not they're worthy of that charge is also another question entirely. However, they're about as legitimate a government as you can get there.


That's incorrect.
Hamas was elected in Judea and Samaria. It lost the elections in Gaza, but took over anyway.
I'm not sure Abu-Mazen had much of a choice in the matter.


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> The multiple large images accompanied by invoking WWII came across as misinterpreting what I said deliberately and then throwing it back at me in a hyperbolic way. That very heavily implied bias based on opinion, in a scenario where you (and apparently others) were claiming your approach was purely factual. I disagree(d).



I went back and reread that post and I see what you're saying (now that you've said it), especially about the older pics, but I didn't read it that way initially. And I still don't unless I'm trying to read that into it.

I do, however, have family, friends and colleagues who are ex military, so maybe I'm accustomed to their mannerisms.


----------



## tedtan

DocBach said:


> I don't imagine the scenario changing at all. Both sides believe they have a divine claim to the region -- nothing is scarier than people who believe god is unconditionally on their side.


 
The only way this will end peacefully is for the Palestinians to pull their heads out of their asses, get rid of Hamas/Hezbollah/PLO, etc. and come to the bargaining table willing to accept less than they feel they are due... 

AND

for the Israelis to pull their heads out of their asses, stop electing far right wing officials, and come to the bargaining table ready to give up more than they feel they should have to.

Because this is one of those situations where a fair resolution will probably result in both parties feeling like they got screwed in the deal. But I don't see it this happening in the short term.


----------



## Explorer

So... if Hamas is indeed endangering the people of Gaza, and using them as cover... UN intervention?

I think it would be an interesting strategy for Israel to invite them in. It would shift responsibility to the international community for dealing with the Hamas aggressors, who have made it clear in rhetoric and in their own charte that they want to commit actual genocide on Israel. 

And if the international community says, sorry these terrorists are your own internal problem to deal with, That kind of stops the ability to criticize....


----------



## flint757

The UN probably should get much more involved. That process isn't that straight forward though, if I understand correctly. They could easily not get involved and most people still want them too. The fact that the UN can't or won't get involved doesn't shield Israel from any criticism other than maybe from the UN itself. The UN, much like US Congress, isn't an exact match of what its constituents believe. You can't say the international community basically shouldn't have an opinion simply because the UN hasn't stepped in yet.


----------



## Skyblue

Explorer said:


> So... if Hamas is indeed endangering the people of Gaza, and using them as cover... UN intervention?
> 
> I think it would be an interesting strategy for Israel to invite them in. It would shift responsibility to the international community for dealing with the Hamas aggressors, who have made it clear in rhetoric and in their own charte that they want to commit actual genocide on Israel.
> 
> And if the international community says, sorry these terrorists are your own internal problem to deal with, That kind of stops the ability to criticize....



That's an interesting idea, though I doubt the UN would like to join up on this conflict. One of Israel's demands in the current negotiations is demilitarization of the Gaza strip, that is supposed to be done under international (UN?) supervision. Personally, I'm not optimistic on that regard.


----------



## necronile

And what a surprise! Hamas broke the cease fire today...again...


----------



## Overtone

Is it really about God though? I can think of hundreds of billions of reasons why the whole region has been so crazy lately, if a BTU is a reason.


----------



## Overtone

Gaza's hydrocarbon potential


----------



## Overtone

Egypt Emerges as a Route for Israeli Natural Gas Exports - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy


----------



## wheresthefbomb




----------



## asher

Pretty sure that's a shoop.

Also is this when I bring up that article again about how it's *U.N.* shelters being shelled?


----------



## Skyblue

asher said:


> Pretty sure that's a shoop.
> 
> Also is this when I bring up that article again about how it's *U.N.* shelters being shelled?



And we'll say again how Hamas soldiers hide rockets, and hide themselves, inside many of those. And that in some of the occasions it's possible that they were hit by missiles fired by Hamas. And that yes, some might have happened by mistake. 

We've been in that argument, I don't see how can we open it again and come out wiser... 

The picture is rather old, probably 'shopped, and aside for being kinda amusing, doesn't serve much. 

As for the current ceasefire and the talk in Egypt- there are reports that the sides have been finding agreements on several issues, such as financial help to Gaza, lifting restrictions regarding the movement of palestinians outside of the Gaza strip, and so on. Let's hope they'll might bring some peace and quiet for the area.


----------



## asher

I did mean from the perspective of "the U.N. is already involved in some fashion", not actually intending to start the civilian casualties thing again. 

In other words, I basically agree with your summation of the image.


----------



## Explorer

Skyblue said:


> ...such as financial help to Gaza...



I imagine, in light of Hamas embezzling from civilians in order to build the terror tunnels, that there would be verification conditions attached to such things, right?


----------



## Skyblue

Explorer said:


> I imagine, in light of Hamas embezzling from civilians in order to build the terror tunnels, that there would be verification conditions attached to such things, right?



As I understand it's mostly going to allow Hamas government personal to get their salaries, which they haven't gotten for quite a while, as the organization is in a bit of a financial problem, as far as I understood... I'd assume all money transfers would only be done under supervision.


----------



## Explorer

Wait... so they wouldn't have to pay back what they diverted into the tunnels? Interesting that they'll get their salaries after misappropriation. Normally that kind of contractor fraud loses the contract... especially (as previously noted) they weren't elected in Gaza in the first place.

Sounds like union politics in New York.


----------



## Skyblue

Explorer said:


> Wait... so they wouldn't have to pay back what they diverted into the tunnels? Interesting that they'll get their salaries after misappropriation. Normally that kind of contractor fraud loses the contract... especially (as previously noted) they weren't elected in Gaza in the first place.
> 
> Sounds like union politics in New York.



We're negotiating with a terrorist organization here. Unfortunately, words such as "normally", "fair" and "just" don't really apply here... 
It's an absurd that we help them by giving their government officials their salaries after Hamas used up all its money to build tunnels and acquire weapons, that were obviously built in order to hurt and kill us, but there's not much one can do. If it'll help achieving peace and quiet to the area, I think it's worth it. but it's a very delicate, and complicated situation.


----------



## Necris

MEMRI: Kuwaiti Cleric Tareq Al-Suwaidan to Hamas: Do Not Agree to Ceasefire until They Bow Before Us. We Must Contemplate a Plan to Erase Israel


----------



## Overtone

Who's that guy?


----------



## Thorerges

He's a famous islamic scholar who is tentatively defined as being a little more liberal than most.


----------



## shneakypete

Why would the UN get involved now? Where was the UN in 1967? Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced (again) from their homeland. Sure, there have been numerous UN resolutions, but very little action. The UN's participation in almost any conflict or humanitarian disaster can best be described as 'too little, too late.' 

Atrocities have been committed on both sides for sure. But the media loves to constantly remind us that Hamas is a terrorist organization. So let's define terrorism:

terrorism

noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


By definition, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands is terroristic in nature. Acts of terror have been carried out by both sides. Maybe this will help to put the conflict into perspective, for anyone who might be unfamiliar with the history behind this conflict. 

Palestine Is Still the Issue

Israel is the big bully, stealing lunch from a nearly defenseless child. Hamas doesn't want peace. Natanyahu doesn't want peace. They want bloodshed. Israel's (and, by association, the U.S.) hands have been dirty for a long time in this conflict. I think it's up to the Israeli people to stand up to their leaders and call for an end to the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The UN and the international community should be tasked with removing Hamas and assisting in the establishment of a government that actually works for the interests and well-being of the Palestinian people. 

