Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Tigers!]

Yes, there are some people who can be bothered to do their homework and actually care about what is true.

It is interesting how bizarrely off base the pro-palestinian narrative is, so that anyone with a balanced view comes across as pro-israeli.

Frankly, I don't remember you posting anything to back up your posts. LD did and you ignored it. You just make declarative statements just like Barbos does.

Israel / Palestine relations are well covered. The problem isn't a lack of information. Its simply how it's interpreted.

With Israel/Palestine, I see nothing but accusation and finger pointing. I rarely ever see information. Israel has an agenda, Hamas has an agenda, Palestine has an agenda. I watch news coverage of the area with so much salt, I almost treat it all as fiction. I watch coverage of Palestinians, and I see potential for manipulation. In fact, it is all I see. Look at the children, how are they behaving, is it organic. Trying to parse the hidden information into the actual news. It isn't easy.

In general, the only thing I really can go by that I feel has any value are protests and their size, as that would help project internal feelings about what is going on.

Sadly that is all so true.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Coats' arguments are rediculous and wildly off base.

What specifically was Coates' arguments you disagree with.

His biased emotionally charged tone. The whole thing was an emotionally charged opinion piece.

I saw him tell of being stopped by soldiers and demanded he tell the soldiers his religion. That Palestinians cannot walk down certain streets while Israelis can.

Ehe... context! Because it's relevant for the soldiers to check? If you aren't aware Israel is at war, (and has been, on and off, since it's founding). Israelis are just doing what they need to do to survive. When a situation is dangerous and volatile enough you can't just naively stand back. Israel has security checks everywhere. While also only having the security checks they need. It's a dangerous place.

Settlers murder Palestinians (akin to lynching). Throw Palestinians out of their own homes. Burn their crops.

What's the context for these specific siezures? There's a constant problem with Palestinians moving into properties and land they don't own or have a right to and then cry about being evicted. That's a general problem with the Palestinians. They see all Jews as illegal squaters. They see the entire country as illegal, and not worthy of respect.

The main difference between the settlers and the Palestinians is that the settlers are good at working the Israeli system. They exploit legal loopholes and grey areas all the time. Yes, they're cunts. But the Palestinians often just ignore the law. Just use their feelings for what they have a right to. That's not how the law works. The Palestinians often don't think they need to respect Israeli law at all. In their mind they have a legal right to anything held by Israel

Let's say for argument say that the IDF evicts an illegal Palestinian squater, I could use your above quote, and it wouldn't be illegal or wrong. Apart from the murder (which I assume that was Coat's hyperbole). On the murder part, the settlers have attention from the entire world. There's cameras everywhere. If the settlers start murdering Palestinians, the plethora of cameras should catch it. We'd know. In the Ukraine, which is a worse mess than Israel, we're awash with films or all kinds of attrocities. Where are the films and photos of all these alleged settler crimes? Palestinians... as everyone today... have smartphones.

I'll reiterate. I don't think Coats cares about the truth, or the Palestinians. I think all Coats cares about is getting attention for himself. Whipping his hobbyhorse, ie racism in USA.

 

[Arctish]

Settlers murder Palestinians (akin to lynching). Throw Palestinians out of their own homes. Burn their crops.

What's the context for these specific siezures? There's a constant problem with Palestinians moving into properties and land they don't own or have a right to and then cry about being evicted. That's a general problem with the Palestinians.

What evidence do you have that supports this claim?

Are Palestinians moving into properties and land they don't own inside Israel's 1967 borders, or outside of them? If it's happening inside, how are the Palestinians evading the checkpoints or deceiving the soldiers manning them? Are they using fake IDs or something?

If it's happening outside the 1967 borders, then you're talking about the Occupied Territories. Israel has no legal right to claim ownership of the West Bank or Gaza, only an asserted Right in defiance of international law. And it has no legitimate say in who does or does not own land there, or over who can live where.

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not citizens of Israel, they are not living in Israel, and they have no obligation to follow, or even respect, Israeli laws.

They see all Jews as illegal squaters. They see the entire country as illegal, and not worthy of respect.

Some see the immigrants from Europe that way, sure, especially the immigrants who arrived illegally. But I doubt you'd be able to show that Palestinians don't recognize Palestinian Jews as part of the Palestinian people before the Europeans arrived in droves. If you do have examples, I'd like to see them. The last time I looked into the matter, I kept finding Palestinians talking about their Jewish Palestinian grandmothers and great-grandmothers and how Israel refuses to treat them as equals to Europeans who have a European Jewish ancestor.

