Israel/Palestine thread
Think this merits its own thread...
Discuss my fellow 2+2ers..
AM YISRAEL CHAI.
[QUOTE=Crossnerd]Edit: RULES FOR THIS THREAD
Posting guidelines for Politics and Soci...
These are our baselines. We're not reinventing the wheel here. If you aren't sure if something is acceptable to post, its better to ask first. If you think someone is posting something that violates the above guidelines, please report it or PM me rather than responding in kind.
To reiterate some of the points:
1. No personal attacks. This is a broad instruction, but, in general, we want to focus on attacking an argument rather than the poster making it. It is fine to say a post is antisemitic; it is not okay to call someone an antisemite over and over. If you believe someone is making antisemitic posts, report them or PM me. The same goes for calling people "baby killers" and "genocide lovers". You are allowed to argue that an action supports genocide or that the consequences of certain policies results in the death of children, but we are no longer going to be speaking to one another's intentions. It is not productive to the conversation and doesn't further any debate.
2. Racist posts and other bigoted statements that target a particular group or individuals of such groups with derogatory comments are not allowed. This should not need further explanation.
3. Graphic Images need to be in spoilers with a trigger warning.
4. Wishing Harm on other posters will result in an immediate timeout.
5. Genocidal statements such as "Kill 'em all" etc, are no longer permissible in the thread.
If anyone has any questions about the above, please PM me. I don't want a discussion about the rules to derail the content of this thread. If anything needs clarifying, I will do that in this thread.
Please be aware this thread is strictly moderated[/quote]
I think it can be argued that the targeted assassinations of resistance leaders is meant to cause terror amongst the population
So the plan is military (but not civil) occupation of Gaza until the phase that follows. The far right is said to want to dissolve the government if the hostage deal isn't to their liking.
Don't think we'll see anything overly productive this quarter.
the UNWRA stuff isn't remotely shocking for Israelis. There's a whole discussion to be had on that, but I don't have the time at the moment.
I think it can be argued that the targeted assassinations of resistance leaders is meant to cause terror amongst the population
ye so i ask again (3rd time), your objection to those targeted assassinations is about the fact that you consider the person planning terrorist attacks against israel soil as a "resistance leader" even if he was a west bank palestinians and hamas doesn't govern the west bank, so you justify the planning of act of terrors by that "resistance leader"? yes or no?
I think that if a "resistance leader" plans acts of terrors killing him isn't an act of terror, nevermind that you have no reason to believe that specific target was a "resistance leader" in any way or form.
Hamas is a terrorist organization so all hamas leaderships is composed of terrorists, either people directly planning and executing acts of terrors, or people coordinating, financing or otherwise helping the planning and execution of acts of terrors, so it's never an act of terror to kill any of them.
The population shouldn't support terrorists (and many don't), and the portion of the population who does, doesn't get a free pass in aiding and abetting terror, if they get scared because their terrorist leaders are killed, that's not terrorism that's a good development.
Decent palestianians rejoice like us when an hamas terrorist gets killed.
So let's talk about this because it leads into what I want to expand on with more time later.
if you watch as much Al Jeezera as I do, you see the same thing over again:
When Hamas is asked why the Palestinian people aren't granted safety in the tunnels, they ALWAYS reply in interviews: "Protecting the Palestinian people is the responsibility of the UN".
You will NEVER hear them diverge from that. UNWRA are funded billions, and THEY care for the people. Hamas is sort of peripheral and co-mingled, but they try to keep that work "separate".
And Hamas has repeatedly said they want to be much closer to the Hezbollah model. Governing the people is not "the resistance". I'm not saying they never do, but anywhere they can avoid it, they do. So you get these hybrid organizations like UNWRA where it's one Hamas foot in and one Hamas foot out. Hamas always get to the UNWRA aid first, because duh that's how it works. They decide where it goes, how it goes. Which also seems pretty straight forward and not surprising. But UNWRA and Hamas have to collaborate. There's no way around it.
What I want to talk about later is how UNWRA is so uniquely setup (to function), because honestly how it works makes very little sense.
oh I think we know what happened to the 6 yr old. and to the rescuers that went to get her with IDF permission.
whats that rafiki? oh they were Hamas. oh, ok. good shot then.
mets et al - like the antisemitic Evangelical guy at the Israel rally - ok with any ally you can get?
It's a dumb question
I want Israel to win the war and not soread bullshit propaganda about them period
It's similar to why does the us ally with saudi Arabia with all the awful stuff they do.
You act like I'm supporting idiots or i don't want them saying Israel should exist because they are *******s
It's pointless for you to call me name out dvd say "mets these bad guys like Israel, tell them you don'twant their support anymore or you're a racist
Such a dumb exercise
...
Military seems to be doing a lot more. While I'm sure there are some situations where mental state could come into play, it seems like the differentiation is probably for various analyses on how effective two different types of operations were. (I'm not too sure how relevant that is here.) It's an interesting distinction, thanks for bringing it up. Would like to know why you think the military differentiates it in this way.
Yeah, the use of the term in legal proceedings is different from the military. I think the military differentiates this way based on my experience preparing and executing plans and operations during my 22-year Army career. The term Target of Opportunity itself means a target that was unknown during planning and therefore an attack on it couldnt be considered premeditated, which is defined as the thinking about and planning to do something before you do it.
its def different and its technically true. the best kind of true. its so true that you had to make up a different statement to argue against.
It isn't different. 😆
launch1
/lɔːn(t)ʃ/
verb
2.
start or set in motion (an activity or enterprise).
set in motion
initiate
instigate
start the ball rolling
kick off
commence
noun
So yeah you're a liar and evidently you don't know the meaning of words.
blatantly false. this has been explained to you a number of times. the court was not going to rule on genocide for this hearing. well, they could have thrown it out which they didnt and instead put Israel on trial.