To be clear, I do not support either side of this conflict, because neither side has shown any real interest in peace recently. It will take substantial concessions on both sides to bring about lasting resolution. So far, we've only seen that Natanyahu and Hamas aren't willing to budge at all.


----------



## Explorer

shneakypete said:


> To be clear, I do not support either side of this conflict, because neither side has shown any real interest in peace recently.



I hate to bring up pesky reality... but I'm going to go with how folks respect ceasefires as my first indicator of how someone approaches moving towards peace. 

How does that fit into your views? Is the breaking of multiple ceasefires justified? How would it be justified?


----------



## flint757

While one side may be more peaceful overall, little indicates either side is looking for cooperative peace. Israel has been trying to expand for a long time now; you don't create peace by further invading into other peoples land. Many of the Israeli talking heads have little interest in peace from what I've heard as well. Hamas is obviously worse and is also not looking for a peaceful resolution, but lets not pretend that things are something they aren't either. Neither side is willing to lose something they want to see this whole thing resolved; they are both arguably hard headed. That isn't a slight on civilians or military by any means, because likely none of them have much of a say, but more about those in power. Neither side is willing to give an inch to end this conflict from what I've seen. Likely, like all the other endless battles in the middle east, this will just be another war that never ends. Depressing fact, but if history is any sort of indicator it is also most likely true.


----------



## shneakypete

Explorer said:


> I hate to bring up pesky reality... but I'm going to go with how folks respect ceasefires as my first indicator of how someone approaches moving towards peace.
> 
> How does that fit into your views? Is the breaking of multiple ceasefires justified? How would it be justified?



Are you suggesting that you think Natanyahu actually wants peace? Israel has been the aggressor in this conflict since the beginning. If someone occupied your homeland - with military force, checkpoints, raids - and made you feel like an outcast, how would you react?



flint757 said:


> While one side may be more peaceful overall, little indicates either side is looking for cooperative peace. Israel has been trying to expand for a long time now; you don't create peace by further invading into other peoples land. Many of the Israeli talking heads have little interest in peace from what I've heard as well. Hamas is obviously worse and is also not looking for a peaceful resolution, but lets not pretend that things are something they aren't either. Neither side is willing to lose something they want to see this whole thing resolved; they are both arguably hard headed. That isn't a slight on civilians or military by any means, because likely none of them have much of a say, but more about those in power. Neither side is willing to give an inch to end this conflict from what I've seen. Likely, like all the other endless battles in the middle east, this will just be another war that never ends. Depressing fact, but if history is any sort of indicator it is also most likely true.



^ I can't say it any better than this.


----------



## Quitty

shneakypete said:


> Are you suggesting that you think Natanyahu actually wants peace? Israel has been the aggressor in this conflict since the beginning. If someone occupied your homeland - with military force, checkpoints, raids - and made you feel like an outcast, how would you react?



You're dragging this back to 'who's land is it', which isn't helping.
For once, you're undeniably wrong. Second, it should be irrelevant if both sides aren't religiously driven. They are, obviously, but that's not an excuse for anything.

I'd be very interested to see an example for unprovoked Israeli aggression.


----------



## shneakypete

Quitty said:


> You're dragging this back to 'who's land is it', which isn't helping.
> For once, you're undeniably wrong. Second, it should be irrelevant if both sides aren't religiously driven. They are, obviously, but that's not an excuse for anything.
> 
> I'd be very interested to see an example for unprovoked Israeli aggression.



I agree with you 100%. Both sides feel that their settlement in the region is ordained by God. Neither belief system actually promotes violence, yet here we are. Funny how that works. 

In all fairness, I can ask you to produce an example for unprovoked Palestinian aggression. I realize Hamas fires rockets at Israel seemingly at random, without provocation. But what's your idea of provocation? Is it not provocation enough to occupy another country militarily? I rest my case. I only came here to offer a reminder as to why this conflict exists in it's present form, and in that respect, the history books are not 'undeniably wrong.'


----------



## Crabface

shneakypete said:


> Why would the UN get involved now? Where was the UN in 1967? Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced (again) from their homeland. Sure, there have been numerous UN resolutions, but very little action. The UN's participation in almost any conflict or humanitarian disaster can best be described as 'too little, too late.'
> 
> Atrocities have been committed on both sides for sure. But the media loves to constantly remind us that Hamas is a terrorist organization. So let's define terrorism:
> 
> terrorism
> 
> noun
> 1.
> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
> 2.
> the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
> 3.
> a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
> 
> 
> By definition, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands is terroristic in nature. Acts of terror have been carried out by both sides. Maybe this will help to put the conflict into perspective, for anyone who might be unfamiliar with the history behind this conflict.
> 
> Palestine Is Still the Issue
> 
> Israel is the big bully, stealing lunch from a nearly defenseless child. Hamas doesn't want peace. Natanyahu doesn't want peace. They want bloodshed. Israel's (and, by association, the U.S.) hands have been dirty for a long time in this conflict. I think it's up to the Israeli people to stand up to their leaders and call for an end to the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The UN and the international community should be tasked with removing Hamas and assisting in the establishment of a government that actually works for the interests and well-being of the Palestinian people.
> 
> To be clear, I do not support either side of this conflict, because neither side has shown any real interest in peace recently. It will take substantial concessions on both sides to bring about lasting resolution. So far, we've only seen that Natanyahu and Hamas aren't willing to budge at all.




I think this thread would be better off without a repeat of previous debates, so i'll ask not to get back into that again.
That said, i may not be speaking on behalf of everyone, so i guess if someone feels strongly about bringing up the debate again then who am i to stop you.

I think you should also read a little more into the 1967 war. It is absolutely not as simple as "israel being bullies and displacing thousands of palestinians". That can be said about the whole confilct, if fact, so i reckon the analogy needs a little work.

I was just happy that this thread had died down... and now AFTER the ceasefire has been agreed the thread has been bumped back up


----------



## shneakypete

Crabface said:


> I think this thread would be better off without a repeat of previous debates, so i'll ask not to get back into that again.
> That said, i may not be speaking on behalf of everyone, so i guess if someone feels strongly about bringing up the debate again then who am i to stop you.
> 
> I think you should also read a little more into the 1967 war. It is absolutely not as simple as "israel being bullied and displacing thousands of palestinians". That can be said about the whole confilct, if fact, so i reckon the analogy needs a little work.
> 
> I was just happy that this thread had died down... and now AFTER the ceasefire has been agreed the thread has been bumped back up



I thought the whole point of an open forum was to engage in thoughtful dialogue, representing multiple viewpoints on an issue. I have also tried to be respectful and factual, while offering an unpopular alternative viewpoint. I would never intentionally make a personal attack in a debate. I would like to believe that we can debate these topics and still be friends at the end of the day. I enjoy these discussions and I enjoy hearing other peoples' opinions. If you can provide resources that you think would sway my opinion one way or another, please do so. I would love to hear it.

Unfortunately, even though a ceasefire is currently in effect, I am sure we haven't seen the end of this conflict. We can only hope for the sake of the many innocent people caught in the middle of this that the leadership will seek a path of peaceful resolution. 

I apologize for derailing the thread. Carry on.


----------



## Crabface

shneakypete said:


> I thought the whole point of an open forum was to engage in thoughtful dialogue, representing multiple viewpoints on an issue. I have also tried to be respectful and factual, while offering an unpopular alternative viewpoint. I would never intentionally make a personal attack in a debate. I would like to believe that we can debate these topics and still be friends at the end of the day. I enjoy these discussions and I enjoy hearing other peoples' opinions. If you can provide resources that you think would sway my opinion one way or another, please do so. I would love to hear it.
> 
> Unfortunately, even though a ceasefire is currently in effect, I am sure we haven't seen the end of this conflict. We can only hope for the sake of the many innocent people caught in the middle of this that the leadership will seek a path of peaceful resolution.
> 
> I apologize for derailing the thread. Carry on.



