Israel - Palestine discussion thread

[Touring Mars]

There's not much to divulge really - I just found the use of the word 'atrocious' to be interesting coming from the Secretary General of the UN, because it indicates that he views the Israeli actions in Gaza in a very dim light. The word atrocious implies a level of wickedness or even criminality - typically when the word 'atrocity' is used, it implies some form of extreme wrongdoing. It is only my personal interpretation/feeling, so there isn't anything to explain beyond that. Usually, politicians are very guarded about what they say about Israel - lest they wish to be decried as anti-Semitic or whatever - and so it was quite unusual for Ban Ki Moon to be quite so forthright in his condemnation of Israel.

 

[zzz_pt]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-the-myth-of-hamass-human-shield-9619810.html



The Mith of Hama's human shield. Read.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There's not much to divulge really - I just found the use of the word 'atrocious' to be interesting coming the from Secretary General of the UN, because it indicates that he views the Israeli actions in Gaza in a very dim light. The word atrocious implies a level of wickedness or even criminality - typically when the word 'atrocity' is used, it implies some form of extreme wrongdoing.

I quite agree, he's in an arena where words are generally very well-chosen, probably more so on this subject and in these circumstances.

 

[zzz_pt]

 

[Carbonox]

Your Hasbara is showing even now. 'I don't have a horse in this race but ' riiiight. You are now in my ignore list. Bye.

There's a good reason why only one person, who happens to act just like you do, liked this message.

 

[King1982]

Holy duck:

Sick bastards.

A Palestinian man holds his daughters, Shada and Lama al-Ejla, who were injured in an Israeli tank attack, as he leaves al-Shifa hospital on July 18, 2014 in Gaza City. (Mahmud Hams/AFP/Getty Images)

Not shown in the daily news, here the full report in pictures: http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2014/07/bloody-weekend-in-gaza/100778/

There's a good reason why only one person, who happens to act just like you do, liked this message.

Forget that post.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

There's not much to divulge really - I just found the use of the word 'atrocious' to be interesting coming from the Secretary General of the UN, because it indicates that he views the Israeli actions in Gaza in a very dim light. The word atrocious implies a level of wickedness or even criminality - typically when the word 'atrocity' is used, it implies some form of extreme wrongdoing. It is only my personal interpretation/feeling, so there isn't anything to explain beyond that. Usually, politicians are very guarded about what they say about Israel - lest they wish to be decried as anti-Semitic or whatever - and so it was quite unusual for Ban Ki Moon to be quite so forthright in his condemnation of Israel.

Basically all I was trying to understand, I thought also you had more info as to what the UN was going to do than what was shown so I wanted to ask since unlike some I'm actually genuinely interested in this affair

 

[Danoff]

I love that folks keep thinking something has changed or that something is new in this never-ending clusterhump.

Here's how it works

1) Some angry Palestinians get ahold of some weapons and indiscriminately fire upon Israelis
2) Israel lays waste to buildings, land, people, etc. in a massive retaliation that involves civilian casualties
3) Israel eventually stops (sometimes due to international pressure)
4) Palestinians get angry
5) See step 1

I did not pick where I started this list at random. During the calm periods we sit at step 5... waiting to start over.

 

[Dennisch]

Delta Airlines has stopped all flights to Tel Aviv after reports of a rocket strike near the airport. A flight heading towards Tel Aviv turned around and headed for Paris.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I love that folks keep thinking something has changed or that something is new in this never-ending clusterhump.

Here's how it works

1) Some angry Palestinians get ahold of some weapons and indiscriminately fire upon Israelis
2) Israel lays waste to buildings, land, people, etc. in a massive retaliation that involves civilian casualties
3) Israel eventually stops (sometimes due to international pressure)
4) Palestinians get angry
5) See step 1

I did not pick where I started this list at random. During the calm periods we sit at step 5... waiting to start over.

I'm sure as far as all that goes most people are aware, of those steps and it's continuous cycle. However, some times things can change from each major incident so people want to see if such happens and would like to be educated on the matter just in case. Surely you can understand that.

 

[zzz_pt]

I love that folks keep thinking something has changed or that something is new in this never-ending clusterhump.

Here's how it works

1) Some angry Palestinians get ahold of some weapons and indiscriminately fire upon Israelis
2) Israel lays waste to buildings, land, people, etc. in a massive retaliation that involves civilian casualties
3) Israel eventually stops (sometimes due to international pressure)
4) Palestinians get angry
5) See step 1

I did not pick where I started this list at random. During the calm periods we sit at step 5... waiting to start over.

0) Israel / Zionists occupy Palestinian land and force them to leave.

Also, 3)... Israel stops and doesn't get punished because it's Israel. If they continued it would be a genocide. When they stop is "only" a mass murder.

