Why do people hate Jews?

[jsiv]

You mean Seinfeld wasn't a documentary?

 

[Oliver]

Kramer didn't do anything. Richard's is not Kramer!! It is dumb to keep saying "the Kramer Incident", as if it describes reality.

I used "Kramer" because most people know this role in contrast to his real name. You might consider that there are many Non-US-Reader in here, too. Maybe also many who don't know the incident at all.

 

[robinson]

Neither Richards, nor the character Cosmo Kramer, are Jewish. But hey, what the heck, a little off topic dumbness never hurt anything.

 

[Pardalis]

You mean Seinfeld wasn't a documentary?

I always wondered where those laughs came from.

 

[Oliver]

I always wondered where those laughs came from.

Where do the laughs come from in Loose Change SE?

 

[Dumbledore]

Attack Hizbullah, not Lebanon in general, maybe? Attack military targets only, otherwise it is just doing what it accuses them of doing, attack civilian targets because it can't attack the military ones that are beyond it's reach.

Well it is kind of hard to attack military targets when you are fighting terrorists who use civilians as cover! I also find interesting that all the requirements to act properly and save innocent life in on Israel and not Hezbollah, now why would that be?

 

[Dumbledore]

Even if Mexico had terrorists launching rockets at our cities and even if Mexico wasn't cooperating, that doesn't give us the right to launch rockets at their cities killing their civilians. What we would have to do is simply invade Mexico and deal with the terrorists that way, without launching rockets into major Mexican metropolitan areas and killing civilians.

I would also like evidence that Lebanon was "able" to deal with Hezbollah but was unwilling to do so.

First of all ground invasion takes time, as opposed to an airstrike, mean while do you recommend to allow the terrorists to continue launching missiles at your innocent civilians and major metropolitan areas?

Secondly nice choice of argument, but that is not what I posted, Lebanon was unable or unwilling to deal with Hezbollah themselves. This equates to the same thing for Israel doesn't it. They are forced to respond to bring an end to the missile attacks and the did respond to end the missile attacks as quickly as possible as any other country would do. Mean while the international community sat back, the same community who refuse to follow through on their disarmament of Hezbollah, and complained abouts Israels needless destructive action. So as I said before, Hezbollah was successful in backing Israel into a no win situation, in which Israel's reaction was sure to be criticized no matter what they did to protect their citizens!

 

[stilicho]

I assume you mean Europeans when you say that Zionism is a relatively new reason to hate Jews. Clearly there was a lot of resistance to Jewish immigration into the area that became Israel by the indigenous population well before Israel became a country .

I agree with this to some extent. Palestine was a province of the Ottoman Empire then, however. Europeans did not think it a bad thing to move populations around in the name of "self-determination". (Americans weren't immune from this, either.)

I find the population displacement to be a fair objection. But then, too, we might ask why Poland was "moved" a couple hundred miles west and why the Germans ought not be returned to East Prussia. These "solutions" were very popular among liberal thinkers in Europe and America--specifically those who felt that the greater threat was from "obsolete" imperial political structures.

Certainly the "solution" in the former Yugoslavia reflects that such thinking hasn't entirely gone away.

I put it on the list based mostly on a discussion long ago between Capel Dodger and Cleopatra about whether Zionism had contributed to the antisemitism in Germany before WWII. Cleopatra argued that Zionism was not a factor at all and CD argued that it was a very significant factor. At the time I didn't know enough to judge between the two possibilities and I don't know more today about the issue. But it seems like it must have been more than zero so I put it on the list. From my perspective it seems likely that the notion that a citizen would have loyalties to another political entity would engender some resentment in the part of the population that considered themselves only German. It probably has that effect in the US today amongst the population that sees themselves as only American, but it doesn't seem to be that significant an issue with regard to cause of what antisemitism still exists in the US.

This is why nationalism is as irrational as religious or cultural bigotry.

I am proud of my country. But you read about conflict upon conflict, the several genocides throughout recent history, and the displacements of populations in the name of nationalism, and you realise that all this two centuries of liberalism, reason, and idealism has brought us no further from our basic instincts as social creatures.