I cant tell if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll assume you arent for the sake of not causing more arguments.

I never took any of what you said personally nor did i suggest that,, so im bit sure where you got that idea from. If i unintentionally did suggest that then i apologise.
Forums absolutely are for thoughtful dialogue, however i think most peolle who have partaken in this thread will agree that practically every viewpoint has been dicussed intensively so far in this thread and bringing them up again just seems to make things a little more heated than necessary. (Again, i am simply assuming as it is certainly how i feel and based on the responses it seems like some others may feel the same way. I may be tptally wrong).
Although that may not be intentional, making accusations which are not wholly accurate tends to result in negative reactions.

I will agree with your last paragraph. This unfortunately is absolutely not the end of the conflict.


----------



## Overtone

Explorer said:


> I hate to bring up pesky reality... but I'm going to go with how folks respect ceasefires as my first indicator of how someone approaches moving towards peace.
> 
> How does that fit into your views? Is the breaking of multiple ceasefires justified? How would it be justified?




Which side of the debate should we be asking that question? Only one side? Or both sides?








https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...l0HM-3arN1pI_xn6PscNhG52c/edit#gid=1450129886


----------



## Thorerges

Quitty said:


> You're dragging this back to 'who's land is it', which isn't helping.
> For once, you're undeniably wrong. Second, it should be irrelevant if both sides aren't religiously driven. They are, obviously, but that's not an excuse for anything.
> 
> I'd be very interested to see an example for unprovoked Israeli aggression.



Israel's existence and expansion into Palestine is the largest living example of unprovoked aggression.


----------



## Crabface

Thorerges said:


> Israel's existence and expansion into Palestine is the largest living example of unprovoked aggression.



Cool.


----------



## shneakypete

Crabface said:


> I cant tell if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll assume you arent for the sake of not causing more arguments.
> 
> I never took any of what you said personally nor did i suggest that,, so im bit sure where you got that idea from. If i unintentionally did suggest that then i apologise.
> Forums absolutely are for thoughtful dialogue, however i think most peolle who have partaken in this thread will agree that practically every viewpoint has been dicussed intensively so far in this thread and bringing them up again just seems to make things a little more heated than necessary. (Again, i am simply assuming as it is certainly how i feel and based on the responses it seems like some others may feel the same way. I may be tptally wrong).
> Although that may not be intentional, making accusations which are not wholly accurate tends to result in negative reactions.
> 
> I will agree with your last paragraph. This unfortunately is absolutely not the end of the conflict.



No sarcasm here my friend. I didn't directly accuse you of taking anything personally. I was simply trying to paint a picture for you. I've come to this forum with an open mind and respect for everyone who chooses to participate. 

While the points that I have been trying to make have likely been expressed repeatedly in this thread, I have yet to actively participate myself. Based on the posts that I read, I felt compelled to share my sentiments on this topic. My remarks were not intended to be inflammatory in nature. My intent was to simply share some facts. 

This is all irrelevant to the topic of this thread. So I won't say anymore on that.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

To be fair, if you had come in and repeated pro-Israel sentiments that had already been expressed in this thread several times, he probably wouldn't have complained .


----------



## Explorer

shneakypete said:


> In all fairness, I can ask you to produce an example for unprovoked Palestinian aggression. I realize Hamas fires rockets at Israel seemingly at random, without provocation. But what's your idea of provocation?



I do recall, over a few decades, all the communications and references to Israel never being by name. Instead, it was simply referred to as, "the aggression."

Also historically, the maps of the anti-Israel groups have shown the region as without any Israel whatsoever.

So I'm going to answer that just by existing, Israel is an act of provocation.

Did I give the correct answer?


----------



## Crabface

Grand Moff Tim said:


> To be fair, if you had come in and repeated pro-Israel sentiments that had already been expressed in this thread several times, he probably wouldn't have complained .



I wasnt complaining about the sentiments he was expressing, i simply said that reopening the discussion seemed a little needless. Again, thats just my opinion and you're free to disagree with me.
You may notice that that i havent argued a single point he made, even though i disagree with some of them. Im simply tired of it in general.


----------



## shneakypete

Crabface said:


> I wasnt complaining about the sentiments he was expressing, i simply said that reopening the discussion seemed a little needless. Again, thats just my opinion and you're free to disagree with me.
> You may notice that that i havent argued a single point he made, even though i disagree with some of them. Im simply tired of it in general.



 So we are on a forum! The whole point is to discuss things, right?  

I would rather you actually argue with me on the points that I was trying to make, rather than argue with me on the validity of reopening what you deem to be needless discussion. Maybe we should open a thread just to talk about that - that validity of reopening needless discussion. I don't want to break forum rules by continuing to post off-topic responses in this thread. 

I would enjoy more thoughtful discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So feel free to post up some information or sources that you think might sway my opinion either way.


----------



## Crabface

shneakypete said:


> So we are on a forum! The whole point is to discuss things, right?
> 
> I would rather you actually argue with me on the points that I was trying to make, rather than argue with me on the validity of reopening what you deem to be needless discussion. Maybe we should open a thread just to talk about that - that validity of reopening needless discussion. I don't want to break forum rules by continuing to post off-topic responses in this thread.
> 
> I would enjoy more thoughtful discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So feel free to post up some information or sources that you think might sway my opinion either way.



Youre right. Apologies. Wasnt really in my place to request not to reopen the discussion. I may post a response to your opinions later when have the time.


----------



## Overtone

Thorerges said:


> He's a famous islamic scholar who is tentatively defined as being a little more liberal than most.



Happened to see your profile after checking out blackwater thread cuz I am curious what shop you did go with...

see this:

Pos rep - "Genocide in Gaza. Shame	08-28-2014 03:34 PM	Made me laugh. - Explorer"


I'm calling shenanigans!

And Explorer are you referring to Hamas never saying "Israel" or all Palestinian politicians? Because I know that Abbas referred to "Israel" many times.


----------



## Explorer

Overtone said:


> Happened to see your profile after checking out blackwater thread cuz I am curious what shop you did go with...
> 
> see this:
> 
> Pos rep - "Genocide in Gaza. Shame 08-28-2014 03:34 PM Made me laugh. - Explorer"
> 
> 
> I'm calling shenanigans!



If you click on the link regarding each piece of rep, it will take you to the post which received the rep.

In this case, it was this particular part of the dicussion which made me laugh.



Necris said:


> MEMRI: Kuwaiti Cleric Tareq Al-Suwaidan to Hamas: Do Not Agree to Ceasefire until They Bow Before Us. We Must Contemplate a Plan to Erase Israel





Overtone said:


> Who's that guy?





Thorerges said:


> He's a famous islamic scholar who is tentatively defined as being a little more liberal than most.


----------



## Overtone

I guess what I mean is for those of us not up to snuff on Islamic scholars, myself included, that would have gone way over their head. Tbh I only listened to about ten seconds of his speech, so I don't even know how far he went with what he was starting to say. Seemed like the same old inability to compromise or live in the present. There is something to be said for never forgetting that the genesis of the situation was unjust (if one believes it to be so), but it doesn't offer answers to anybody hoping to look forward, except perhaps to never stop believing you deserve something more. 

But really my question was meant to be "why is that guy relevant and who does he speak for?" It seemed settled but now I'm realizing that may have been a joke all along?


