Israeli - Palestinian Conflict *Threadbans in OP*

nacho libre

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

Hizbullah were not reluctant to take on Israel, Hizbullah were acting in their strategic interests by gaining a political foothold in key Lebanese Ministries.

.

They seem to be reluctant to engage in another war with Israel since 2006. They likely have calculated that Israel having learnt the lessons from the previous war, might take things further next time, which may threaten the gains Hizbollah have made in Lebanon's political infrastructure since then.

JimmyVik

For the racists among us.
I would just like to point out that all Jews are not Israeli

nacho libre

Biker79 wrote: »

Doesn't have to be that way though - Israel is the only liberal democracy capable of bringing increased living standards to its neighbours. If only certain groups were able to engage and negotiate...

How is that working out for Palestnians in the West Bank?

The Israeli right have no interest in a settlement with the Palestnians. This is abundantly clear from their actions.

Overheal

Pussyhands wrote: »

Did you support 9/11?

Did you support ISIS beheading American journalists?

Did you support the gunning down of Irish people on a Tunisian beach?

Clutching at whatabout straws

McFly85

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Have to agree with John Mcguirk's article about the conflict here. For balance you can read Tim Jackson gives argue against Israel's actions

https://twitter.com/griptmedia/status/1394237950498590721?s=19

This article has the same issues that almost all pro-Israeli viewpoints have, completely ignoring any negative Israeli action and blaming the Palestinians for the current situation.

tayto lover

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Have to agree with John Mcguirk's article about the conflict here. For balance you can read Tim Jackson gives argue against Israel's actions

https://twitter.com/griptmedia/status/1394237950498590721?s=19

Why is it up to the Palestinians?
The Israelis started the land grabbing and evictions before a rocket was fired.
The Israelis wanted the rockets fired so that they could respond. Certain people needed stay in power.

Overheal

Gaming blogs shared stories that went against the Israeli narrative and were quashed.

https://kotaku.com/ign-takes-down-article-and-tweet-sharing-palestinian-ai-1846905689

IGN posted a story supporting Palestine which led IGN Israel into complaining and having parent company tear it down. IGN Africa posted the same story and it was removed. Other outlets have also had their reporting deleted with minimal communication why.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Clutching at whatabout straws

Overheal, you do love to shout about whataboutism but it's a valid point that deserves further thought.

I, personally, do not support Israel and have my grievances about Zionism but if the same allowances are given for the Palestinian struggle, there are direct comparisons between the reasoning behind the mentioned attacks.

It's a horrible situation which I genuinely would love to see resolved but shouting whataboutism when you can't answer without admitting some semblance of hypocrisy is lazy and doesn't further the conversation.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Overheal, you do love to shout about whataboutism but it's a valid point that deserves further thought.

I, personally, do not support Israel and have my grievances about Zionism but if the same allowances are given for the Palestinian struggle, there are direct comparisons between the reasoning behind the mentioned attacks.

It's a horrible situation which I genuinely would love to see resolved but shouting whataboutism when you can't answer without admitting some semblance of hypocrisy is lazy and doesn't further the conversation.

No, what is lazy is the whataboutisms. It’s logical fallacy. It is deflection. It is the innate inability to argue within the scope of the topic. “What about ISIS beheading so and so?” ISIS isn’t in this conversation. Israel and Palestine are.

namloc1980

Deleted User wrote: »

Overheal, you do love to shout about whataboutism but it's a valid point that deserves further thought.

I, personally, do not support Israel and have my grievances about Zionism but if the same allowances are given for the Palestinian struggle, there are direct comparisons between the reasoning behind the mentioned attacks.

It's a horrible situation which I genuinely would love to see resolved but shouting whataboutism when you can't answer without admitting some semblance of hypocrisy is lazy and doesn't further the conversation.

Invoking 9/11, as that poster did, is just drawing false equivalences that are not valid points and add nothing to this debate. 9/11 has nothing to do with the ongoing Palestinian-Israel conflict and it is nothing but whataboutery to try to introduce it.

Overheal

John Oliver not shy to level the responsibility on Israel

John Oliver addressed the ongoing violence occurring in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories on Sunday night — mincing no words when it came to the history of the crisis.

“They’ve been living under a suffocating blockade for 14 years, and in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, Palestinians are essentially being governed by a form of apartheid—an assessment echoed by both international and Israeli human rights groups,” said Oliver on Sunday’s Last Week Tonight.

“Life in Gaza is hard even when they’re not being bombed, and the U.S. government has implicitly co-signed on the brutally hard line Israel’s been taking.”

While the host dedicated the bulk of his segment to “stand your ground” laws, which were used to exonerate George Zimmerman for shooting and killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin and in 2012.


“It seems all you have to do is memorize a few key phrases and you too can be free to shoot with impunity,” he said. “It’s basically Rosetta Stone for justified homicide.”

Before going after gun laws in the United States, the host tackled the current violence, largely prompted by the impending expulsions of thirteen Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah — an East Jerusalem neighborhood.