Pessimistic? Possibly.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

First of all ground invasion takes time, as opposed to an airstrike, mean while do you recommend to allow the terrorists to continue launching missiles at your innocent civilians and major metropolitan areas?

Secondly nice choice of argument, but that is not what I posted, Lebanon was unable or unwilling to deal with Hezbollah themselves. This equates to the same thing for Israel doesn't it. They are forced to respond to bring an end to the missile attacks and the did respond to end the missile attacks as quickly as possible as any other country would do. Mean while the international community sat back, the same community who refuse to follow through on their disarmament of Hezbollah, and complained abouts Israels needless destructive action. So as I said before, Hezbollah was successful in backing Israel into a no win situation, in which Israel's reaction was sure to be criticized no matter what they did to protect their citizens!

A ground invasion would be the only viable option. Launching missiles ourselves would be far too risky due to the very high potential for collateral damage. The fact that organizing a ground invasion might take a little time would not be worse than killing numerous innocent civilians caught in the crossfire between the two countries.

Israel could have invaded Lebanon and offset the civilian casualties drastically, resorting to house to house raids where the specific missiles were launched from and arresting the people there.

 

[Ziggurat]

Israel could have invaded Lebanon and offset the civilian casualties drastically, resorting to house to house raids where the specific missiles were launched from and arresting the people there.

Where did you get the idea that urban combat would produce fewer collateral casualties than precision bombing? I've never seen any evidence to that effect, and there's plenty of reason to think it's NOT true. How, for example, do you get a ground combat force to strike at Hezbollah assets in Beirut without a LOT of fighting, and a LOT of civilian casualties, just to get to the location of interest?

Now it might be true that an earlier, more agressive invasion into southern Lebanon would have been better at crippling Hezbollah, but that's not what you're claiming. And there were a number of reasons it didn't happen anyways. One is that the Israeli air force overestimated their capabilities, and another is that the Israeli army has gotten out of practice with conventional warfare because of their focus on antiterrorism operations. These were mistakes, but they're the sort of mistakes that countries make in good faith.

By the way, do you remember the faked Reuters photos from Lebanon? Did you see the pictures of the old ambulances with holes in the roof from missing ventilation domes which were claimed to be the targets of Israeli air strikes?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Where did you get the idea that urban combat would produce fewer collateral casualties than precision bombing? I've never seen any evidence to that effect, and there's plenty of reason to think it's NOT true. How, for example, do you get a ground combat force to strike at Hezbollah assets in Beirut without a LOT of fighting, and a LOT of civilian casualties, just to get to the location of interest?

Now it might be true that an earlier, more agressive invasion into southern Lebanon would have been better at crippling Hezbollah, but that's not what you're claiming. And there were a number of reasons it didn't happen anyways. One is that the Israeli air force overestimated their capabilities, and another is that the Israeli army has gotten out of practice with conventional warfare because of their focus on antiterrorism operations. These were mistakes, but they're the sort of mistakes that countries make in good faith.

A ground invasion would involve going house to house and arresting the Hezbollah fighters after tracking the location of the launch sites. Simple ground fighting doesn't necessarily equal civilian casualties. Please explain how that would be the case. How would house to house searches and arrests equal substantial civilian casualties?

By the way, do you remember the faked Reuters photos from Lebanon? Did you see the pictures of the old ambulances with holes in the roof from missing ventilation domes which were claimed to be the targets of Israeli air strikes?

I saw them, I've never seen evidence they were faked.

 

[Ziggurat]

A ground invasion would involve going house to house and arresting the Hezbollah fighters after tracking the location of the launch sites.

And they'd still be at those sites - why?

Simple ground fighting doesn't necessarily equal civilian casualties.

It does if Hezbollah wants it to.

Please explain how that would be the case.

Easily: Hezbollah fighters take up positions in civilian-occupied houses. It's pathetically easy for them to guarantee civilian casualties in a ground fight.