----------



## Explorer

There have been, and always will be those who use religion to justify violence and killing. Some Christians are okay with killing abortion doctors and democratically elected foreign presidents, some Mormons want us to take up arms in violent bloody revolution against the US government if same sex marriage is legalized, some Muslims want to kill those who aren't Muslim enough for them, as well as killing all the Jews and destroying Israel. Even the gentle Baha'i are not free of the blood lust. 

Whether those who say that they belong to a faith actually do or not is a different discussion, but many times, others in that same faith don't speak out against those who are are pretty nuts. 

The "Drive Israel into the sea, kill all the Jews" is a well worn trope in the Muslim world. I laughed because Thorerges' comment, that this guy was kind of literal, could actually be true for some sections of certain societies while still be advocating for killing all the Jews and destroying Israel. 

If you're dismayed that someone could say such a thing and be considered liberal in some parts of that society, I agree with you.

If you're dismayed that a true situation might have attention brought to it, I don't have any helpful suggestions.

----

One more thing: I was kidding about the gentle Baha'i having that kind of tendency. I just tossed that in there because sometimes people say, but you don't understand that this is a peaceful tradition! Most folks read my joke about the Baha'i and dismissed it as false, because that kind of behavior isn't demonstrated by the Baha'i.

And by giving an example of how a religion of peace looks when judged by the actions of those who claim to be its followers, I hopefully have stopped people finding different and novel definitions of "peaceful" when applied to religion.


----------



## Overtone

So this guy specifically mentioned killing? I only got as far as him talking about eliminating the state. 

My gripe to spell is out is that for the sake of this discussion, this guy was passed off as liberal and well known, jokingly or otherwise, which doesn't sound accurate.


----------



## Explorer

Overtone said:


> So this guy specifically mentioned killing? I only got as far as him talking about eliminating the state.



I have some quick questions, and then an observation.

If a man said he wanted to erase his ex-wife from the earth... what would the average person understand that to mean?

What about if a jury in a murder trial, in a court of law, heard that the accused wanted to "erase" the victim? What would they conclude?

If al Qaeda wanted to erase the US, what would you take that to mean regarding the citizens of the US? That they would just be shipped elsewhere? Or that erasing the US would also mean erasing the people of which that country is constituted?

Now, you have a region where the rhetoric has been about eliminating the Jews, and it's been that way for decades in some places there. 

So why would you assume that "erasing" Israel is suddenly divorced from the concept of killing off those Jews? 

And now the observation: One would either have to be completely unknowledgable of human relations in general, and of this particular aspect of Israel hatred in specific to suddenly not understand what is being talked about..., or one would have to be a little disingenuous. Assuming that you joined SS.org at the age of 14, you'd only be 19 or 20 now, so hopefully you're just in college and haven't learned enough about the world, and the history 

I'm sorry if you really haven't experienced enough of the world to be able to understand what "erase" could mean in such a context. It's not helped by the fact that most English-language media doesn't translate a lot of what comes out of that part of the world. However, here's a website which has some translated videos, so you can learn a little bit more. Happy viewing!

Kill Jews for Allah | PMW


----------



## Explorer

I've been thinking since my last post, and I wonder if the perceived problem is that folks are engaging in black humor about a horrible fact of life, that there is a huge amount of "Kill the Jews!" in some cultures. 

If it's about people engaging in black humor to take the edge off unpleasant facts of life, I don't think there's a remedy for that. People tend to do that when confronted with something horrible. 

If it's that you don't believe that something horrible is happening, that some horrible mindset hasn't existed for a long time... well, I don't think there's really a remedy for that either. Reality exists no matter how much one denies it, even if someone might squeeze their eyes shut and beg a higher power to change the rules of that reality. Amputees don't regrow limbs just because they beg for things to magically change.


----------



## Overtone

You did say "erase _could_ mean killing" (emphasis added). I'm not saying that it couldn't. I'm saying that it might not mean that. There are Jews who do not believe Israel should be a Jewish state. But very certainly they do not expect the residents to meet such a fate as you are describing. It should not go hand in hand that if a person strongly believes that there should not have been the state of Israel and they continue to disagree with its existence, that they mean "death to the Jews". When they get into he whole "drive them into the sea" thing, that's definitely not ambiguous. 

To sum it up, even though I personally know it's not possible to "undo" history and it's not an appropriate or ethical solution to focus on, I think it narrows the spectrum of opinion and distorts facts to label anyone outspoken against the state of Israel as a concept or as a government as being a genocide advocate.

And again, that's not really even why I brought him up again, it's to say that it seems disingenuous for this guy to have been passed off as liberal in this conversation if he isn't known for that.


----------



## Overtone

I'm not going to even bother with those other vids because I don't contest that there are those who do want to kill whatever Jews are in Israel. But focusing on the original one, let's look at some translations used in the captions vs how those words are translated.

00:23
captions: "eradicated"
google translate: &#1578;&#1586;&#1608;&#1604; first answer "disappear", other meanings "evaporate, pass away, recede, taper"
real meaning is a verb of that... "to make disappear", "to cause to evaporate", "to cause to pass away" (seems a strange choice of words for a state/country "dawlat") etc.
if you look for a translation of eradicate into Arabic, none of the results are the word he actually said. 
https://translate.google.com/?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&client=tw-ob#en/ar/eradicate

So on that, eradicate is not a very good translation at all. 

The better translation for "bow before us" is "kneel before us", but close enough. In both cases " we demand that the rockets continue to be launched until they bow before us" is different than " we demand that the rockets continue to be launched until they are all dead." Definitely stops short of that. 

As for this part: "All the mothers of the Islamic nation &#8211; not only Palestinian mothers &#8211; should suckle their babies on the hatred of the sons of Zion. We hate them. They are our enemies. We should instill this in the souls of our children, until a new generation arises and wipes them off the face of the earth. This is what we want." That is quite an accurate translation, though we have to be clear that he is talking about Zionists, not Jews/Israelis in general. I think he's playing to some of his audience's hateful side while using that rhetoric. He doesn't seem to be someone who has taken that position before, but he seems to hope some people will think he's on their level, and thus be more receptive. After looking him up, this guy is a millionaire off of his TV presence (and little else). It doesn't say much about certain members of his audience that that's what he thinks they want to hear. I think that is somewhat akin to what you described... frustrated people going towards darkness and taking comfort in it. There are definitely those who are not willing to get involved in the issue or fight but say something along the lines of "It were up to me they should die." It's an ignorant and counterproductive thing for this guy to cater to them.

Still, that's the closest he comes to outright calling for killing - saying to rid the world of Zionists. Doesn't make him not a greedy prick playing to ignorance, but I don't like misrepresentation... finding one thing this one guy said and making it to be so important seems a bit off... is that really the worst they can find, one instance of saying "wipe Zionists from the Earth." Also, wipe from the earth and wipe the floor with are almost interchangeable in Arabic... it usually means to basically totally dominate someone/kick their ass. 

But what has the guy himself said in the past?



