Israel/Gaza (Round 3)

[Integrity]

SERIOUS DISCUSSION TIP: Emotions can run high, don't unironically advocate genocide. Period. I'm not issuing any warnings for this right now because tempers were obviously running high, but I am removing the quote from dondon's signature.

EDIT: and Chiki's too, I guess.

Back to the discussion.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Integrity

[Chiki]

I see the word genocide being thrown around, especially in regards to Israel's treatment of the Palestinian territories. If Israel wanted to kill all the Palestinians, don't you think they would have done it by now? If genocide was the goal, why bother with targeted attacks?

I'm not sure if this is addressed to me, but I certainly didn't say what Israel is doing, right now, is genocide. What I said was that what Life was advocating was genocide. What Israel is doing right now is still far off from what Hitler did. It's more similar to the strategic bombing tactics used throughout WW2.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Chiki

[dondon151]

If there is to be peace, the Palestinians need vote in a government that's not hostile to Jews the world over. Maybe Israel wouldn't feel the need to block them off then.

this is pretty clear to most people; what seems to be unclear is that the israeli government seems to have no interest in even trying to regain palestinian trust. there is absolutely no way that any palestinian government is not going to be hostile towards israel because not only was the initial creation of the jewish state something to bristle over (i mean, the involved nations basically took land inhabited by arabs and gifted it to some jews), but the nature of the hostility is deeply embedded within jewish and islamic culture.

it's not possible to expect palestinians to be satisfied with their way of life especially if israel is the state imposing a bunch of economic hurdles on gaza residents. of course they would be resentful and distrustful. the israeli government seems to be convinced that the chicken came before the egg and not the other way around.

[Original Alear]

I'm quite bitter right now because I'm going to a friend's funeral in a couple of hours. Not just someone that's a friend of a friend but someone I knew well.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Just because Hamas hasn't killed more than ten civilians doesn't mean they're not trying to. In the meantime, we're not aiming for civilians but they'rr being forcibly put in our way. Or do the stories of soldiers in hospitals about being attacked by gunmen with babies in their arms not compufe?

As of 6 hours ago, my opinion has changed. Hamas is more than a political party or terrorist cell. They are living proof of an idea. The only way to wipe them out is to raze Gaza. And fuck it, I'm OK with that. Because the entire fucking population is worth less than the life of Amit Yeori and that's final.

If that's really your attitude, I don't see why it doesn't justify Palestinian civilians wanting to obliterate Israel in turn. Do you think that the only funerals people in Gaza are going to are for "a friend of a friend" or some further removed relation? Do you think that just because Israel isn't trying to aim for civilians, (a proposition I find doubtful considering that an Israeli right here is saying he's OK with Gazan annihilation), the civilian casualties are more forgivable?

I probably should not try to play internet psychologist, but I have to admit that it really seems like you feel your emotions are more privileged than others - your loss matters, their loss does not, because your loss impacts you while their loss is irrelevant - patently self centered, in other words. I certainly agree that your loss matters, but I wouldn't brush the other side's under the rug just because of that.

Edited July 27, 2014 by SeverIan

[dondon151]

b'tselem seems to be a rather reliable source for statistics on recent conflicts involving israel: http://www.btselem.org/

[Life]

I'm not prone to outbursts like that and like Phoenix pointed out (which all of you convieniently missed), I've been greiving for a good friend for the past 24 hours. Today was the hardest day of my life and I wouldn't wish that kind of pain upon my worst enemy. The Jerusalem Post actually caught a picture of me and put it in the article about Yaori.

Look, I'll comment in a bit when my emotions get sorted but I truly appreciate the personal attacks while I was clearly in pain. Real nice.

[Chiki]

I've been greiving for a good friend for the past 24 hours.

And Palestinians have been grieving for their family members, among other things. You should consider being a lot more considerate. Severlan's analysis was spot-on.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Chiki

[Integrity]

Before that train of thought even leaves the station, let's be crystal clear about something.

Life's original post was in terrible taste. I already said something about that about three posts ago, remember? He has, since then, come the closest I've ever seen him come to apologizing for it.

This

And Palestinians have been grieving for their family members, among other things. You should consider being a lot more considerate. Severlan's analysis was spot-on.

is not the proper response to his blowup. I'll have more personal words for you once I'm done typing this but everyone after this, if you're considering taking a snipe now, do not.

Thank you very much.