How would house to house searches and arrests equal substantial civilian casualties?

You think you can just go in and arrest groups armed with anti-tank missiles, like this is an episode of COPS? Seriously, Dustin, how clueless are you?

I saw them, I've never seen evidence they were faked.

Which ones did you not think were fake? The ones Reuters admited were photoshopped? Or the ones with the ambulances showing old rusted holes from missing ventilation domes which were claimed to be the result of missile strikes?

 

[a_unique_person]

Where did you get the idea that urban combat would produce fewer collateral casualties than precision bombing? I've never seen any evidence to that effect, and there's plenty of reason to think it's NOT true. How, for example, do you get a ground combat force to strike at Hezbollah assets in Beirut without a LOT of fighting, and a LOT of civilian casualties, just to get to the location of interest?

Now it might be true that an earlier, more agressive invasion into southern Lebanon would have been better at crippling Hezbollah, but that's not what you're claiming. And there were a number of reasons it didn't happen anyways. One is that the Israeli air force overestimated their capabilities, and another is that the Israeli army has gotten out of practice with conventional warfare because of their focus on antiterrorism operations. These were mistakes, but they're the sort of mistakes that countries make in good faith.

If you read Haaretz, it's nothing to do with good faith. It's to do with hubris and incompetence. Farm workers were bombed for doing nothing more than harvesting food, for example.

The fuss made over that photo was unbelievable. There are numerous examples and photos of the damage done to civilian infrastructure such as bridges and power plants. Picking out one faked photo and and a debatable one does not excuse the shambles that was the campaign that was undertaken by Israel. There were Australians stranded in a village that was bombed when no missiles were being fired from it, they were being fired from a heavily fortified mountain nearby that air strikes could not touch. Israel dropped thousands of cluster bombs in the last days before the peace deal was agreed to. For what? They were purely for punitive reasons against civilians.

 

[robinson]

For some reason I don't think of Israel as being Jewish. I guess it is, which means some people have plenty of reasons to hate Jews. War is hell.

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't hate Jews. Israel is by it's own definition a Jewish state. Being critical of Israel for it's actions in Lebanon is not hating Jews. War is hell made by people. Plenty of people, including Jews, in Israel, who disagree with Israel's actions in the war. The mass deployment of anti personnel weapons in the last days of the war in civilian areas was an action with no military worth at all.

 

[David Swidler]

We're gonna get derailed if we focus on last year's war. But if you insist...

Targeting civilians may or may not have military value. Far be it from me to advocate such a thing, but fomenting a humanitarian crisis by creating tens of thousands of refugess within the enemy's borders might have quite a significant military benefit. IIRC, that's exactly what the Wehrmacht did in several places.

Which is not to say that's what the IDF was trying to do, just that your blanket statement isn't necessarily true.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you read Haaretz, it's nothing to do with good faith. It's to do with hubris and incompetence.

Those are good-faith mistakes. What I mean is that they weren't done out of malicious intent. That doesn't mean there isn't reason to blame someone for them, but it's of a different sort than if something was done out of an intention to be evil. Which is precisely what Hezbollah was doing.

The fuss made over that photo was unbelievable.

Damn you're clueless, AUP. The "fuss" was far smaller than it should have been. It's a god-damned BIG deal. First, deliberate targeting of ambulances would be a major war crime, but of course it didn't happen. And second, while the contents of the photoshopped Reuters photos didn't really change much, it's VERY significant that one of the primary sources of information for the public was compromised by terrorist propaganda. Do you honestly not understand why that might matter? Do you honestly not see that that issue extends far beyond the specific context of those photos? No, I guess you don't. Which is why you fall for propaganda yourself so easily.

There were Australians stranded in a village that was bombed when no missiles were being fired from it, they were being fired from a heavily fortified mountain nearby that air strikes could not touch.

You're an idiot, AUP. There ARE no locations in Lebanon that Israel couldn't touch with air strikes. There were plenty of arms caches that Israel didn't know about, and it can be damned difficult to hit a moving target, but there was no place so heavily fortified that it couldn't be touched. None.