> It is very clear in Islam that we are not anti-Jewish. The Prophet Peace be Upon Him (PBUH) married a girl who was Jewish, Safiyyah the daughter of Huyai ibnu Akhtab. And when another woman criticised her that she is not an Arab and she complained to the Prophet PBUH, he said reply by saying, &#8220;My father is Moses and my uncle is Aaron.&#8221;
> 
> We are proud of Moses, we are proud of Aaron. These are the children of Israel. Israel by the way is one of our great messengers. Yaqoub (Peace be Upon Him), Jacob, is Israel.
> 
> So we are not against the religion itself, we are not against the people itself.
> 
> When we speak in Arabic and we say Jews, it is very well understood among Arab people that we do not mean the religion and we do not mean the people of Israel. We are talking about Zionism. As much as when I say the West. Now Australia is in the East, but we include Australia when we say the West. So we have these words that are common. So none of our words mean anti-Jewish or anti the Children of Israel as a nation.
> 
> We lived with them. I&#8217;m from Kuwait and when I was in Kuwait in the 50s and 60s there were Jews among us. Jews lived with the Arabs in peace. It is only when the oppression by Israel started on the Palestinian people that we had problems.
> 
> And looking at the details of this attack on me it is always based on reports by an organisation called Memri. And Memri is a Zionist organisation in the US funded by the Zionists and on the board of it is an Israeli intelligence officer. And it was attacked by The Guardian as not being neutral. It is a biased organisation towards Israel. And they take our words, they cut and paste and they show the world this.
> 
> So I just wanted to emphasise &#8211; and by the way this is not something that is double standard. My most famous work is The Stories of The Prophets. Everyone knows that. Go back to it. You will see the glorious story of Moses and the glorious story of Aaron (Peace be Upon Them) and the glorious story of Yusuf (Joseph) and many others. And Solomon and David. These are great messengers of God, so how can they call us against the Children of Israel? We are not.
> 
> We are against oppression. We are against injustice and there is no greater injustice in the world today than the one that is done in Palestine by Israeli Zionists. And that is why I am against it and I continue to be against it because that is injustice.



Coincidentally, before I got to the last article, I was curious about the MEMRI site where that was posted since the choice of words in translation at the beginning was more inciting, and because I saw it being posted on websites like Pamela Geller's, who is known for hatred of Muslims. The Wikipedia article has a lot of confirmation of what the TV preacher said:


"The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is a not for profit press monitoring organization with headquarters in Washington, D.C. MEMRI publishes and distributes free English language translations of Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Pashto, and Turkish media reports.[1] The institute was co-founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli-born, American political scientist. MEMRI states that its goal is to "bridge the language gap that exists between the Middle East and the West". Critics charge that it aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, through the production and dissemination of inaccurate translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions."

and further on:

"Accusations of bias[edit]
Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for The Guardian newspaper at the time, wrote in a public email debate with Carmon in 2003, that his problem with MEMRI was that it "poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation".[5] Earlier, Whitaker had charged that MEMRI's role was to "further the political agenda of Israel." and that MEMRI's website does not mention Carmon's employment for Israeli intelligence, or Meyrav Wurmser's political stance, which he described as an "extreme brand of Zionism".[3]....
...Norman Finkelstein has described MEMRI as "a main arm of Israeli propaganda".In 2006, Finkelstein accused MEMRI of editing a television interview he gave in Lebanon in order to falsely impute that he was a Holocaust denier. In an interview with the newspaper In Focus in 2007, he said MEMRI uses "the same sort of propaganda techniques as the Nazis" and "take things out of context in order to do personal and political harm to people they don't like".[42]"

Middle East Media Research Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's more on their selectively wrong translations further down the page, but what I wanted to highlight is that it's not really anything more than a propaganda site founded by a former Israeli intelligence officer.


----------



## Overtone

Meanwhile...
'Israel slammed for West Bank land expropriation'
Israel slammed for West Bank land expropriation - CNN.com

Nobody to hold them accountable, international law or otherwise, so why worry about it if you are in the Knesset?


----------



## Crabface

Overtone said:


> Meanwhile...
> 'Israel slammed for West Bank land expropriation'
> Israel slammed for West Bank land expropriation - CNN.com
> 
> Nobody to hold them accountable, international law or otherwise, so why worry about it if you are in the Knesset?



I cant for the life of me understand the rationale behind this. So stupid.
While i may be Pro-Israel to a certain extent about the Gaza conflict, i am absolutely against these settlements in the west bank. I my opinion any settlement taken that is not part of the 1967 armistice lines needs to be given back.


----------



## aaaaaaaa

Crabface said:


> I cant for the life of me understand the rationale behind this. So stupid.
> While i may be Pro-Israel to a certain extent about the Gaza conflict, i am absolutely against these settlements in the west bank. I my opinion any settlement taken that is not part of the 1967 armistice lines needs to be given back.



The problem is with brainwashed people like you who can't realize that any land will be given to terrorists(aka any "Palestinian" organization) will fuel to to attack Israel

There were about 900K Jews all over the middle east,Arabs were slaughtering and burning them and in fact pushed them into Israel

They never occupied anything before the Arabs launched a war against them

Some more facts: 
This area Gush Etzion ( Gush Etzion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) is Jewish owned. It was bought in the pre-WW1 era and the 1920s long before Israel existed from its Turkish and Palestinian owners, sold fair and square for good prices, the land transactions registerd with the Turkish land titles office in Istanbul. Hundreds of Jews living there were massacred and ethnically cleansed in the 1948 War of Israeli Independence, and these Jewish villages bulldozed by the illegal Arab occupiers.
Jews returned and rebuilt their destroyed villages after they were liberated from the illegal Arab occupation in the 1967 6-Day War Israel fought in self defense against yet another Arab attempt to genocide the Jews.


----------



## Overtone

Oh look who showed up again...


----------



## shneakypete

aaaaaaaa said:


> The problem is with brainwashed people like you who can't realize that any land will be given to terrorists(aka any "Palestinian" organization) will fuel to to attack Israel



Personal attacks are completely unnecessary and add nothing of value to this discussion. 




aaaaaaaa said:


> Some more facts:
> This area Gush Etzion ( Gush Etzion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) is Jewish owned. It was bought in the pre-WW1 era and the 1920s long before Israel existed from its Turkish and Palestinian owners, sold fair and square for good prices, the land transactions registerd with the Turkish land titles office in Istanbul. Hundreds of Jews living there were massacred and ethnically cleansed in the 1948 War of Israeli Independence, and these Jewish villages bulldozed by the illegal Arab occupiers.
> Jews returned and rebuilt their destroyed villages after they were liberated from the illegal Arab occupation in the 1967 6-Day War Israel fought in self defense against yet another Arab attempt to genocide the Jews.



Regardless, this land grab is poorly timed. Obviously this would be frowned upon by the international community. It's an unnecessary act of aggression and doesn't stir any sympathy for the Israeli cause.


----------



## sevenstringj

One of _those_ threads. 

"Genocide," huh?

Gaza's growing population challenges


----------



## aaaaaaaa

shneakypete said:


> Personal attacks are completely unnecessary and add nothing of value to this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, this land grab is poorly timed. Obviously this would be frowned upon by the international community. It's an unnecessary act of aggression and doesn't stir any sympathy for the Israeli cause.



There won't be peace with the Hamas anyway, the PLO is not a legitimate anyway, most Arabs (in the west bank and Gaza)voted for the Hamas(terrorists), yet the Fatah's(also terrorists) still in control of the west bank

So how can you make peace with Arabs that only want every bit of Israel or nothing?


----------



## Overtone

Why are you talking about giving Palestinians land? This story is about taking it away, not giving it to them. 

And if you want to talk massacres, here are a few for you to consider, carried out by Israelis against Palestinians... Safsaf, Abu Shusha, Al Dawayima, Eliabun, Lydda/Ramle, Saliha, Kafr Qasim, Deir Yassin, Rafah, Khan Yunis, and Qibya, where none other than Ariel Sharon's troops slaughtered women and children in 1953. Plus 460 killings of Arabs by the Irgun during the 1930s (vs 119 Jews killed during the same decade), plus 90 more Arabs killed by Jews during 1945-1947 up until a day BEFORE the Arab Legion showed up. We should also remember that the Zionist fighters were the first to use terrorist bombings, about a dozen times, long before any Palestinian groups used similar tactics. 