[Original Alear]

Life, what you said were just words, and I my regard for you is barely affected by what you said. You have been shown to be susceptible to anger and sorrow, neither of which is uncommon among humankind. I have said things I've quickly regretted, and even thought things I'm ashamed to have thought - I'm not proud of (for instance) sometimes wishing that all child molesters be executed. I also know that you are in a position I have never been in, as none of the relatives or close friends I have have ever (to my knowledge) even been seriously injured by another person with violent intent, although 9/11 was a frightening day for my dad, and extending from that the rest of my family. Somewhat bizarrely from my perspective, I did know someone who died on 9/11 from completely unrelated circumstances during his morning run.

But on a forum that's committed to serious discussion, I reserve the right to post about what I think your posted opinions mean, providing the mods and/or admins think I'm in line with the rules. If you don't want your words to be responded to, then why post them? I don't see why I should have coddled the opinion that the a whole swathe of people should be systematically extinguished, and I'm surprised if you thought that opinion was going to be received universally with open arms as a form of condolences.

Edited July 28, 2014 by SeverIan

[Phoenix Wright]

But on a forum that's committed to serious discussion, I reserve the right to post about what I think your posted opinions mean, providing the mods and/or admins think I'm in line with the rules. If you don't want your words to be responded to, then why post them? I don't see why I should have coddled the opinion that the a whole swathe of people should be systematically extinguished, and I'm surprised if you thought that opinion was going to be received universally with open arms as a form of condolences.

when you lose someone very special, especially if the person was killed or by a similarly gruesome circumstance, one of the very first emotions to hit you is extremely intense anger. that, in addition to denial and of course, a very, very deep sadness. you can't think, you can't hear anyone or anything around you; you feel like an empty husk of a human. amidst of those emotions, you're very likely to feel or say something you don't mean. for instance, when i was pretty young, my dad passed and i was led to believe that a particular individual had simply let him die. i wanted nothing more than that man dead in those first days of finding out. it's not that big of a stretch to me that life said what he said, because in my instance it was "that man killed my dad so he should die," but in his eyes it's, "those people killed my friend so they should die." in other words, he generalized because a) it's a military conflict so individuality is lost (ie, who specifically killed who doesn't matter, it's pure us v. them), and b) imo he didn't know what he was saying at the time anyway.

not saying everyone is like this, but life seems to be responding to the death of a loved one in a similar manner that i did so i feel like i understand a little more.

i'm also not saying that people get a free pass to say whatever the fuck they want when someone dies in their life, but i personally believe people should try to be on the nicer side when responding to heinous comments that may be made.

ps. i would also like to apologize in advance if i may have somehow belittled any of your past experiences.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[Original Alear]

Sorry, I apologize for my second post. It really lost relevance to the topic at hand, since Life recanted his comment. If Phoenix or Life actually want further responses then I'll provide them happily (I had one for Phoenix prior to posting this), otherwise I'm going to abstain unless/until discussion returns to the conflict.

[Magical CC]

this is a really good excuse to shut down discussion about any topic: make a dubious claim that you know more about the topic than everyone else, and then assert that everyone else's opinions are null for that reason. it dashes all pretense of intellectual honesty.

remind me to take you less seriously in the future, thanks.

Not everyone, but some. And I said "should not", not "cant" or "must not". And yes, how sad it is when people who know nothing about the conflict keep posting in this topic just because of the current event. Clueless people contribute nothing to the discussion, like little Chiki or you.

You dont have the proof that I dont know more about the conflict than you do. You didnt contribute to anything in this topic yet you still call what I said "dubious claim". At least Chiki gave us some quack quack discussions as usual. Talking about taking me less seriously while you made a joke out of yourself. Great!

Edited July 29, 2014 by Char

[Life]

Ok, I'm better now. So let's review the facts.

1. Like I said before and any statictical analysis will back it up is that less children and women have been killed than "many". "Many" is the term usually used but it's flat out wrong.

Remember when I said that over 80% of dead male "civilians" are between the ages of 18 and 38? The only way that could be only civilian casualties is if the word "civilian" is given to every dead person in Gaza. And for the record, I'd like to note that the response I got was "but what about those 4 kids on a beach?". If you're going to villify Israel for that, remember back to when America was carpet bombing Afghanistan with no indescretion. Were you up in arms about that?

2. Palestinians are dying too but it's not because Israel is intentionally trying to kill them. In fact, Israel can't be at fault for the Palestinians' problems with Hamas because Hamas was voted in as the government in 2007. Mind you, this was after a very bloody civil war (which involved real massacres) that got very little media coverage, and so I ask again, why didn't any of you cry foul then?

In case I was misheard or you read that wrong, I'll write it again. The Palestinians knowingly voted Hamas into power. If you want to point fingers, better point at a mirror.