Anyway, the PLO, acting as the governing body of the Palestinian people and the foundation of the Palestinian Authority, recognized the State of Israel and ceded the land inside Israel's 1967 borders to it when the Oslo Accords were negotiated. The position of the PA has not changed since then: what is inside the 1967 borders belongs to the State of Israel, what is outside of them doesn't.

The main difference between the settlers and the Palestinians is that the settlers are good at working the Israeli system.

The main difference is that the settlers are Jews and the Palestinians aren't.

Netanyahu has clearly said that Israel is the Jewish State, and that everything it does is for the benefit of Jews alone. The Israeli version of the Supreme Court has affirmed that position. Israel is a religious ethno-state. If you think anything else matters as much there as one's religious/ethnic identity, you are mistaken.

 

[ZiprHead]

Coats' arguments are rediculous and wildly off base.

What specifically was Coates' arguments you disagree with.

His biased emotionally charged tone. The whole thing was an emotionally charged opinion piece.

Tone??? If he said the same words in a differant tone would you have paid more attention?

I saw him tell of being stopped by soldiers and demanded he tell the soldiers his religion. That Palestinians cannot walk down certain streets while Israelis can.

Ehe... context! Because it's relevant for the soldiers to check? If you aren't aware Israel is at war, (and has been, on and off, since it's founding). Israelis are just doing what they need to do to survive. When a situation is dangerous and volatile enough you can't just naively stand back. Israel has security checks everywhere. While also only having the security checks they need. It's a dangerous place.

Israel is at war with HAMAS. HAMAS is in Gaza, not the west bank. Maybe the Palestinians should be placed somewhere where they can be separated from Israelis. Maybe some sort of camps where they can be concentrated.

Settlers murder Palestinians (akin to lynching). Throw Palestinians out of their own homes. Burn their crops.

What's the context for these specific siezures? There's a constant problem with Palestinians moving into properties and land they don't own or have a right to and then cry about being evicted. That's a general problem with the Palestinians. They see all Jews as illegal squaters. They see the entire country as illegal, and not worthy of respect.

C'mon. You cannot be this obtuse. You know full well none of those settlements are illegal. If you don't, you should

Since the occupation of the West Bank in 1967, numerous United Nations resolutions, including 446, 452, 465, 471 and 476 affirm unambiguously that Israel's occupation is illegal,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Israeli_settlements#cite_note-FOOTNOTEColeman2014202-53"> 45 and, since Resolution 446 adopted on 22 March 1979, have confirmed that its settlements there have no legal validity and pose a serious obstacle to peace.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Israeli_settlements#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlecher2018124-54">

Then to turn it around and blame the victims is just dickish.

The main difference between the settlers and the Palestinians is that the settlers are good at working the Israeli system. They exploit legal loopholes and grey areas all the time. Yes, they're cunts. But the Palestinians often just ignore the law. Just use their feelings for what they have a right to. That's not how the law works. The Palestinians often don't think they need to respect Israeli law at all. In their mind they have a legal right to anything held by Israel

The law is on the side of the Palestinians in the West Bank.

Let's say for argument say that the IDF evicts an illegal Palestinian squater, I could use your above quote, and it wouldn't be illegal or wrong. Apart from the murder (which I assume that was Coat's hyperbole). On the murder part, the settlers have attention from the entire world. There's cameras everywhere. If the settlers start murdering Palestinians, the plethora of cameras should catch it. We'd know. In the Ukraine, which is a worse mess than Israel, we're awash with films or all kinds of attrocities. Where are the films and photos of all these alleged settler crimes? Palestinians... as everyone today... have smartphones.

I'll reiterate. I don't think Coats cares about the truth, or the Palestinians. I think all Coats cares about is getting attention for himself. Whipping his hobbyhorse, ie racism in USA.

Your BS is duly noted and rejected.

 

[Derec]

Israel is at war with HAMAS. HAMAS is in Gaza, not the west bank.

Hamas runs Gaza, but it is very much present in Judea and Samaria as well.
Moreover, other terror groups such as Islamic Jihad have joined the fight against Israel with Hamas, and they are also very much present in the West Bank.
Example: Israel says Hamas leader killed on third day of West Bank operation

The Israeli military says it has killed the head of the Palestinian armed group Hamas in Jenin and two other fighters, as a major operation continues for a third day in the north of the occupied West Bank.
Israeli security forces shot dead Wissam Khazem and then carried out air strikes on the other two as they attempted to flee, a statement said.
The Palestinian health ministry said the three men were killed overnight near the town of Zababdeh, south-east of Jenin. Hamas also confirmed their deaths.

The claim that there is no Hamas in the West Bank is laughable!

Maybe some sort of camps where they can be concentrated.

I see Godwin is strong with you.