Tl;dr -


----------



## Skyblue

Overtone said:


> Meanwhile...
> 'Israel slammed for West Bank land expropriation'
> Israel slammed for West Bank land expropriation - CNN.com
> 
> Nobody to hold them accountable, international law or otherwise, so why worry about it if you are in the Knesset?



I guess for once we'll be on the same side in this discussion. 

That's a truly idiotic move by our government, even if you don't take the latest events into account. They're acting like little children, and pushing us further away from any peace talks that were thought to be possible. Like it was said a few posts ago, it's an unnecessary, aggressive step. 

Don't be "Just", be smart.


----------



## Randy

Thoughts?

Israeli intelligence veterans' letter to Netanyahu and military chiefs - in full | World news | theguardian.com


----------



## Overtone

Good for them! A few gave a very interesting interview. 
Israel Unit 8200 refuseniks transcript interview



> A: It is well known that the intelligence is used. People are arrested in the Palestinian territories. Sometimes without trial. And even when they are taken to trial it&#8217;s often with evidence that can&#8217;t be exposed [in court] because it is classified. And the intelligence is used to apply pressure to people, to make them cooperate with Israel. These are all things that are known.
> 
> It&#8217;s no secret that Israeli intelligence is producing the target database that is used in the air strikes &#8230;
> 
> There was a big media outcry after [Hamas military leader] Salah Shehade was assassinated [in 2002] and 14 members of his family were killed. There was a big story around that and the commander of the air force then &#8211; Dan Halutz &#8211; said to the pilots: &#8220;You did well.&#8221; You&#8217;re not responsible. Your job is to deliver the ammunition to the target in the most professional and accurate way you can, and you did that and your hands are clean.
> 
> D: And you don&#8217;t see the big picture &#8230;
> 
> A: The question [is] who does see the big picture? Who does provide this information to these pilots? And the answer is clear [ie Unit 8200]. [There was] a famous incident. It was when &#8220;Lieutenant Alif&#8221; [Lieutenant A, a former member of their unit] refused to pass on information regarding the capacity of a building. The idea was to destroy a building and its inhabitants &#8211; and what I&#8217;m telling is not the story we were told in the unit &#8211; it was a story that was exposed by journalists in Israel years later.


----------



## Skyblue

Randy said:


> Thoughts?
> 
> Israeli intelligence veterans' letter to Netanyahu and military chiefs - in full | World news | theguardian.com



I have mixed feelings towards this. I'm a bit tired so I hope I'll be able to make myself clear. 

First of all, I can say I feel lucky to have avoided such conflicts during my service. As an investigator almost all of my work was involving IDF soldiers, so no real conflicts there. 

From several articles I read on the subject, I understand how many things done in the unit can feel morally wrong for the soldiers in it. I'd completely understand if they'd have problem working in such areas. But why not simply ask for a transfer? It can be done. Fact. Why not talk to your commanding officers and talk with them? Their action of making the letter public does 2 things- alienate Israel, which I did not get the feeling they wanted to do, and probably get the majority of Israel, rightfully or not, turn against them, which serves no purpose. Something bothers you? Act to change it. But we're talking about intelligence units here. No one's going to change what they do because of bunch of soldiers said they don't feel ok with it. 

They also claimed they monitor civilians who are not linked to terror- sounds strange to me, why target them then? But even if they do, ok. That's wrong. But I've never heard anyone crying about it when it's done (and although I'm guessing, it's probably safe to assume) anywhere else in the world? Intelligence unit in every country listen to EVERYONE. Just to remind you guys, the US was caught listening to the German Kanzler.

An interesting point to think about, regardless- Let's say an intelligence soldiers discovers information about a certain house where a known enemy of his country lives, but so do 3 more people who are, as far as we know, innocent. He knows that by passing the information, one of the higher commanders might decide to bomb the house, and might injure or kill said innocent people. 
Should the soldiers pass the information on? 
Feel free to answer, I'd like to hear opinions. 

Personally I believe he should. He should express his concerns about the matter to his commander, with all the relevant information, but in the end of the day, it's the commanders job to decide on the needed military actions. Not the soldier's.


----------



## Overtone

Skyblue said:


> I have mixed feelings towards this. I'm a bit tired so I hope I'll be able to make myself clear.
> 
> First of all, I can say I feel lucky to have avoided such conflicts during my service. As an investigator almost all of my work was involving IDF soldiers, so no real conflicts there.
> 
> From several articles I read on the subject, I understand how many things done in the unit can feel morally wrong for the soldiers in it. I'd completely understand if they'd have problem working in such areas. But why not simply ask for a transfer? It can be done. Fact. Why not talk to your commanding officers and talk with them? Their action of making the letter public does 2 things- alienate Israel, which I did not get the feeling they wanted to do, and probably get the majority of Israel, rightfully or not, turn against them, which serves no purpose. Something bothers you? Act to change it. But we're talking about intelligence units here. No one's going to change what they do because of bunch of soldiers said they don't feel ok with it.
> 
> They also claimed they monitor civilians who are not linked to terror- sounds strange to me, why target them then? But even if they do, ok. That's wrong. But I've never heard anyone crying about it when it's done (and although I'm guessing, it's probably safe to assume) anywhere else in the world? Intelligence unit in every country listen to EVERYONE. Just to remind you guys, the US was caught listening to the German Kanzler.
> 
> An interesting point to think about, regardless- Let's say an intelligence soldiers discovers information about a certain house where a known enemy of his country lives, but so do 3 more people who are, as far as we know, innocent. He knows that by passing the information, one of the higher commanders might decide to bomb the house, and might injure or kill said innocent people.
> Should the soldiers pass the information on?
> Feel free to answer, I'd like to hear opinions.
> 
> Personally I believe he should. He should express his concerns about the matter to his commander, with all the relevant information, but in the end of the day, it's the commanders job to decide on the needed military actions. Not the soldier's.




I think the interview that I posted a lot of those questions. What I gathered from it I will summarize below:

Q: Why write the letter? Why refuse to serve? Why not just ask for a transfer?
A: To start a dialog _within_ Israel. To highlight how different their experience of the service was from what they initially thought it would be, because it took them time to really understand it. Because asking for a transfer removes them from the problem, but doesn't stop the problem from occurring, or stop other soldiers from having the same experience as them. They feel that more change will occur if they engage the public on the issue than if they simply raise it to their superiors.
Q: Why monitor non-terrorist civilians?
A: They explain that it helps them to find collaborators/informants and also in situations where the Palestinians have done something and the Israel gov't is pushing for a large number of retaliatory arrests of Palestinians.
Q: Why only care when Israel monitors regular civilians?
A: The other countries are (presumably) only making arrests of people using intelligence data when there is a warrant allowing them to spy on that specific person. The rest of the spying is just "listening in." Israel on the other hand, arrests hundreds of Palestinians and holds them without trial. These soldiers have explained that often times some intelligence is being used to decide to arrest them, but there isn't any sufficient evidence to try them in court, so they just keep them locked up indefinitely. They explain that because there is a blanket policy enabling them to spy on just about anybody, and because these arrests without trial are so common, there is a lot happening outside the framework of a conventional and ethical justice system. 
Q: Hypothetical scenario involving intel on a location where civilians may get killed
A: They agree, it's not the intel unit's fault how the intel gets used. But they see a problem at the top, where the generals are continually ignoring (or even possibly encouraging) civilian deaths... in their view it's not the intel unit's fault, and it's not the soldier's fault, it's the generals' fault. After seeing a repeated pattern of such behavior from the generals, certain intel officers felt that they could not in good conscience pass information up the chain, but that is only when they knew how it would be used. So I think the point they are making here is that the top brass have to be more ethical in order for the intel units (and soldiers) to be confident that they are not involved in something they are against. I think they want the generals to be held more accountable for how intel is used, and what kind of orders soldiers are receiving, so that both the intel and the soldiers can know that they can do their jobs without having to worry about whether or not they are unwittingly doing something they morally disagree with.