The court was to examine the case for genocide. It didn't find any. You'll just have to engage in other forms of anti Semitism, I'm afraid.
It's a dumb question
I want Israel to win the war and not soread bullshit propaganda about them period
It's similar to why does the us ally with saudi Arabia with all the awful stuff they do.
You act like I'm supporting idiots or i don't want them saying Israel should exist because they are *******s
It's pointless for you to call me name out dvd say "mets these bad guys like Israel, tell them you don'twant their support anymore or you're a r
It's similar in "why does the us ally with sa" in that it's a question with an answer. Sure. The answer is completely different though. US allies with SA because of oil. Simple as that.
Why does an Über right-wing political group with an antisemitic history want to ally with Israel now? Answering that question is not a dumb exercise. They ally with Israel now not for some economic advantage for the association of Israel and Sweden, but because they view Israel as like-minded. They want Sweden to be an ethno-state and they support other ethno-states.
That's not so great is it?
The court hasn't answered that question yet, hasn't determined if any genocide had happened or not in the israel-gaza war, yet.
right. the court had 2 main options. either put Israel on trial for genocide (ie that it was "plausible" genocide was happening) or decide that the case did not have any merit (ie that genocide was not happening).
they were never going to say that genocide was occurring. that was not the purpose of the hearing.
I dont think that corpus realizes that the case is not over. in reality, it is just starting.
right. the court had 2 main options. either put Israel on trial for genocide (ie that it was "plausible" genocide was happening) or decide that the case did not have any merit (ie that genocide was not happening).
they were never going to say that genocide was occurring. that was not the purpose of the hearing.
I dont think that corpus realizes that the case is not over. in reality, it is just starting.
I'm aware it isn't over. Just as I'm aware that they've essentially said "carry on just try minimise collateral damage", when you boil it down. Aka not genocide.
I'm aware it isn't over. Just as I'm aware that they've essentially said "carry on just try minimise collateral damage", when you boil it down. Aka not genocide.
if they didnt think there was genocide then they would have thrown the case out.
what they literally said was that there was "plausible" evidence of genocide and Israel needs to stop.
Yeah it hasn't even called for a ceasefire either so clearly they're not regarding it as genocide.
Because the war itself isn't of genocidal nature. The accuse itself isn't about that.
The alleged genocide is peripherical to the war, in the words of some israeli leaders, and especially in the omissions of Israel. Basically they might have a bigger point that we'd like about blockading aid to the population being an act of genocide (legally; moral considerations are a completly different thing).
The court did find that /But the I.C.J. still found cause for great concern about Israel’s military actions, and also the statements of its leaders. “At least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza,” the court found, “appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the [Genocide] Convention.”
/
But it also obviously said palestinians should return all hostages.
And miss all that world attention? Yeah right.
what they literally said was that there was "plausible" evidence of genocide and Israel needs to stop.
Some judges have favoured Israel's position.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
In fact, only two judges (Julia Sebutinde from Uganda and Aharon Barak from Israel) were ready to accept Israel’s position: that Hamas’s extensive use of human shields, the harm mitigation efforts by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the causal disconnect between the aggressive statements uttered by Israeli politicians and the actual cabinet directives provided to the IDF, rendered the South African genocide case implausible.
Indeed, as an institution that serves as the “principal judicial organ of the United Nations”, it would have been very surprising had the ICJ declined to intervene in this high-stakes case, which has attracted huge international attention, and which relates to a most urgent and serious humanitarian catastrophe about which multiple UN agencies have voiced extreme concern. This is especially so given the fact that the court was quick to intervene less than two years ago in the Russia-Ukraine war.
Still, you can hardly read the decision as a strong endorsement of the South African legal characterisation of Israel’s conduct. The standard of “plausibility of claims” applied by the court when considering whether or not to issue provisional measures is already a very low and ambiguous standard of proof for factual allegations, and the court muddied it even further by holding that “at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa” are plausible, without indicating which claims are more plausible than others.
Indeed, one of the judges, Georg Nolte from Germany, has indicated that, for him, it is implausible that the IDF military campaign is being conducted with genocidal intent. He voted with the majority, he said, because “dehumanising and discriminate language” used by Israeli officials causes a risk of future violations of the genocide convention.
if they didnt think there was genocide then they would have thrown the case out.
what they literally said was that there was "plausible" evidence of genocide and Israel needs to stop.
No they said israel has a responsibility to guarantee no genocidal act happens, so more like "keep all your soldiers in check, and the most crazy about your military and political leaders".
And they pushed hard about aid for civilians being delayed/blocked.
Because the war itself isn't of genocidal nature. The accuse itself isn't about that.
The alleged genocide is peripherical to the war, in the words of some israeli leaders, and especially in the omissions of Israel. Basically they might have a bigger point that we'd like about blockading aid to the population being an act of genocide (legally; moral considerations are a completly different thing).
The court did find that /But the I.C.J. still
Sounds pretty vague and weak
No they said israel has a responsibility to guarantee no genocidal act happens, so more like "keep all your soldiers in check, and the most crazy about your military and political leaders".
And they pushed hard about aid for civilians being delayed/blocked.
again, if they didnt think it was plausible that Israel was doing genocide then they would have thrown the case out. instead they put Israel on trial.
and for the people who arent mainlining Eylon Levy vids, the court gave no reasoning on why it did not include the cease fire request so its ludicrous to equate that with a no genocide ruling.
Germany needs to get tougher on Israel, says former Merkel adviser, Christoph Heusgen
https://www.ft.com/content/e415c935-690f...
damn looks like yet another generation of Heusgens want to get tough on the jews