 

[ZiprHead]

Israel is at war with HAMAS. HAMAS is in Gaza, not the west bank.

Hamas runs Gaza, but it is very much present in Judea and Samaria as well.
Moreover, other terror groups such as Islamic Jihad have joined the fight against Israel with Hamas, and they are also very much present in the West Bank.
Example: Israel says Hamas leader killed on third day of West Bank operation

The Israeli military says it has killed the head of the Palestinian armed group Hamas in Jenin and two other fighters, as a major operation continues for a third day in the north of the occupied West Bank.
Israeli security forces shot dead Wissam Khazem and then carried out air strikes on the other two as they attempted to flee, a statement said.
The Palestinian health ministry said the three men were killed overnight near the town of Zababdeh, south-east of Jenin. Hamas also confirmed their deaths.

The claim that there is no Hamas in the West Bank is laughable!

Were they conducting operations out of the west bank?

Maybe some sort of camps where they can be concentrated.

I see Godwin is strong with you.

The US had concentration camps for Japanese during WWII so tell Godwin to move along.

 

[bilby]

The US had concentration camps for Japanese during WWII so tell Godwin to move along.

Concentration camps pre-date Naziism by two decades; They were first used by the British during the Second Boer War, 1899-1902.

Naziism began with the German Workers Party (DAP), founded in 1919; They adopted National Socialism in 1920, and changed their name (to NSDAP) to reflect that ideology in the early '20s.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since you are trying to disrupt the question let's reframe it:

10 terrorists are coming to kill your baby. They have 14 captives they are using as human shields. Do you throw the grenade or not? Do not keep trying to wiggle, this is only a comparison and thus by definition is imperfect. It is simply a problem with only horrible answers. There's no sky daddy that will give you and out if you're just good enough.

The baby and I kill them ala  Lone_Wolf_and_Cub. Not only does it disrupt their plans, I hope it ends your inane hypothetical,

In other words, you don't have an answer.

Don't pretend you have an answer for Israel, then.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was asked a wuestion, and I answered the question as asked. Do I think anyone in that region who really wants peace and is in a position to act will do anything at this time? No.

Yet you seem to think Israel should engage in appeasement. It never works, yet you keep demanding it.

If you had actually read my response, you'd realize it rebuts your straw man. I even bold-faced and italicized it for you.

You said nobody in the region really wants peace. Iran is in the region. Thus you are saying Iran doesn't want peace. And note that war will persist so long as their is a party with the desire and the power to make it happen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

10 terrorists are coming to kill your baby. Do you throw the grenade, killing the 10 terrorists, or do you let them kill your baby because one death is better than ten deaths?

I leave with my baby. If I must, I kill the terrorists but not the 40 innocent bystanders.

There's no place to run, leaving with your baby isn't an option.

So you choose to die.

. I explicitly said I kill the terrorists if I must. So there is no choice to die. Try reading the posts to which you respond.

The thing is you don't have a perfectly surgical method of killing them.

(Not that surgeons always have a surgical method. When they don't the patient generally dies.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Large scale terrorism is never about actual wrongs, it's always about somebody wanting to cause trouble.

Where the everlasting fuck do you get these little truthy-sounding nonsense claims from?

That's the most insanely counterfactual idea in history.

Terrorism is ALWAYS about actual wrongs.

The thing is there is no relationship between the amount of terrorism and the size of the wrongs.

And there always wrongs, so the fact that there is a wrong for terrorists to point to is meaningless.

It may be directed at easy (but inappropriate) targets, when the appropriate targets for it are too well protected; But it always has a genuine grievance at its root.

Terrorists aren't just bored kids acting out to get attention. They are people so enraged by what has been done to them that they are prepared to kill - perhaps even to die - in an effort to fight back.

Nobody is waking up one day and saying to themselves "Well, I was planning to get a job in my uncle's workshop as an apprentice, but then I remembered that I was born evil, so I had better go and kill some random people instead, for no other reason than to cause trouble".

What you are missing is that terrorist movements have a source of funding. You can have individual terrorists like McVeigh, but they are pretty much isolated incidents, they never persist.

If the funding exists somebody will take the money, there will be terrorists. If the funding doesn't exist pretty much nothing happens.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't disagree with you. But I also think that the Hamas attack was very deliberate. I think that it is no coincidence that this happened right before the Israel/Saudi Arabia normalization pact was to be signed. And they deliberately attacked a peace concert attended by Jewish kids who want peace with Palestinians. What does that tell you? It tells me that Hamas is against the normalization pact (no surprise here); and against any peace between Jews and Palestinians.

I suspect the peace concert was a target of opportunity. The rest of it I agree with.