----------



## Crabface

Overtone said:


> I think the interview that I posted a lot of those questions. What I gathered from it I will summarize below:
> 
> Q: Why write the letter? Why refuse to serve? Why not just ask for a transfer?
> A: To start a dialog _within_ Israel. To highlight how different their experience of the service was from what they initially thought it would be, because it took them time to really understand it. Because asking for a transfer removes them from the problem, but doesn't stop the problem from occurring, or stop other soldiers from having the same experience as them. They feel that more change will occur if they engage the public on the issue than if they simply raise it to their superiors.
> Q: Why monitor non-terrorist civilians?
> A: They explain that it helps them to find collaborators/informants and also in situations where the Palestinians have done something and the Israel gov't is pushing for a large number of retaliatory arrests of Palestinians.
> Q: Why only care when Israel monitors regular civilians?
> A: The other countries are (presumably) only making arrests of people using intelligence data when there is a warrant allowing them to spy on that specific person. The rest of the spying is just "listening in." Israel on the other hand, arrests hundreds of Palestinians and holds them without trial. These soldiers have explained that often times some intelligence is being used to decide to arrest them, but there isn't any sufficient evidence to try them in court, so they just keep them locked up indefinitely. They explain that because there is a blanket policy enabling them to spy on just about anybody, and because these arrests without trial are so common, there is a lot happening outside the framework of a conventional and ethical justice system.
> Q: Hypothetical scenario involving intel on a location where civilians may get killed
> A: They agree, it's not the intel unit's fault how the intel gets used. But they see a problem at the top, where the generals are continually ignoring (or even possibly encouraging) civilian deaths... in their view it's not the intel unit's fault, and it's not the soldier's fault, it's the generals' fault. After seeing a repeated pattern of such behavior from the generals, certain intel officers felt that they could not in good conscience pass information up the chain, but that is only when they knew how it would be used. So I think the point they are making here is that the top brass have to be more ethical in order for the intel units (and soldiers) to be confident that they are not involved in something they are against. I think they want the generals to be held more accountable for how intel is used, and what kind of orders soldiers are receiving, so that both the intel and the soldiers can know that they can do their jobs without having to worry about whether or not they are unwittingly doing something they morally disagree with.



I'll have to add my say in the matter as well.
The way I see it, your points are logical and valid but I'm not very convinced that these people are opposing the system for the same reasons you are pointing out.

First and foremost, there is NO chance that these people came into the intelligence units without knowing that this stuff happened. Its beyond any doubt that this happens, at least to a certain extent, almost everywhere in the world, in every intelligence agency. I they wanted a perfect, 100% righteous environment to work in then they shouldnt have gone to work in intelligence.

On top of that, they have admitted on radio interviews that had these methods been used against Iran or Syria, for example, then they would have complied without opposition. This negates the idea that they are fighting for human rights because they would happily "breach human rights" in another country which they consider more worthy of attention. This makes their arguments almost completely based on an arguable political standpoint, which is obviously not a strong ground for an argument.

That being said, i do agree that some of the methods used by intelligence are not ideal, although i cant really see any way around it. Its not as if they are suddenly going to have a change of heart and decide to stop spying on innocent people. Also, I get the feeling that israel would not be doing this unless it significantly benifited israels safety. I dont think its pointless. That is certainly not to say it is correct. I certainly wouldnt go as far as saying i support israel in this situation, because at the end of the day what they are doing it wrong.
But i do disagree with these soldiers who have released an open letter based on what seems to be a political standpoint.


----------



## Randy

Crabface said:


> This negates the idea that they are fighting for human rights because they would happily "breach human rights" in another country which they consider more worthy of attention. This makes their arguments almost completely based on an arguable political standpoint, which is obviously not a strong ground for an argument.



Your whole post refers to the data harvesting angle, exclusively. 

You mentioned the same techniques of wholesale surveillance being used by Israel against other counties. Show me examples of Israel using that intelligence to capture and imprison people indefinitely without trial, and them using that information to knowingly bomb civilian populated buildings in either Syria or Iran.


----------



## Crabface

Randy said:


> Your whole post refers to the data harvesting angle, exclusively.
> 
> You mentioned the same techniques of wholesale surveillance being used by Israel against other counties. Show me examples of Israel using that intelligence to capture and imprison people indefinitely without trial, and them using that information to knowingly bomb civilian populated buildings in either Syria or Iran.



I think you misunderstood my what I was saying.
What I meant was that the Spies/Soldiers in question here have stated that had they been doing the same job in Iran/Syria, they wouldn't have had a problem with it. I did not say that these operations actually are being carried out in Iran/Syria. I wouldn't know.

To be clear, this whole story is new information to me and I was unaware of this beforehand. I don't know any more than you or anyone else about the matter, I'm just taking what I have learned about it so far and trying to understand it a little better. The conclusion that I have reached, at this point in time, is that there is a difference in understanding between what most people consider to be the problem here and what the soldiers consider to be the problem.
As far as I can tell, there is a clear line between the soldiers' politically motivated actions and the obvious breach of humans rights which should be the problem at hand. In fact, I think it is the problem at hand for everyone except for the soldiers.
And I personally think that the soldiers conduct was wrong. That's not to say that Israel's conduct has been correct by any means - simply that the soldiers seem to be contradicting themselves and protesting for all the wrong reasons and by the wrong means.

I repeat, I think that there is a clear problem here. I also think that the soldiers in question handled the situation incorrectly. They didn't even consider taking their complaints to management, and instead immediately released an open letter.
If you had a problem with at school you wouldn't immediately go to the newspapers and talk about how awful the school is, you would talk to the headmaster first, and then if nothing changes you can go to the news.
I'm not suggesting that something would have changed, in fact it's very unlikely, but there is a code of conduct and certain steps that should be followed before you begin to release your complaint to the public.


----------



## Randy

So you can type in very certain words what you think is wrong about the soldier's conduct but you cannot type in any certain words what's wrong with Israel's conduct?


----------



## Crabface

Randy said:


> So you can type in very certain words what you think is wrong about the soldier's conduct but you cannot type in any certain words what's wrong with Israel's conduct?



Of course I can. But isnt it more than obvious what the problem with Israels conduct is? Didn't think I needed to expand upon it seeing as its pretty much the point behind the whole debate. I have actually repeated that a few times. Israel ARE breaching human rights. I said that.

I get the feeling that when you see my username next to a post you automatically regard it as "biased/contradictory/stupid" before reading it, and then -even subconsciously- go on to develop a prejudiced opinion about about my posts. That is regardless of the fact that as far as I can tell im not even in disagreement with you here. Im simply pointing out something else.
It is simply trying to split hairs on a bald man.

You'll definitely disagree with that point, and im sure you'll be correct and explain where you're coming from in more detail, but I'd prefer to get that detail in your original replies to me rather than have to ask for it. Otherwise it very much feels like being simple prejudice.
Again, im not saying that you are being prejudiced, im simply requesting that you explain your oppositions to my opinions in your posts, otherwise it goes on to feel like a needlessly hostile environment, wherein i dont really understand where you are coming from.


