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 criticize Israel much more for issues in the West Bank than for Gaza
No. Terrorists are political extremists, not representing the legitimate armed forces of a recognised state, who engage in deadly violence to promote terror and not in pursuit of any legitimate military strategy. Legitimate armed forces may engage in activities that some people call terroristic, but they still aren't terrorists. Terrorism is essentially a private and recreational form of murder for personal gratification. Its usual, indeed
This isn't right.
The standard def of terrorism is something like, deliberately harming
civilians to terrorize them into going along with some political goal.
I have the political goal of stopping abortion. I blow up abortion clinics to terrorize people into going along.
I want what I perceive to be occupiers to leave my country. I bomb a shopping mall in their home country, hoping to terrorize them into leaving.
.....
In my opinion, this is usually just a propaganda term and it should just be abandoned. Blowing up a marine barracks or the pentagon: very clear military targets, is terrorism when our enemies do it.
Having priests and nuns tortured to death to scare people away from overthrowing a dictator is not terrorism when we do it, though it meets every criteria.
Additionally, powerful countries will always favor "conventional" warfare. Since they have an advantage there, and dismiss the harm as accidenal, which is silly.
Like, if I'm tired of you mistreating me at work and I intentionally murder your wife to get you to stop. That's horrible.
If I blow up the entire block you live on using a military weapon, that's ok because killing all the other people on your block wasn't my primary goal. I was only trying to kill you.
Heck, you're probably a bad neighbor so I was actually helping those people by blowing them up.
Estimates are hamas spent at least 90 million on tunnels
And they need so much fuel .. even now .. much more than a standard house
When they cried about no fuel they decided to hoard it rather than give it to their people
There is no chance their tunnels only took $90m. Maybe strictly to dig assuming 0 labor costs? But 90m for at least 600 or 700km at least by now implies like 150k per km and that's incredibly low for the level of sophistication evident in those tunnels.
The real total costs have to be in the hundreds of millions with all the gear, hardening, and ventilation housed in the tunnels.
More than half of Un resolutions every year are against Israel
They're always held to a different standard
Pretty sure none of this post is true, especially the top half. And the conclusion they’re held to a different standard is opposed to the other conclusion which would be that they are not meeting a certain standard everyone in the UN agreed to be held to which would explain the resolutions. But either way, War Daddy USA has veto power so the UN can’t touch Israel regardless.
The 45 resolutions comprised almost half (45.9%) of all country-specific resolutions passed by the UNHRC, not counting those under Agenda Item 10 (countries requiring technical assistance).[1] From 1967 to 1989, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted 131 Security Council resolutions directly addressing the Arab–Israeli conflict. In early UNSC practice, resolutions did not directly invoke Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. They made an explicit determination of a threat, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and ordered an action in accordance with Article 39 or 40. UNSC Resolution 54 determined that a threat to peace existed within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter, reiterated the need for a truce, and ordered a ceasefire pursuant to Article 40 of the Charter. Although the phrase "Acting under Chapter VII" was never mentioned as the basis for the action taken, the chapter's authority was being used.[2]
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has adopted a number of resolutions stating that Israel's strategic relationship with the United States, a superpower and permanent member of the Security Council with veto power, encourages the former to pursue aggressive and expansionist policies and practices in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[3] The 9th Emergency Session of the UNGA was convened at the request of the UNSC when the United States blocked all efforts to adopt sanctions against Israel.[4] The United States responded to the frequent criticism from United Nations organs by adopting the Negroponte doctrine of opposing any UNSC resolutions criticizing Israel that did not also denounce Palestinian militant activity.
He said more than half “every year”, not since the beginning of time.
In the last twenty years there have only been 11, and 2 of those are from the most recent conflict.
Pretty sure none of this post is true, especially the top half. And the conclusion they’re held to a different standard is opposed to the other conclusion which would be that they are not meeting a certain standard everyone in the UN agreed to be held to which would explain the resolutions. But either way, War Daddy USA has veto power so the UN can’t touch Israel regardless.