 

[bilby]

What you are missing is that terrorist movements have a source of funding.

I am not "missing" that at all; It simply isn't relevant to my rebuttal of your post.

I am well aware that US funding was critical to the ongoing terrorism by the IRA throughout the twentieth century, for example.

As long as there are wealthy people who support causes - particularly religion based causes, such as catholicism, revolutionary communism, or islamic jihadism - there will be funding for any terrorist organisation that pays lip-service to that cause.

 

[laughing dog]

10 terrorists are coming to kill your baby. Do you throw the grenade, killing the 10 terrorists, or do you let them kill your baby because one death is better than ten deaths?

I leave with my baby. If I must, I kill the terrorists but not the 40 innocent bystanders.

There's no place to run, leaving with your baby isn't an option.

So you choose to die.

. I explicitly said I kill the terrorists if I must. So there is no choice to die. Try reading the posts to which you respond.

The thing is you don't have a perfectly surgical method of killing them.

You switched the goalposts in your stupid hypothetical.

 

[laughing dog]

I was asked a wuestion, and I answered the question as asked. Do I think anyone in that region who really wants peace and is in a position to act will do anything at this time? No.

Yet you seem to think Israel should engage in appeasement. It never works, yet you keep demanding it.

If you had actually read my response, you'd realize it rebuts your straw man. I even bold-faced and italicized it for you.

You said nobody in the region really wants peace. Iran is in the region. Thus you are saying Iran doesn't want peace. And note that war will persist so long as their is a party with the desire and the power to make it happen.

I admire how you pretend to address posts while ignoring the content on such a consistent basis. I think it makes sense for us to explicitly ignore each other’s posts instead of you implicitly ignoring the content. So carry on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The double standard seems to be that Israel can do nothing to defend its self without being accused of war crimes, disproportionate response etc. Constantly Israel is told not to escalate, defend or retaliate. That will not get the hostages back nor bring peace to the region.

Can you provide examples of this? Who has been telling Israel not to defend itself?

Also, what specific accusations of war crimes are we talking about? Do the people making those accusations cite evidence of war crimes, or are they making baseless assertions?

Look in the mirror. You've been one of the ones chanting war crimes.

What specific accusations of war crimes are you talking about, Loren? I have provided evidence from credible sources of specific incidents I've talked about. Are there others you want to discuss?

You have pointed to some mishandling of prisoners, which Israel has admitted and is dealing with.

FFS, I'm trying to have a conversation with you about it and all you're doing is complaining that I haven't force fed you a textbook. Did you read the Law of War/ Introduction to Rules of Engagement pdf from the US Marine Corps I linked to? Did you take even a cursory glance at the article I linked regarding the Battle of Mogadishu?

At no time did the US forces in Somalia murder prisoners, some with their hands still tied, and dump their bodies in a mass grave, but it appears some soldiers in the IDF did. No grandmothers holding the hands of children waving white flags were shot by US forces in Mogadishu but there is solid evidence an IDF sniper shot one in Gaza. When militants and suspected militants in Mogadishu were identified, the US did not wait until they arrived home and then blow up the buildings they were in so that their families would die, too, but earlier in this thread we saw a report that the IDF is following that policy.

When you accept Hamas propaganda as fact of course you come up with wrong answers.
IDF dump prisoners with their hands tied in a mass grave? Mass grave: definitely true. Hands tied: we have no evidence. Prisoners: we have no evidence. IDF: clearly not--the Palestinians dug that grave and buried the bodies (pictures have been found on the web showing it well before Israel occupied the area.) The grave predates Israel's control of the area. Israel dug up the grave to see if any of the hostages were there, then put things back as they were.

Link, please.

Which mass grave are you talking about?

You say "murder prisoners, some with their hands still tied, and dump the bodies in a mass grave." That mass grave.

Grandmother shot? Definitely. Conveniently on camera--why? And where's the evidence the IDF was the shooter?? And why would they do that? Israel gains nothing but suffers bad PR. Thus who is the most likely shooter? Hamas! They have knowingly sacrificed civilians before, this would not be something unusual.

Unsupported assertion. The video comes from an area that was securely under IDF control at the time, and follows incidents in which IDF forces shot and killed unarmed people, including shirtless, barefoot escaping hostages trying to surrender to them.

No area has been securely under IDF control.

I do agree that Israel has shot people by mistake--false surrender is such a common tactic there that a real surrender was mistaken for a false one. That doesn't mean they've played sniper against random civilians. (Note that in times past there have been many incidents of Hamas sending civilians into no-go zones to get them shot.) The actions make no sense for the IDF, they make perfect sense for Hamas.