The Israel’s Supreme Court is set to deliver a ruling on the removal of these families, which are legal under laws that allow Israelis to file claims over that land, claiming that they owned it prior to the Nakba in 1948.

Palestinians, however, have no right to claim any land they lost following the Nakba, which forced out hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

Discussing the ongoing airstrikes, the host took issue with those placing blame on “both sides.”

“One side has suffered over 10 times the casualties, something which speaks to both the severe power imbalance at play here and how that often gets obscured by how we choose to talk about it,” he said. “But this week’s actually been a pretty good reminder that while some things are incredibly complex and require a great deal of context, others are just wrong.”

According to Al Jazeera, “At least 192 people, including 58 children and 34 women, have been killed in the Gaza Strip since the latest violence began a week ago. Israel has reported 10 dead, including two children.”

Introducing Otium
Sponsored by Introducing Otium
Finding Your Flow with @sianfujikawa
SEE MORE

“Both sides are firing rockets, but one side has the most advanced military in the world,” he said. “But one side is suffering them exponentially.”

Oliver also went after Israeli officials for justifying the rockets sent into residential buildings and buildings hosting the offices of media outlets, such as Associated Press and Al Jazeera.

“For the record, destroying a civilian residence sure seems like a war crime,” he said. “Regardless of whether you send a courtesy heads-up text.”

The host called attention to Israel’s Iron Dome, saying that the conflict is not “tit-for-tat.”

“There is a massive imbalance when it comes to the two sides’ weaponry and capabilities. While most of the rockets aimed toward Israeli citizens this week were intercepted, Israel’s airstrikes were not,” he said, later adding, “And while Israel insisted that there were military targets in that building and they destroyed it as humanely as possible, even warning people to evacuate it beforehand, destroying a civilian residence sure seems like a war crime, regardless of whether you send a courtesy heads-up text.”

The host also went after President Joe Biden’s support of Israel’s right to defend itself, claiming that the argument “cannot be used to excuse absolutely everything.”

“Multiple children have been killed this week and the U.S. is heavily implicated here,” he continued, faulting the U.S. for “constantly refusing to criticize the indefensible.”

Watch above, via HBO Max.

https://www.mediaite.com/entertainment/john-oliver-accuses-israel-of-committing-war-crimes-against-palestinians-and-practicing-apartheid/

carlirl

seamus wrote: »

The naivety of this statement.

Israel won't allow the rocket strikes to stop. They embed their own agents at the top levels of Hamas to stir sh1t up.

Is this a serious post, be hilarious if it wasn`t so serious?? !!

anyway seems sleepy joe needs to balance the books

14:21
Biden approves $735m arms sale to Israel - report
Joe Biden

US President Joe Biden has approved a $735 million sale of precision-guided weapons to Israel, the Washington Post has reported
.

Is it true that destroying civilian residence is a war crime in and of itself, irrespective of the civilian residence's proximity to opposing military quarters and stores?

"Sure seems like a war crime" is just propagandistic narrative setting by this lefty comedian if it is not actually a war crime.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is it true that destroying civilian residence is a war crime in and of itself, irrespective of the civilian residence's proximity to opposing military quarters and stores?

"Sure seems like a war crime" is just propagandistic narrative setting by this lefty comedian if it is not actually a war crime.

What does that even mean?

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it true that destroying civilian residence is a war crime in and of itself, irrespective of the civilian residence's proximity to opposing military quarters and stores?

"Sure seems like a war crime" is just propagandistic narrative setting by this lefty comedian if it is not actually a war crime.

IDF headquarters are in downtown Tel Aviv, and Israeli army radio are located in a civilian tower block. Are those valid military targets as well?

carlirl

Overheal wrote: »

What does that even mean?

Citizens house beside Army barracks

maybe??

wes

wes wrote: »

IDF headquarters are in downtown Tel Aviv, and Israeli army radio are located in a civilian tower block. Are those valid military targets as well?

I don't know. What do you think? When Hamas launch their thousands of rockets toward residential areas in Israel, are they trying to hit those targets? Are they committing war crimes?

namloc1980

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it true that destroying civilian residence is a war crime in and of itself, irrespective of the civilian residence's proximity to opposing military quarters and stores?

"Sure seems like a war crime" is just propagandistic narrative setting by this lefty comedian if it is not actually a war crime.

It is against the Geneva Conventions to destroy civilian property (including houses) and to target civilians unless it is absolutely necessary from a military perspective. Of course Israel will say it is because they claim Hamas store weapons in peoples houses and that's where it gets complicated.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

What does that even mean?

I refuse to believe that you need to ask this question, but since you did:

John Oliver is quoted as saying "And while Israel insisted that there were military targets in that building and they destroyed it as humanely as possible, even warning people to evacuate it beforehand, destroying a civilian residence sure seems like a war crime"

I'm asking if that's true. Legally, not morally.

If Hamas sets up a store in the basement of a residential block, for example, and houses a bunch of rockets there that Israel sincerely believes are going to be used in an imminent attack, is destroying that store considered a war crime based on the proximity of it to the civilian residence?

