General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[John Mekki]

Even though it's futile to jump through Mekki's hoops, I'll indulge him this once:

This is ridiculous.
You are quoting a colonel of the UK Army to support the position of IDF.
Next time, quote somebody from Ukraina in the 50s to support Stalin or some Japanese General in the 30s to support Showa Tenno.

 

[WildCat]

This is ridiculous.
You are quoting a colonel of the UK Army to support the position of IDF.

Do describe in detail what he got wrong.

I won't hold my breath waiting, I'm pretty certain you won't do any such thing.

 

[trustbutverify]

This is ridiculous.
You are quoting a colonel of the UK Army to support the position of IDF.
Next time, quote somebody from Ukraina in the 50s to support Stalin or some Japanese General in the 30s to support Showa Tenno.

You think UK colonels take their orders from IDF command?

Honestly now, you have not the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[Giz]

This is ridiculous.
You are quoting a colonel of the UK Army to support the position of IDF.
Next time, quote somebody from Ukraina in the 50s to support Stalin or some Japanese General in the 30s to support Showa Tenno.

Are you suggesting that the Israelis have dictatorial power over the UK military? Did you read that in the Protocols or an old copy of Der Sturmer?

 

[John Mekki]

Do describe in detail what he got wrong.

I won't hold my breath waiting, I'm pretty certain you won't do any such thing.

Next time please quote a colonel of the Iranian Army to discuss whether Hamas is right or wrong in sending rockets to Israel
Same thing

 

[John Mekki]

Are you suggesting that the Israelis have dictatorial power over the UK military? Did you read that in the Protocols or an old copy of Der Sturmer?

You think UK colonels take their orders from IDF command?

Honestly now, you have not the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Do you think Iranian colonels take order from Hamas?
No, right?

Let` s ask them what they think about the current situation, whether Hamas is behaving well or not..

Oh my, oh my..

Naivety at the top level..

 

[IDB87]

Next time please quote a colonel of the Iranian Army to discuss whether Hamas is right or wrong in sending rockets to Israel
Same thing

Do you believe the U.K. and Iran are on the same level, in so far as support for one side in the conflict between Hamas and Israel? Keep in mind that Iran directly funds and arms Hamas.

 

[John Mekki]

Do you believe the U.K. and Iran are on the same level, in so far as support for one side in the conflict between Hamas and Israel? Keep in mind that Iran directly funds and arms Hamas.

While the US, the big brother of the UK, is not selling arms nor funding Israel

 

[WildCat]

Next time please quote a colonel of the Iranian Army to discuss whether Hamas is right or wrong in sending rockets to Israel
Same thing

Yep, old John didn't disappoint with his non-answer.

What did he get wrong John?

 

[marksman]

I find the silence from Human Rights Watch very telling. In their press release after Operation Pillar of Defense ended they did not cite any human rights violations committed by Israel during the operation. They only said that "Human Rights Watch is investigating attacks by Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups." They did, however, specifically mention Hamas' actions in shelling civilian populations, and specifically condemned that practice, stating: "Launching rockets that cannot distinguish civilians from military targets, or deliberately launching rockets at or otherwise targeting civilians, are serious violations of the laws of war."

And the Human Rights Watch is by no means pro-Israel. Their criticism of Israel after Cast Lead (issued the week after the operation ended) was blistering. If they had any evidence of war crimes by Israel, they would definitely have mentioned it in the initial press release.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Next time please quote a colonel of the Iranian Army to discuss whether Hamas is right or wrong in sending rockets to Israel
Same thing

Again, tell us what they got wrong. And you were also asked to show us why the answers to your questions about how Israel minimizes civilian casualties were not valid. You seem to keep dodging issues left and right.

Maybe you can give us a list of what races and nationalities are allowed to present evidence and which are not. Please give us the specific requirements needed to answer your questions. If you're going to be so picky about what answers you will and will not accept, then it is your duty to first lay out a criteria for which you will accept answers.

But we both know there is no criteria because you won't accept any answers.

Address these examples that were listed and the problem with each of them as to how they are not means of reducing casualties:

1) using precision guided weapons which now replace the traditional carpet bombing methods used before this technology was developed.
2) Dropping 2 million leaflets warning civilians and giving them an opportunity to evacuate.
3) Making 100,000 phone calls to warn civilians and let them know where to evacuate to so they will be safe.
4) Hitting the roofs of the building with a non-damaging bomb that lets the people inside know that the building will be struck in 10 minutes so they have a chance to leave before they get hurt.

These are just a few. You dismissed all of them based on one factor. The nationality of the person presenting the examples. Actually more so simply the race of the person, not the nationality. That would classify you as a racist.