 

[Dumbledore]

A ground invasion would be the only viable option. Launching missiles ourselves would be far too risky due to the very high potential for collateral damage. The fact that organizing a ground invasion might take a little time would not be worse than killing numerous innocent civilians caught in the crossfire between the two countries.

Israel could have invaded Lebanon and offset the civilian casualties drastically, resorting to house to house raids where the specific missiles were launched from and arresting the people there.

So Israel should let its own citizens die to protect the innocent citizens that Hezbollah is using as a shield. I think you would be hard pressed to find any country that would make that decision. Aren't the Israeli citizens also innocent? Further more what is Hezbollah's responsibility in all of this, why must Israel be the only ones who are concerned with saving innocent life. I find it most interesting that you would side with an terrorist organization than an country that was unprovokingly attacked and forced to defend itself.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

And they'd still be at those sites - why?

The troops would be across the areas they were being launched from and could get to the launch sites quickly.

Easily: Hezbollah fighters take up positions in civilian-occupied houses. It's pathetically easy for them to guarantee civilian casualties in a ground fight.

That could be a possibility, however the number of casualties from house to house hostage taking would not only likely reduce collateral damage but it would also have made the general population lose support for Hezbollah.

You think you can just go in and arrest groups armed with anti-tank missiles, like this is an episode of COPS? Seriously, Dustin, how clueless are you?

I must be pretty clueless. Terrorists are arrested in Iraq and Afghanistan all of the time.

Which ones did you not think were fake? The ones Reuters admited were photoshopped? Or the ones with the ambulances showing old rusted holes from missing ventilation domes which were claimed to be the result of missile strikes?

The ambulance photographs.

So Israel should let its own citizens die to protect the innocent citizens that Hezbollah is using as a shield.

No.

I think you would be hard pressed to find any country that would make that decision.

I agree.

Aren't the Israeli citizens also innocent?

Well, Some of them.

Further more what is Hezbollah's responsibility in all of this, why must Israel be the only ones who are concerned with saving innocent life.

Hezbollah is unquestionably responsible. There is no point in even discussing it since it is undisputed. However people are disputing the mistakes Israel made, and if you want to compare Israel to Hezbollah...

I find it most interesting that you would side with an terrorist organization than an country that was unprovokingly attacked and forced to defend itself.

I'm not siding with Hezbollah because I critique the tactics of Israel. That's sort of like saying I side with Al-Quaeda because I critique U.S. foreign policy.

 

[Ziggurat]

The troops would be across the areas they were being launched from and could get to the launch sites quickly.

And how, exactly, would they get deployed like that in the first place without risking significant civilian casualties? You think they could have just walked in unopposed? No, they couldn't. And they didn't, even after significant pounding of Hezbollah positions from the air. In fact, how on earth do you figure they even had the manpower to deploy a force large enough to be almost on top of any Hezbollah launches?

Besides which, minimizing Lebanese civilian casualties wasn't the only objective. Minimizing their own casualties, including military casualties, was actually more important, and they were right to act thusly. And what you propose is essentially a good way to get a lot of Israeli soldiers killed. Why you think Isreali should or would ever have done that is quite beyond me.

I must be pretty clueless. Terrorists are arrested in Iraq and Afghanistan all of the time.

With a much bigger policing force relative to the number of enemy fighters, and with an enemy which is MUCH less well equiped and entrenched than Hezbollah. They had anti-ship missiles, for cryin' out loud, and they've been digging in for precisely this sort of battle for YEARS. So yes, you are pretty damned clueless.

The ambulance photographs.

Damn, that's rich. Do you know what happens to a vehicle that's hit by an air strike? It's ripped to pieces. Do you know what happens to the occupants? They're turned into pulp. The vehicle doesn't have a small hole in the roof. The occupants don't just go to the hospital with wounds. The whole thing was a fraud, top to bottom. And you fell for terrorist propaganda.
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/