Of course palestinians get angy. I recommend you to see and read the info in the last few pages and you'll understand why.

 

[Danoff]

I'm sure as far as all that goes most people are aware, of those steps and it's continuous cycle. However, some times things can change from each major incident so people want to see if such happens and would like to be educated on the matter just in case. Surely you can understand that.

Yea, I understand following it. I don't understand acting like it's surprising or new.

0) Israel / Zionists occupy Palestinian land and force them to leave.

I knew someone would say this. Taking a stand on that particular issue is basically ridiculous.

Also, 3)... Israel stops and doesn't get punished because it's Israel. If they continued it would be a genocide. When they stop is "only" a mass murder.

Punished by whom? God? Some imaginary world government? No, neither side gets punished.

Of course palestinians get angy. I recommend you to see and read the info in the last few pages and you'll understand why.

It's obvious why both sides get angry.

 

[zzz_pt]

@Danoff

I've posted that video too. When I didn't know as much as I know now about the History of that region and what let to this situation.


God? No. Did I mention any god?
International community CAN and should be doing something to "punish" Israel. Sanctions, ecomonic restricions, etc. If they work with Iran, Russia, etc why can't they be aplied to Israel as well? Well... that´s obvious too. USA, UN, UE, etc protect Israel and see the palestines like piles of ****.
They are all talking but no one condemns the slaughter of palestine innocent people by Israel.

It's obvious why both sides get angry yes. But it is not so obvious why no one cares about this mass killings in Gaza. If the invaders were from Palestine and the numbers of casualties were the other way arround, the entire world would be sending tanks, jets, ships, soldiers to Israel.

 

[Dotini]

Delta Airlines has stopped all flights to Tel Aviv after reports of a rocket strike near the airport. A flight heading towards Tel Aviv turned around and headed for Paris.

Yes, all US airlines have now stopped service to Tel Aviv.

 

[Dennisch]

@Danoff

It's obvious why both sides get angry yes. But it is not so obvious why no one cares about this mass killings in Gaza. If the invaders were from Palestine and the numbers of casualties were the other way arround, the entire world would be sending tanks, jets, ships, soldiers to Israel.

That's exactly the reason why I wonder what will happen when ISIS starts it's march towards Israel. Will the world just watch or will the UN/NATO finally find enough courage to actually get involved?

 

[Crispy]

There really is no good option here. If Israel shows signs by stepping up peace efforts, innocent people on their side get killed in terrorist attacks. There's a reason walls separate things there.

Those that say this is "genocide" are laughable. Really? If Israel wanted to go genocidal on Palestine there would be way more deaths than 500.

Problems come during war. Citizens do things like above. Hell look at America when we killed Osama Bin Laden? We were celebrating the death of another human being. Regardless of how terrible a person is, we were celebrating. Same with many countries over there celebrating the deaths of 3,000 people during 9/11. Palestinians cheer just the same as Israeli's when the enemy is killed.

It's silly to me that people have such conflict over things that happened in the past. It seems like a serious bug to the middle east, everyone there seems to hate someone else for things that happened before they were a though in anybodies mind.

So for now I leave one thing here.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff

I've posted that video too. When I didn't know as much as I know now about the History of that region and what let to this situation.

I'm decently versed in the history of the region up until a point. Eventually you back far enough that I stop caring.

God? No. Did I mention any god?

Just trying to figure out who you think is going to punish these people.

International community CAN and should be doing something to "punish" Israel. Sanctions, ecomonic restricions, etc. If they work with Iran, Russia, etc why can't they be aplied to Israel as well? Well... that´s obvious too. USA, UN, UE, etc protect Israel and see the palestines like piles of ****.
They are all talking but no one condemns the slaughter of palestine innocent people by Israel.

I don't think the international community should get involved. Both sides kill innocent people - even though they do it in different ways, and for different reasons. Those reasons matter of course, but not enough to declare one side "in the right".

It's obvious why both sides get angry yes. But it is not so obvious why no one cares about this mass killings in Gaza. If the invaders were from Palestine and the numbers of casualties were the other way arround, the entire world would be sending tanks, jets, ships, soldiers to Israel.

First of all, the number of casualties won't be the other way around, because Israel is much better armed. Second of all, I think you're wrong that nobody cares about the Palestinians.

I'm surprised at anyone who can step into this topic and, without having had someone they know or loved die in this fight, just pick a side they think is entirely right. It's almost a rorschach test.