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

It is against the Geneva Conventions to destroy civilian property (including houses) and to target civilians unless it is absolutely necessary from a military perspective. Of course Israel will say it is because they claim Hamas store weapons in peoples houses and that's where it gets complicated.

No kidding.

Thank you for the response.

namloc1980

Deleted User wrote: »

I refuse to believe that you need to ask this question, but since you did:

John Oliver is quoted as saying "And while Israel insisted that there were military targets in that building and they destroyed it as humanely as possible, even warning people to evacuate it beforehand, destroying a civilian residence sure seems like a war crime"

I'm asking if that's true. Legally, not morally.

If Hamas sets up a store in the basement of a residential block, for example, and houses a bunch of rockets there that Israel sincerely believes are going to be used in an imminent attack, is destroying that store considered a war crime based on the proximity of it to the civilian residence?

Not necessarily, but the burden of proof falls squarely on the attacker. If they are in doubt or have no proof and only "believe" it to be the case then it is a war crime.

carlirl

Lets hear what Mrs Merkel has to say,

"German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called for an end to the violence as soon as possible while speaking with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

However, she expressed Germany's "solidarity" with Israel in the conflict.

"The chancellor again sharply condemned the continued rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel and assured the prime minister of the German government's solidarity," her spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said.

"She reaffirmed Israel's right to defend itself against the attacks."

namloc1980

carlirl wrote: »

Lets hear what Mrs Merkel has to say,

"German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called for an end to the violence as soon as possible while speaking with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

However, she expressed Germany's "solidarity" with Israel in the conflict.

"The chancellor again sharply condemned the continued rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel and assured the prime minister of the German government's solidarity," her spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said.

"She reaffirmed Israel's right to defend itself against the attacks."

I wonder does Merkel actually believe this is a one sided affair. I suspect the reality is that as the German Chancellor she understands the weight of history and could not possibility be seen to criticise Israel here.

wes

namloc1980 wrote: »

I wonder does Merkel actually believe this is a one sided affair. I suspect the reality is that as the German Chancellor she understands the weight of history and could not possibility be seen to criticise Israel here.

Honestly, I think the Palestinians, should just start on the Germans, by saying they are paying for German crimes. Basically, time to start shaming them openly.

Lucy8080

namloc1980 wrote: »

It is against the Geneva Conventions to destroy civilian property (including houses) and to target civilians unless it is absolutely necessary from a military perspective. Of course Israel will say it is because they claim Hamas store weapons in peoples houses and that's where it gets complicated.

It is a miracle of modern technology, that Israel always seem to find an Hamas target .

It is strange that children/civilian dead seem also to be living exactly were Hamas are stationed!

It could also be Bullsh1t , and maybe Israel needs to have a chat with itself.

Timberrrrrrrr

carlirl wrote: »

Lets hear what Mrs Merkel has to say,

"German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called for an end to the violence as soon as possible while speaking with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

However, she expressed Germany's "solidarity" with Israel in the conflict.

"The chancellor again sharply condemned the continued rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel and assured the prime minister of the German government's solidarity," her spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said.

"She reaffirmed Israel's right to defend itself against the attacks."

Does she speak for everyone? All Germans or just herself?

Fandymo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't know. What do you think? When Hamas launch their thousands of rockets toward residential areas in Israel, are they trying to hit those targets? Are they committing war crimes?

Not according to the IDF. Most Israelis citizens do military service, so they must all be legitimate targets by their own logic.

cnocbui

namloc1980 wrote: »

I wonder does Merkel actually believe this is a one sided affair. I suspect the reality is that as the German Chancellor she understands the weight of history and could not possibility be seen to criticise Israel here.

Same problem with Ursala von der Layen, she's also German and her apparant support of Israel is likely rooted in German inability to be neutral on the topic lest they be reminded for the 7 millionth time of their forebears crimes.

She's a doctor, which for me makes her statements even worse. As Germans are clearly compromised in being able to speak on this issue, it's probably not a great idea to have a German heading up the EU at this time.

Hoboo

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know. What do you think? When Hamas launch their thousands of rockets toward residential areas in Israel, are they trying to hit those targets? Are they committing war crimes?

According to the Israeli army, Hamas has fired 3000 rockets into Israel in the past week. The iron curtain intercepted 1000.

Where did the other 2000 land?

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

No, what is lazy is the whataboutisms. It’s logical fallacy. It is deflection. It is the innate inability to argue within the scope of the topic. “What about ISIS beheading so and so?” ISIS isn’t in this conversation. Israel and Palestine are.

I disagree.

I think it's good to put up some comparisons to see if your position is consistent over different scenarios or to see if you pick and choose when you apply the same standards.

The inability to answer to such indicates that you are aware you hold a bias that doesn't hold up.

Deflection would be trying to drag it off topic. This isn't doing so. It's holding up the same standards across different scenarios.

You know this.

The real deflection is shouting "whataboutism" for any question you are uncomfortable answering.