Wait for them to arrive home? Where are there going to be fewer civilians about--where they're spotted on the street, or at their home?

Can you guess the reason for the difference? It's because the Rules of Engagement under which US forces operated in Somalia did not allow those war crimes to be committed, but apparently the ROE for the IDF in Gaza does.

Do you, or do you not, agree that the ROE under which the IDF operates in Gaza should PROHIBIT war crimes rather than permit them? If not, why not?

You have shown one thing known to be false, one thing that is probably false and one that isn't a war crime.

And again, I will repeat: governments exist for the benefit of their citizens, at least the favored ones. They defend territory and access to resources, and protect their citizens. That does not mean that everything a government does for the good of its preferred persons is moral or justified or acceptable according to modern notions of human rights and good governance, even if the people who benefit from it really, really like it when their government kicks the shit out of the non-favored people.

And you can't understand that applies to Hamas?

I'm not going to pretend I think you're stupid and keep explaining things to you as though you were. I've been arguing against double standards on this board and it's offshoots for over 20 years and you damn well know it.

But you're applying double standards. Any allegation against Israel you believe. Any explanation of what actually happened gets ignored.

 

[Gospel]

From what I’ve seen, people here do engage with your points and often ask for evidence to better understand your perspective. However, I haven’t yet seen a case where your arguments were ignored outright. Could you share specific examples of an ignored explanation? I think clarifying this might help all of us understand better. Just as a note, someone disagreeing with an explanation doesn’t necessarily mean they’re ignoring it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

War crimes should be prohibited and punished when found. Israel soldiers who used those prisoners as shields, for example, should be punished severely.

Except they didn't.

What they do is have the people who live in the house demonstrate that it's free of booby traps. There's no compulsion beyond the fact that if they won't show it's safe it will be treated as booby trapped and destroyed. You think the people living in the house don't know if it's booby trapped???

And there have been cases of soldiers coming under fire while they are escorting prisoners. The only way to avoid that is to not take prisoners.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Everyone benefits from Hamas being destroyed. Even the Palestinians. Fun fact, In the Middle East the country where muslims are the most free to worship as they please is in Israel. Everywhere else in the Middle-East they are less free.

Damn it Dr. That is supposed to be a secret. Now everybody knows.

It is a secret because it is untrue. For example, I believe Oman has no restrictions on worship.

Oh?

Freedom of religion in Oman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sigh. I will say it again. People, including your self, keep saying that Israel can defend it itself. But when Israel uses a tank, bomb, shell, aircraft etc. to defend itself up pop cries of war crimes, disproportionate response etc. If on the one hand you say that Israel can defend itself and on the other hand complain when it does then you are actually not willing to let Israel defend itself. You want Israel to lie back and think of England.

I mean, provide links and/or quotes.

Show, not tell.

Also, you are once again missing an essential point: saying Israel can defend itself is not the same thing as saying Israel can defend itself by doing whatever the fuck it wants no matter how heinous.

You keep saying you don't object to Israel defending itself but you reject everything they do.

What would meet your definition of a reasonable defensive action?

Israel can target Hamas tunnels as a matter of self defense. Attacks against Israel have originated there, the militants who carry out the attacks are based there, and the munitions they use are stored there, so the tunnels are legitimate targets.

Yes, and when Israel hits a tunnel the ground collapse takes out civilian buildings that were on top of it and you object. Even though Israel generally manages to get the buildings evacuated before the bomb falls.

Israel can also bury schoolchildren alive, but doing so is a war crime.

Nope. Once again you're throwing around the war crime chant without reason. If the intent were to bury schoolchildren alive it would be a war crime. If a school falls into the void of a collapsing tunnel it is not a war crime.

Targeting the tunnels might cause schoolchildren to be buried alive, so there is a burden on Israel to seek to avoid that outcome according to international law and current moral beliefs in modern, Western nations. Simply not caring about the schoolchildren and burying them alive because avoiding killing them takes effort, is morally depraved and subject to criticism, even if/when the justification for the act is Israel's self-defense.

Get it?

We get it, you don't. Israel calls ahead before the blow a tunnel--which is above and beyond what international law expects. But sometimes Hamas keeps people from getting out of the way. What you call indiscriminate is actually extremely discriminate, if they were being indiscriminate the civilian death toll would be a lot higher.

There's a video clip out of Lebanon recently of Israel flattening a Hezbollah building. Lots of people standing around and doing things like taking selfies. If a bunch of people are standing around taking selfies of a static and non-famous scene that means they know it won't remain static. And that means they knew Israel was going to drop a bomb--and it means they trusted Israel's shooting enough to be out in the open when a bomb is about to fall out of the sky.