3. Forget the invasion for a second. Israeli casualties are so low because of the Iron Dome. A first of its kind rocket interception device that was developed out of necessity. These aren't pebbles that Hamas are tossing at us. They're hardly poorly armed. Hell, they have millions of RPG-7s and 29s scattered across Gaza. We're just better at defding ourselves than they are at killing us.

But does this mean that the only moral thing for us to do is to scurry to a bomb shelter every time and not retaliate? Because the Iron Dome isn't perfect. Do you believe that Israelis should die just so the Palestinians don't? If yes, your agenda is pro-Hamas. If no, then get off your high horse and try living here before tossing out your two cents.

[jiodi]

I know personal experience is important, but historical analysis is also a factor. As well as an outside perspective. I generally only read overseas news sources for domestic news, for instance. I don't want my emotional investment in something obfuscate the facts. When you are in it, have an emotional stake in it and only see what you have in front of you it is helpful to see how others see it to keep your bearings. I'm sorry for your loss, but you really can't open up the discussion then call everyone who disagrees with your point Hamas-sympathizers and sitting on high horses and all that. It's a discussion, there will be points that are not the same as yours.

Hamas was supported and encouraged by Israel in the beginning to counterbalance the Fatah party or whatever. Israeli politics uses the same tools US politics does. Find a bad guy, make em the bad guy for everything, get away with anything. Causing a rift between Palestinians was perfect and gave Israeli propaganda a bad guy.

And no one is defending Hamas, here, because that's ludicrous. You don't just lob rockets into a country cause you aren't getting what you want. The Hamas propaganda has shifted to "Israel is the bad guys look at em bein bad and stuff we're outgunned and outmatched". THEN STOP FUCKING FIRING ROCKETS INTO THE COUNTRY JESUS FRIGGIN OMG WTF WHY.

The issue here is the Israeli government blowing the shit out of civilians in Gaza under the guise of eliminating Hamas or their weapons caches or whatever. And when civilians die the Israeli administration says it's all Hamas fault. This is such obvious propaganda and anyone on the outside looking at it objectively can see that. Hell, the US is the reigning king of propaganda so it all seems like a pissing match for who can garner the most international support.

This is insanity.

[Life]

Fair ponts but couple of things.

Israel "supported" Fatah instead of Hamas. Important because Fatah is the less psycho group.

Also, I can call out ignorance when you compare civ casaulties because someone here already did.

[jiodi]

Sure, nowadays. But check this out:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123275572295011847

Now I'm not saying this is truth or that guy is the be-all-end-all and knows everything, but from what he's saying it makes sense. In a lot of ways it's how we saw, say, Middle Eastern dictators take over (thanks, US, herdereder) and then get steamrolled or treated like the awful terrible bad guys (regardless of whether they were or not--though they mostly were).

My enemy's enemy is my friend. Until they take up the mantle of my enemy after taking them down. Then they're my enemy.

[eclipse]

Not everyone, but some. And I said "should not", not "cant" or "must not". And yes, how sad it is when people who know nothing about the conflict keep posting in this topic just because of the current event. Clueless people contribute nothing to the discussion, like little Chiki or you.

You dont have the proof that I dont know more about the conflict than you do. You didnt contribute to anything in this topic yet you still call what I said "dubious claim". At least Chiki gave us some quack quack discussions as usual. Talking about taking me less seriously while you made a joke out of yourself. Great!

I will say this only ONCE more. You are in no position to say who should and shouldn't post in a topic.

[Eail]

I'll just leave this here, if you're a little squeemish stay away from it, but if you can handle a some warzone stuff, do check it out.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Red Fox of Fire
Spoiler for safety

[dondon151]

the quote function isn't working where i'm posting from, but here's my response to char:

rather than "everyone," i meant "all opponents." it means the same thing. i'm not fooled by this little trick of words, and neither should anyone else.

the burden of proof is not on me to prove that you don't know more than i do; the burden of proof is on you to prove that you do know more than i do, and if your position is inherently in favor of one side, then it deserves skepticism. a quick perusal of this thread has shown that you have not cited a single source, which suggests that your claim that other people such as chiki or me "know nothing" about the conflict at hand is based in either a vested interest or evidence of a more anecdotal nature (e.g., you live in israel). life also made a claim along similar lines: that we should shut up if we haven't lived in israel. i can at least attest to chiki's character that he tries to be philosophically rigorous.

similarly, an attempt to handwave casualty figures reeks of intellectual dishonesty. these figures are available to both warring parties and should reveal the true nature of their goals. to imply that israel's hand is forced despite mounting military involvement contravenes any possible logical conclusion. i will echo jiodi's point here: everyone knows that hamas wants gaza to look like israel's whipping boy, so how does this line of action make sense?

