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]
Boids, Mongidig, and Jalfrezi, this is a warning that more personal comments from any of you will result in timeouts as well.
Address CLAIMS and TOPICS, not each other.
Source is partisan (Orthodox Jews) but you can check the names of the "journalist" and the "doctor" and see mainstream media confirms it
I agree. A good place to start would be not conducting mass slaughters of civilians including children, don't you think?
Then we are in a good place already as mass slaughters of civilians and children didn't happen since many months ago (when the IDF had to carpet bomb some areas to then invade, saving IDF lived by doing that, so fully justified)
None of us can pretend to know what really happened with the hostage rescue mission and who died and how many based on the current info sources until unbiased parties are able to investigate this.
The IDF and the people in Gaza are filled to the brim with human stank and it's all a he started it, but he did it harder, invalid horseshit.
Dr. Aharoni is one of the founding members of the IWC (International Women’s Commission) and has been active in promoting women’s rights in Israel as a member of Isha l’Isha-Haifa Feminist Center.
I asked, and I will ask again: if the same is true reversed, what's the objection? The law now punishes rape of a different ethnicity citizen more than same-ethnicity, if motivated by ethnic hatred.
What's the problem? It applies to Jews that rape Arabs as well (afaik).
Yes an Arab raping a Jew might incur in longer sentences than a Jew raping a Jew (if the rape is motivated by ethnicity).
But a Jew raping an Arab will incur in long sentences than an Arab raping an Arab (if the rape is motivated by ethnicity).
What would be your problem with this? You disagree with ethnical motive in crime being a justified caused for longer sentences?
We can discuss this but for sure no discrimination is present in that law.
Everyone is treated the same: if you rape people of a different ethnicity you risk longer sentences if motive can be linked to ethnicity itself. Applies to everyone.
None of us can pretend to know what really happened with the hostage rescue mission and who died and how many based on the current info sources until unbiased parties are able to investigate this.
The IDF and the people in Gaza are filled to the brim with human stank and it's all a he started it, but he did it harder, invalid horseshit.
No man, it's a Hamas did 10 7, so IDF is fully morally justified to do the **** It wants until Hamas (and any similar entity) doesn't exist anymore.
It's actually incredible, a proof of moral exceptionality, how much IDF spends efforts to minimize innocent life losses.
Stop this insane fake equivalence
As far as we know it did occur on a number of occasions. It would hardly have to be planned. There's no reason to think it was discouraged.
It occurred a lot, hardly planned, heavily encouraged structurally by decades of propaganda, almost certainly not strategically determined (Hamas leaders drinking premier Cru Chablis in Qatar while eating pork chops with UNRWA money know some of the people they want on board in the west don't like rape too much)
Benny Gantz has quit the Israel war cabinet, where he was minister without portfolio, because (as I may have mentioned) Netanyahu has no exit plan. As Gantz is fairly centrist, this leaves Netanyahu even more reliant on the crackpot religious right who urge a total reoccupation of Gaza and ethnic cleansing, which would not be good idea.
I asked, and I will ask again: if the same is true reversed, what's the objection? The law now punishes rape of a different ethnicity citizen more than same-ethnicity, if motivated by ethnic hatred.
What's the problem? It applies to Jews that rape Arabs as well (afaik).
Yes an Arab raping a Jew might incur in longer sentences than a Jew raping a Jew (if the rape is motivated by ethnicity).
But a Jew raping an Arab will incur in long sentences
The implication of Dr. Aharoni's statement is that she doesn't believe the Jewish man raping an Arab woman would be subject to the same law as an Arab man raping a Jewish woman, which coming from a Ph.D. in Gender Studies from Bar-Ilan University, who's published articles on gender, peace and conflict in Israel and co-edited the book Where Are All the Women? U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325: Gender Perspectives of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (2004), and who clearly has a much firmer grasp on Israel than you do, is quite telling don't you think?
The implication of Dr. Aharoni's statement is that she doesn't believe the Jewish man raping an Arab woman would be subject to the same law as an Arab man raping a Jewish woman, which coming from a Ph.D. in Gender Studies from Bar-Ilan University, who's published articles on gender, peace and conflict in Israel and co-edited the book Where Are All the Women? U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325: Gender Perspectives of the Israeli-Palestini
I would give some credit to credentialism (and I typically do) if the topic wasn't politically contested. In those cases people who spend their careers about X tend to be right more often about X-related topics.
Given it is though, sorry but no I don't give any value to the opinion of someone who thinks "feminism" is a positive word in general.
As you know I subscribe to the theory that present feminism is just one of the many version of cultural marxism circulating and as such, anyone using that word seriously and not to mock other people completely loses all intellectual dignity and credibility in my eyes.
Evidently it doesn't in your eyes so you are going to believe the opinion of a feminist is that this law is discriminatory.
I personally give 0 weight to the opinions of Marxists, no matter how credentialed they are
The fact that you're calling her a feminist should give you pause for thought over Israel's claims of the mass rapes when she casts doubt over them.
The fact that you're calling her a feminist should give you pause for thought over Israel's claims of the mass rapes when she casts doubt over them.
I am calling her a feminist because she is in a self defined way
About her opinions on anything, let me repeat the very simple morsel: if someone is a self defined radical leftist (feminism qualifies) the totality of his or her intellectual production forever loses any validity. IE , it's all trash.
No man, it's a Hamas did 10 7, so IDF is fully morally justified to do the **** It wants until Hamas (and any similar entity) doesn't exist anymore.