----------



## Randy

Actually, it's been so long since this thread was alive that I forgot what your base positions were on things. My comments have been based entirely on the posts you've made directly preceding mine.

I consider what the Israeli intelligence soliders did to be 'whistleblowing'. The most common approach to denouncing military whistleblowers in this country is to attack the fact they 1.) chose to serve in the first place 2.) chose to go to the press with their complaints, as opposed to bringing their complaints to their bosses. Both of those facts have been debated in the US media at length, none of those debates having changed my opinion. 

In most cases, you're talking about people who've either made a(n) (in)formal complaint before or saw the person they're supposed to be answering to carry out the crime in question. At that point, your only choices are to ignore it or to bring those issues into the daylight. The next thing that happens is questioning somebody's patriotism for the fact they "betrayed" their nation (somehow?) by pledging to uphold what's morally right as opposed to upholding the integrity of some bullshit pecking order. I personally think blowing the whistle (with the understanding you could be crucified) is one of the most patriotic things you can do. YMMV

So yeah, I take exception to the fact both of the responses (to some pretty damning accusations) from pro-Israeli posters in this thread has been "well, it's not right that they made this stuff public". I hear so much of that shit here in the US from the warhawks and conservatives that it makes my blood boil. There's some catastrophic, world up-ending accusations made in what those men said and the only significant formative argument to be made is about whether or not exposing this stuff is appropriate? Either we have an incredibly different opinion on 'right and wrong' or that argument wreaks of unapologetic bias.


----------



## Crabface

Randy said:


> Actually, it's been so long since this thread was alive that I forgot what your base positions were on things. My comments have been based entirely on the posts you've made directly preceding mine.
> 
> I consider what the Israeli intelligence soliders did to be 'whistleblowing'. The most common approach to denouncing military whistleblowers in this country is to attack the fact they 1.) chose to serve in the first place 2.) chose to go to the press with their complaints, as opposed to bringing their complaints to their bosses. Both of those facts have been debated in the US media at length, none of those debates having changed my opinion.
> 
> In most cases, you're talking about people who've either made a(n) (in)formal complaint before or saw the person they're supposed to be answering to carry out the crime in question. At that point, your only choices are to ignore it or to bring those issues into the daylight. The next thing that happens is questioning somebody's patriotism for the fact they "betrayed" their nation (somehow?) by pledging to uphold what's morally right as opposed to upholding the integrity of some bullshit pecking order. I personally think blowing the whistle (with the understanding you could be crucified) is one of the most patriotic things you can do. YMMV
> 
> So yeah, I take exception to the fact both of the responses (to some pretty damning accusations) from pro-Israeli posters in this thread has been "well, it's not right that they made this stuff public". I hear so much of that shit here in the US from the warhawks and conservatives that it makes my blood boil. There's some catastrophic, world up-ending accusations made in what those men said and the only significant formative argument to be made is about whether or not exposing this stuff is appropriate? Either we have an incredibly different opinion on 'right and wrong' or that argument wreaks of unapologetic bias.



Understood, so let me address the statements at hand.

I agree with you so I dont know where any argument is coming from. Im perfectly fine with "whistleblowing", as long as they have tried to change the system from the inside first. It isn't right to complain if you have made your bosses aware that you have a problem in the 1st place. My understanding is that these people never made any sort of formal complaint, that is why I disagree with their conduct.

Exluding that, these matters need to be taken seriously and solved and any wrongdoing that I might see in their conduct doesnt change that. Human rights are being breached and a group of soldier's conduct does not change that. I dont see how the two are related and I certainly do not think that I am letting Israel off the hook or playing down the severity of the matter by criticising the soldiers in question.

I dont see how these two opinions of mine negate each other so Im not really sure where any argument is coming from.
Chances are that even if they had put in any formal complaint it wouldnt have sufficed and they would have gone to the press anyway. The result would most likely have been the same. But they didnt put in a formal conplaint and their criticisms do seem to be politically motivated rather than righteously motivated and that is what gets on my nerves.
That does not change the fact that Palestinians are on the receiving end of a lot of wrong-doing fron Israel and this needs to be solved.

I am not even in support of Israel here, i dont see how you can consider this biased and I really think that you have nust misunderstood what i am trying to say.


----------



## Randy

I'll conceit that I've been ascribing opinions to you without allowing you the chance to actually voice them. I'll try to avoid doing that.

If the accusation is that their bosses were authorizing the indefinite detention of people and willfully killing droves of civilians, I'm not entirely sure how much of an effect bringing up those points to those same people would have. The chain of command goes all the way to the top and, if his fiery rhetoric is any indication, I doubt Netanyahu would be particularly surprised/disgusted by what these whistleblowers claim is happening (much like GWB legalizing waterboarding when it was brought to his attention, rather than outlawing it). That is an opinion, since we have no way of knowing one way or another.

That said, I haven't seen any indication that they haven't brought these concerns up with officials. I also would assume that, if these things are occurring, the people writing the letter would be the tip of the iceberg compared to the number of formal complaints sent to officials (considering the accusations are so glaring). Considering the practice is purported to have continued all the way up until now and I haven't heard about any sweeping changes or repercussions to these accusations, it may be reasonably safe to assume a significant number of complaints/reports have been swept under the rug. This is also an opinion.

At this point, it's all speculation. I have my own hypothesis, everyone else is entitled to their own.


----------



## Crabface

Fair Enough.


----------



## Skyblue

Somehow I get to post here only when it's late for me and I should be in bed already, but still: 

I'll try to address a few subjects here, from a standpoint of someone who both lives in Israel and knows several people who served in the aforementioned intelligence unit. 

For the matter of bringing it up to their commanders or going straight to the public with it- Both would probably won't do much. If the issue at hand is the fact of the indefinite detentions, or the recruitment of informants, then we are talking state-level decisions here, not a commander's decision. I'm guessing it's not even up to the Head of Israeli Intelligence to decide if that is being done or not. The "correct" thing to do would be to approach their commanders first, through the officials channels of doing so, and afterwards take it to the media. Would it matter much? probably not. But really- neither did the letter. 
As for your doubt if the subject was brought in front of officials first, Randy- I have not heard so far any evidence to support either claim, aside for the IDF's official response, in which they claim no approach was made before the letter was published. Whether we should trust that or not- who knows. I don't take it as a great assurance, myself. 

As for their status as "Whistleblowers", the more I think of it I kind of don't really see anything surprising or new in what they said. Israel spying on people in the Gaza strip? not really news. It does the same in different countries as well, and so is the rest of the world. The fact that it uses the intelligence it gathers to recruit informants, kill Hamas officials or as evidence in detentions- I can't say I was "aware" of that, but I also can't claim it's surprising in any way. The main thing the people who wrote the letter brought into the eyes of the public is that serving in intelligence units can still be filled with moral dilemmas, something which is not really known to most people as they recruit, since intelligence units are considered to be a sterile place, devoid of such conflicts. 

I would also wonder is usage of intelligence such as recruiting informants and targeted killings of sorts are shunned upon in the rest of the world- they never really struck me like something so outrageous, and I wonder if it's because I live here and I'm used to it or is it really not that much of a big deal- considering we ARE talking Intelligence here. 

Take notice I excluded the detentions from that last paragraph- I'm not supporting indefinite detentions, but I lack the knowledge about the whole subject to argue on that point, so I won't. 

And again, I'm not really Pro-letter or Anti-letter here, just giving my 2c about the matter, after reading some comments.


----------



## Randy

As a liberal American, I can tell you there absolutely is significant concern over data collection and targeted killings. To some people it's not but to me and others, absolutely it is.


----------