 

[Mark T]

There are definitely some soldiers who should be prosecuted for their ill treatment and murder of innocent civilians. There are numerous videos (one in this thread) of snipers shooting innocent rescue workers and relatives looking for people trapped in rubble. I'm sure there are Hamas soldiers who like wise should be prosecuted. What we seem to have is a "tit for tat" or "eye for an eye" type of battle going on. The UN is incompetent, for years it has failed to enforce laws which I expect is due to US involvement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but on both sides there are liberal politicians who wish to seek a truce but they are held back by extremist religious leaders who don't want to surrender what they think is "Holy Land". It's absolutely insane.

 

[Crispy]

The biggest problem is people are trying desperately to find a good and bad side in this conflict. They hold onto this view and see the otherside as complete evil, while they ignore the things their side does wrong.

If we want this conflict to stop then two things need to happen.

1) Israel needs to get rid of the blockade of Gaza, allow join citizenship, and remove their draconian control over the West Bank.

2) Palestine needs to get rid of any trace of Hamas. The only difference between Hamas and the Taliban is that they have an oppressed people on their side.

 

[zzz_pt]

There really is no good option here. If Israel shows signs by stepping up peace efforts, innocent people on their side get killed in terrorist attacks. There's a reason walls separate things there.

Those that say this is "genocide" are laughable. Really? If Israel wanted to go genocidal on Palestine there would be way more deaths than 500.

Problems come during war. Citizens do things like above. Hell look at America when we killed Osama Bin Laden? We were celebrating the death of another human being. Regardless of how terrible a person is, we were celebrating. Same with many countries over there celebrating the deaths of 3,000 people during 9/11. Palestinians cheer just the same as Israeli's when the enemy is killed.

It's silly to me that people have such conflict over things that happened in the past. It seems like a serious bug to the middle east, everyone there seems to hate someone else for things that happened before they were a though in anybodies mind.

So for now I leave one thing here.

That video can very well be made up. Do you have 100% sure there's any terrorist there? I saw a group of people running from something and hidding in that building.

The video is from israeli army and probably is BS. They can put the subtitles they want and claim whatever they want. In that video we can't see nothing factual. On the other and, we've seen videos and photographs of people being shoted without any reason. UN reports don't back up that idea of "human shileds". That's a completely made up idea from the Israeli propaganda. I've posted a link to a report about that fact already.


There's a reason walls separate things there. Go back some decades and you'll see that palestinians and jews lived happily in the same region. No segragation or separation. When zionist army force them to leave and erased their vilages and people from the map, they wanted to be separated from arabs/palestinians. They built walls because of segragation and to separate themselves from arab people.

I've been in Israel and I've seen with my own eyes de descrimination between israeli people towrds arabs/palestinians. When I crossed the border, I had no problem and I haven't seen any arab being mean or agressive. In my way back to Israel, I was wearing a t-shirt with a white dove and the word shalom. The security didn't even bored to search me and my luggage. If I was wearing a t-shirt with the palestinian flag or somthing I'd have been searched and my suitcase would have been open right there.

@Danoff

I can pick a side yes. Israel has 1 innocent casualty. Palestine has over 500 inocent people death, being +80 children, and over 3500 injured. I have no problem picking a side in this particular situation.

 

[Joel]

There really is no good option here. If Israel shows signs by stepping up peace efforts, innocent people on their side get killed in terrorist attacks. There's a reason walls separate things there.

Problems come during war.

I think you're glossing over the conduct of the Israelis a bit too much here and using "war" a tad liberally. During WWII we saw widespread bombing of cities including civilian facilities and factories, the difference is that countries were at a state of total war where there was no meaningful separation of the military industrial complex and private industry, civilian factories were directly tied to the war effort and essentially became an arm of the military. Nations and their populace became military machines, and you couldn't possibly draw a line between military and civilians.

In this case, a group of underequipped terrorists are firing crude rockets at Israel. I don't mean to diminish the attacks on Israel, they're very real acts of terrorism and I can imagine it's utterly terrifying that Israelis live with the threat of these attacks. The difference is that they're substantially less effective, the death toll so far is 28 (soldiers) compared to 500+ (primarily civilians), the modern and efficient IDF are attacking Palestine as if the two were nations at total war. I don't know how one could possibly argue that the hospitals Israel are bombing are supporting Hamas and the war effort.

Israel has every reason to have a strong military and be very concerned about their neighbours. But the threat and the military capabilities are very disproportional here, it's not Egypt invading. If a 5 year old punches you, do you stand up and kick him in the face? The issue is that it's all a self fulfilling prophecy, these massive IDF attacks do nothing more than rile up Palestinians to attack Israel again, leading to another massive IDF attack in response and the cycle just continues forever.

I don't think either side is in the "right" here and I'm not for a second suggesting Hamas are anything other than terrorists. But to me the response seems to be very out of line with the attacks in the first place. A group of underequipped terrorists are launching ineffective rocket strikes, and in response one of the most well oiled military machines on Earth are launching a huge offensive and killing hundreds of civilians as collateral damage.