Edited July 31, 2014 by dondon151

[Life]

I can't cite sources well as I'm on my phone but we'll try right now.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/israel-revolt/italian-reporter-confirms-deaths-al-shati-result-hamas-misfire-not-israeli-missile#.U9gyhmkCf1I.twitter

This is from a reporter who was covering the Al-Shati accident. This is Hamas hitting their own civilians (not on purpose) but then showing no respect by blaming Israel and silencing reporters. Might be Twitter but it still counts.

Israel's hand is forced. If rockets were raining down on the USA, do you honestly expect to believe that you wouldn't do anything about it? I'd like you to explain your reasoning.

[BBM]

I sympathize with Israel, but for me, this is the main argument against Israel's actions, not the argument that Israel is actually trying to take over Gaza or whatever horsecrap that makes no sense.

I believe that the majority of Israel does not want to kill innocent civilians in Gaza, and that they are trying to minimize casualties. I believe that Hamas is using the civilians as shields, and I believe that they'll never stop until either they're done or Israel is. But because of the Iron Dome, there are very few deaths in Israel due to the Hamas's rockets. What's more important- nationalistic pride about defending your own country from a threat that has, at the end of the day, not actually killed very many people? Or the hundreds of civilians that, despite Israel's efforts, ARE dying in Gaza? If Hamas is going so far as to place bases under UN bomb shelters, and the only way to eradicate them is to literally remove the very last shelters for the innocent, is it worth it? What if, to eradicate Hamas completely and be completely sure that the threat to Israel is over, it is actually necessary to kill thousands and thousands of civilians there? Where do you draw the line?

In fact, there can be no line. There is no point to a half-hearted offence that only wipes out half of Hamas, from any perspective, unless Hamas itself changes its tune. Either you completely hide behind the Iron Dome and tell your citizens to wait it out, or continue the bombings until Hamas is finished, completely. But it's been decades and decades since the conflict in that area originally started. At some point, it will stop becoming about the fact that Israel took land they considered their own, and about the fact that Israel killed their parents, their kids, their siblings, etc. More than a thousand civilians are already dead, and Hamas isn't even done yet. How many terrorists will be created from the ashes of this conflict? How many people who would have lived (comparatively) normal lives if Israel had just decided to be the bigger nation? Israel has complete right to its aggressive defence- but terrorism is a cycle. If wiping out Hamas right now means not only killing however many civilians right now, but also propagating the hatred, and having to do this all over again in 20-30 years- is exercising that right worth it?

EDIT: It could even be argued that Hamas would never have been elected were it not for Israel's previous military actions there, which I think was a point in one of the articles linked earlier.

Edited July 31, 2014 by BBM

[Life]

So the latest ceasefire (a 72 hour humanitarian ceasefire) lasted 2 hours and 3 minutes before rockets came from Hamas. And they used a suicide bomber as a diversion to kidnap a soldier.

That's fucked up. Like I said, these people aren't in this for peace. They want Jihad and they're not going to stop after Israel. The next target will be the USA afterwards.

Now tell me that Israel is the evil one here.

[BBM]

Speaking from a purely logical perspective, Hamas being evil, and worse than Israel, doesn't mean that Israel can't be evil too.

I don't think that anybody for a single moment has argued that Hamas is well-intentioned, or that they're more in the right than Israel. But that doesn't mean Israel is right either.

[Raven]

What can you do when a group in charge of a country doesn't give a single fuck about their own civilians? To store soldiers and armaments amongst their innocent civilians is plain evil in the highest regards. I can't think of a more shitty thing that could be done short of bombing your own country just to kill your own people.

I for one support the Israeli attempts to cleanse Palestine of the Hamas and their terrorist organisation . Civilians are going to continue to die because the Hamas don't give a fuck about Palestine or their population; they know exactly what they are doing to make Israel look like shit for killing civilians as they attempt to take out Hamas targets.

This is my opinion based on what I've read up on the situation so far. Am I wrong in thinking this?

[Tryhard]

On that ceasefire: Israel Radio reported a clash between Palestinian militants and Israeli forces.

Gaza's Health Ministry said an Israeli tank fire killed four Palestinians in the southern city of Rafah, the Associated Press reported. The Israeli military had no immediate comment.

One of them is lying, or both Israel and Palestine are "evil".

Edited August 1, 2014 by Tryhard