It's actually incredible, a proof of moral exceptionality, how much IDF spends efforts to minimize innocent life losses.
Stop this insane fake equivalence
There is no blanket code of moral justification to suffice for everything. A terrorist killing my girlfriend doesn't give me the moral justification to clean out New Mexico killing a large portion of innocent folk in the objective to remove all those who assisted in and worked towards the killing of my gf.
I wouldn't even argue that a large portion of Gazans are shitty mother****ers, but lol at thinking the IDF has done an exceptional job at minimizing innocent loss of life with the deadly attacks and the starvation of women and children that has in fact been verified.
There is no blanket code of moral justification to suffice for everything. A terrorist killing my girlfriend doesn't give me the moral justification to clean out New Mexico killing a large portion of innocent folk in the objective to remove all those who assisted in and worked towards the killing of my gf.
I wouldn't even argue that a large portion of Gazans are shitty mother****ers, but lol at thinking the IDF has done an exceptional job a
Has it been verified by people who never took the Palestinian side in the last 10-15 years? If so, who?
IDF did an exceptional job minimizing collateral damage. We never had a ratio close to, maybe lower than, 3:1 in urban warfare settings with non-evacuated civilians in history afaik.
A single terrorist killing your gf, I don't know. You don't have the tools to identify perpetrators to begin with you would be actually kill randomly.
If you had one of the best
Intelligence services in the world at your disposal though I might believe any target you choose is a reasonable choice.
Has it been verified by people who never took the Palestinian side in the last 10-15 years? If so, who?
IDF did an exceptional job minimizing collateral damage. We never had a ratio close to, maybe lower than, 3:1 in urban warfare settings with non-evacuated civilians in history afaik.
A single terrorist killing your gf, I don't know. You don't have the tools to identify perpetrators to begin with you would be actually kill randomly.
If you ha
A 3:1 ratio still puts you at a higher number than those killed on Oct 7th.
Above that, you need the belief that those excess deaths are warranted in order to prevent another oct 7th, or in your words, eliminating hamas and all entities involved. Is that being done?
Because unless you're able to completely reorganize the minds of everyone on earth, there will always be a threat that needs to be accepted without resorting to taking offensive military action.
Above that, you need the belief that those excess deaths are warranted in order to prevent another oct 7th, or in your words, eliminating hamas and all entities involved. Is that being done?
Because unless you're able to completely reorganize the minds of everyone on earth, there will always be a threat that needs to be accepted without resorting to taking offensive military action.
Everyone on earth doesn't border Israel.
Only a few places do. And Jordan looks fine and we all hope it stays fine. not perfect but not a lethal threat to Israel either.
Iran can keep existing but if Gaza, WB and Lebanon are annihilated in their military capabilities against Israel, Iran is very limited in what it can do against Israel.
I am pretty sure you can agree that right now, Hamas is weaker than on October 6th 2023. Less capable of pulling off something like 10 7.
We still have the problem of Egypt (some ppl there earning from Hamas tunnel smuggling operations) but I think they are pragmatic and rational enough that if Hamas is destroyed they can sti at a table and fix their side of things
wut, you are misinformed here
Because unless you're able to completely reorganize the minds of everyone on earth, there will always be a threat that needs to be accepted without resorting to taking offensive military action.
right, israel accepted regular rocket attacks and the property damage and occasional casualties which flowed, for decades
and then hamas sent thousands of armed young men into israel to rape and kill in an indiscriminate fashion, a thousand+ civilians were murdered, and israel was unsurprisingly not able to accept this
and then hamas sent thousands of armed young men into israel to rape and kill in an indiscriminate fashion, a thousand+ civilians were murdered, hamas leadership promised that the next attack would make oct 7 look like a dress rehearsal, and israel was unsurprisingly not able to accept this
addition
Jalfrezi, please take a break from the thread untill 12:00 AM Eastern Time for low content posting. Thank you.
Knowing that hostage negotiations have failed completely because Hamas refuses to budge from its demands that Israel leaves completely, Hamas remain in power, the world rebuilds Gaza, and only then will they start any hostage negotiations (and these maximalist demands are a non starter for Israel); and knowing Israel has done nothing but find dead hostages for months, and this may be the last chance to retrieve any live hostages; do you think Israel should have just passed on the rescue attempt because the risk for collateral damage was too high?
So details are leaking out.
Israel intelligence indicates it was 2 separate simultaneous rescues; and the rescue of the Israeli woman hostage who was being held hostage by the "doctor" and his family went smoothly; but the rescue of the 3 male hostages being held by the Al Jazeera "journalist" and his family resulted in a firefight with said "journalist" that ended up with one dead IDF soldier and the "journalist" and his family dead.
And then while driving to the extraction point 2 vehicles had mechanical issues that delayed them; and it appears this is where the IDF may have overreacted, as they laid down heavy aerial fire to buy the extraction team time, and this is probably when most of the collateral damage casualties happened. One thing we dont know is how much imminent danger the extraction team was in, and whether laying down such cover fire to buy them time was warranted or not. But hard to make these kind of decisions in the heat of the moment and the fog of war, especially when you are transporting a severely wounded soldier (who ultimately didn't make it).
As far as we know it did occur on a number of occasions. It would hardly have to be planned. There's no reason to think it was discouraged.
Agree 100%. I find it difficult to arrive at any other conclusions. Jalfrezi seems to have been, but was never really outright saying it. I have no idea what point he was trying to make.