 

[Dotini]

Yes, all US airlines have now stopped service to Tel Aviv.

Now the Lufthansa group has suspended service to Tel Aviv. That means that Air France, BA and other European carriers will likely follow suit.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff

I can pick a side yes. Israel has 1 innocent casualty. Palestine has over 500 inocent people death, being +80 children, and over 3500 injured. I have no problem picking a side in this particular situation.

The problem is that these are different crimes. On one side you have an initiation of force. On the other side you have negligent response.

 

[zzz_pt]

The problem is that these are different crimes. On one side you have an initiation of force. On the other side you have negligent response.

On one side you have a group of people that are responsible for lauching rockets that killed 1 person. On the other side you have a government army that invaded another country and killed 500+ innocent people.

Yes, quite different. That is a problem. And that is the reason why I "chose the side" of the palestinian people.

 

[Dennisch]

On one side you have a group of people that are responsible for lauching rockets that killed 1 person. On the other side you have a government army that invaded another country and killed 500+ innocent people.

Yes, quite different. That is a problem. And that is the reason why I "chose the side" of the palestinian people.

But you have to remember that they fire those rockets to hit anything and everything. That they are as accurate as a cow's ass doesn't matter.
They both kill indiscriminately and Israel is just racking up the kills quicker.

 

[Dotini]

On one side you have a group of people that are responsible for lauching rockets that killed 1 person. On the other side you have a government army that invaded another country and killed 500+ innocent people.

Yes, quite different. That is a problem. And that is the reason why I "chose the side" of the palestinian people.

Protecting women, children, the weak and innocent, are the proper work of a sworn knight. So your reasons are virtuous, sir, and I salute you.

On the other hand, the order of knighthood is moribund, and today its more common, indeed profitable, to cheer and support "winners".

 

[Danoff]

Yes, quite different. That is a problem. And that is the reason why I "chose the side" of the palestinian people.

Let's move away from this particular example for just a moment and deal with a hypothetical:

- Country A launches an attack on Country B unprovoked (remember, these two countries are hypothetical ok?)
- Country A wants to kill everyone in Country B, and this attack is aimed at achieving that objective.
- Country A sucks at attacking Country B, and doesn't kill a single person or make any progress toward an invasion... but they tried to.

What can we say about this situation?

Conclusion: Country A has lost all sovereignty. Country B is justified in invading and occupying Country A.
Conclusion: All people in support of and responsible for the attack from Country A have lost their right to life.

Ok more facts:

- Country B systematically exterminates all living people in Country A in response to the attack.

What can we say about this situation?

Conclusion: Some of the people Country B killed were done so justly.
Conclusion: Many of the people Country B killed were not killed justly.
Conclusion: Country B is now guilty of genocide as part of a negligent response
Conclusion: The people invovled in, and in support of, the known killing of innocent people have lost their right to life.

Pick a side. Do you pick the country that tried to initiate genocide? Or the country that committed it in response?

 

[zzz_pt]

Let's move away from this particular example for just a moment and deal with a hypothetical:

- Country A launches an attack on Country B unprovoked (remember, these two countries are hypothetical ok?)
- Country A wants to kill everyone in Country B, and this attack is aimed at achieving that objective.
- Country A sucks at attacking Country B, and doesn't kill a single person or make any progress toward an invasion... but they tried to.

What can we say about this situation?

Conclusion: Country A has lost all sovereignty. Country B is justified in invading and occupying Country A.
Conclusion: All people in support of and responsible for the attack from Country A have lost their right to life.

Ok more facts:

- Country B systematically exterminates all living people in Country A in response to the attack.

What can we say about this situation?

Conclusion: Some of the people Country B killed were done so justly.
Conclusion: Many of the people Country B killed were not killed justly.
Conclusion: Country B is now guilty of genocide as part of a negligent response
Conclusion: The people invovled in, and in support of, the known killing of innocent people have lost their right to life.

Pick a side. Do you pick the country that tried to initiate genocide? Or the country that committed it in response?

That's flawed because that doesn't aply to the real situation and to this thread.

I won't reply to a flawed hypothetical example to defend my position on a real world situation.

 

[Danoff]

That's flawed because that doesn't aply to the real situation and to this thread.

I won't reply to a flawed hypothetical example to defend my position on a real world situation.

It sounds nice, but my mental image is of someone with their fingers in their ears.

 

[Crispy]

That's flawed because that doesn't aply to the real situation and to this thread.

I won't reply to a flawed hypothetical example to defend my position on a real world situation.

Because the situation isn't as black and white as you think it is?