The UN human rights council is a complete joke, they had Iran chair the social forum lately
Crossnerd, what do you think Israel would prefer:
1) Withdraw from Gaza. NOT get attacked. Not put up a border fence and wall. Not spend the insane amount of tax money on the border crossing, protection, intelligence, aid, etc. Not use tremendous amounts of human capital on the Gaza issue. Not bury sons. Not have to constantly rush to bomb shelters. Have access to a peaceful skilled workforce to help with agriculture/manufacturing/construction and similar areas so they don't have to bring in people from elsewhere. Not spend time on lawyers and PR and nonsense about "occupation". Not have all this spill over on the Diaspora.
or
2) Deal with all that nonsense forever more and maintain the blockade
Nobody wants to keep doing #1, and the path to not doing it lays squarely with the "we don't recognize your right to exist" bros
#1 highlights how little sense it even makes when considering Israel's preferred outcomes. And outside of some weapons contracts, only seems to enrich a few dudes sitting in Qatar. For everyone else (both sides), it's the worst.
I think you forgot the part about using a plane full of civilians to target that building, that's what makes it terrorism.
But killing civilians in a hospital to get at Hamas is not terrorism because.... I honestly can't even think of a rational. Is it to do with the order of events?
The point is we use the term terrorism to denote someone--almost exclusively our opposition--as satanically evil. Any measures to stop it are ok, from surrendering our rights, to torture, to destroying whole countries.
By contrast, one's own group only blows up civilians for good reasons, and it's therefore fine or even good.
But terrorism is just a word. An ill defined one sloppily applied.
You can argue that the IDF are terrorists, or not. Same for Hiroshima or a million other things.
You could say it's always bad or sometimes good. Maybe Hiroshima was justified terrorism. Or unjustified non terrorism. Or... it's pointless.
We have a long history of KKK violence, OKC, masacres driven by racial politics in Buffalo and El Paso... is that terrorism? Should we bomb Mississippi until nobody is racist and not a single white power group exists and no black person will ever be victimized again?
But killing civilians in a hospital to get at Hamas is not terrorism because.... I honestly can't even think of a rational. Is it to do with the order of events?
The point is we use the term terrorism to denote someone--almost exclusively our opposition--as satanically evil. Any measures to stop it are ok, from surrendering our rights, to torture, to destroying whole countries.
By contrast, one's own group only blows up civilians for good rea
Yeah I got told by the same guy that Supernova were human shields. I'm going to sleep tonight feeling decent about my position on this one.
There is a war on terror happening in Gaza right now. That much we agree on. The terrorists being eliminated are the ones recognized as terrorists by the EU, the UK, Canada, the USA, Japan, etc.... You know, the democracies who really put an effort in defining these things properly.
If you put all of Hamas in a field and told them to fight the IDF, and they won, they wouldn't stop there. After the IDF, they would finish off the Israeli civilians. If in turn the Israelis killed all 30k of Hamas, that would be the end. That's the difference here. And it's notable.
Well I’d hardly expect the US of A to object to kids being murdered. It’s practically our national pastime at this point.
Totally fine to hold an opinion, entirely different to post misinformation as fact which is what I was responding to.
You said UN resolutions against Israel being more frequent than vs any other country for human right related matters are motivated by Israel not being up to norms other countries adhere to...
You know that's absurd and many countries worldwide have a far worse human right track record than even the most critical reading of Israel actions could account for
You said UN resolutions against Israel being more frequent than vs any other country for human right related matters are motivated by Israel not being up to norms other countries adhere to...
You know that's absurd and many countries worldwide have a far worse human right track record than even the most critical reading of Israel actions could account for
I was merely demonstrating that there was more than one possible conclusion. You have the same issue where you reach a conclusion and then share it as if it is self evident and singular when it is anything but and merely reflects your own biases.
I was merely demonstrating that there was more than one possible conclusion. You have the same issue where you reach a conclusion and then share it as if it is self evident and singular when it is anything but and merely reflects your own biases.
There is more than one possible conclusion only if you start claiming that places that hang homosexuals, infibulate most of their young girls, deny property rights to women or to everybody, allow marital rape, deny education to women and so on could be taken as example of higher morality than places like Norway or Japan
The places that deny the existence of the state of Israel are objectively, measurably, a list of the worst countries in the world by any metric we use to measure human flourishing, yes/no?
There is more than one possible conclusion only if you start claiming that places that hang homosexuals, infibulate most of their young girls, deny property rights to women or to everybody, allow marital rape, deny education to women and so on could be taken as example of higher morality than places like Norway or Japan
Two of the like three countries that still allow whaling.
You said UN resolutions against Israel being more frequent than vs any other country for human right related matters are motivated by Israel not being up to norms other countries adhere to...
You know that's absurd and many countries worldwide have a far worse human right track record than even the most critical reading of Israel actions could account for
It's beyond absurd