So now, are you going to start addressing the points being made, or are you going to continue dismissing them based only on pure bigotry?

 

[HoverBoarder]

Again, tell us what they got wrong. And you were also asked to show us why the answers to your questions about how Israel minimizes civilian casualties were not valid. You seem to keep dodging issues left and right.

This ^

 

[HoverBoarder]

You mean you're ignoring it. The reason that casualties are so much higher on the Palestinian side (and this has been explained to you several times already and probably 3 or 4 dozen times it has been stated on this very thread) is because Israel protects its civilians and Hamas uses them as a defense. Israel has laws requiring shelters be built in every building for people to take cover in. They build early warning systems to allow people to take cover. They built anti-missile defense systems to stop many of the missiles from reaching civilians.

Hamas does not build shelters for their civilians, they only build them for their military. They intentionally launch attacks from schools, hospitals and other civilian facilities knowing that when Israel takes out those munitions it will also result in civilian deaths. If you read through this thread you will see video clips from Hamas TV where they are bragging about how they use civilians for protection and brag about how they let civilians get killed. They claim they celebrate death like Jews celebrate life.

The fact that this thread is 253 pages in with examples on almost every page and you sit here asking for such examples demonstrates just how serious you aren't about this. While everyone else here is trying to have a serious discusion and welcomes all opposing views, you're here making a mockery of everything with these childish antics.

I think it's about time to ignore if you can't contribute anything to the thread.

I am not talking about Hamas.
I am talking about Israel
I am asking what is the IDF doing to reduce as much as possible civilian casualties

You were just told that, many times.

Next time please quote a colonel of the Iranian Army to discuss whether Hamas is right or wrong in sending rockets to Israel
Same thing

Sad non answer

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Also John, in response to your question about Iran. I would listen to what the person had to say and consider their list of reasons as to why their contribution in arms reduces civilian casualties. I will either agree with them, or I will state why I do not agree with those reasons. What I won't do is refuse to listen to those reasons based solely on his or her nationality or race like you do.

Please understand that just because you use a bigoted method of coming to conclusions does mean we do the same thing.

 

[Virus]

This is ridiculous.
You are quoting a colonel of the UK Army to support the position of IDF.
Next time, quote somebody from Ukraina in the 50s to support Stalin or some Japanese General in the 30s to support Showa Tenno.

See? Futile.

 

[JihadJane]

Again, tell us what they got wrong. And you were also asked to show us why the answers to your questions about how Israel minimizes civilian casualties were not valid. You seem to keep dodging issues left and right.

Maybe you can give us a list of what races and nationalities are allowed to present evidence and which are not. Please give us the specific requirements needed to answer your questions. If you're going to be so picky about what answers you will and will not accept, then it is your duty to first lay out a criteria for which you will accept answers.

But we both know there is no criteria because you won't accept any answers.

Address these examples that were listed and the problem with each of them as to how they are not means of reducing casualties:

1) using precision guided weapons which now replace the traditional carpet bombing methods used before this technology was developed.
2) Dropping 2 million leaflets warning civilians and giving them an opportunity to evacuate.
3) Making 100,000 phone calls to warn civilians and let them know where to evacuate to so they will be safe.
4) Hitting the roofs of the building with a non-damaging bomb that lets the people inside know that the building will be struck in 10 minutes so they have a chance to leave before they get hurt.

These are just a few. You dismissed all of them based on one factor. The nationality of the person presenting the examples. Actually more so simply the race of the person, not the nationality. That would classify you as a racist.

So now, are you going to start addressing the points being made, or are you going to continue dismissing them based only on pure bigotry?

The end result of all the above is a terrorized civilian population - welcome to collective punishment.

 

[JihadJane]

Indeed. Does that mean you agree Hamas gets what it deserves, then?

It means what it says - that when a weapon goes astray, whoever fired it is 100% responsible for the resulting carnage.

No one has called anyone "morally pure", but actually, yes, it's a lot more moral to use precise weapons to eliminate military targets with minimal civilian casualties than, you know, purposefully target civilians. *facepalm*

Is it so pure to use them on a population that you have forced to live in a slum for decades so that you can have the land they used to live on?

The whole "targeting civilians" Spiel (ignoring the fact Israel that killed far more civilians) is all about proving the moral superiority of Israel naked, colonialist aggression. When the founders of Israel didn't have the advantage of high-tech weaponry, they also used crude, terrorist tactics.

 

[IDB87]

The end result of all the above is a terrorized civilian population - welcome to collective punishment.

You'd be better off touting the blockade of Gaza as collective punishment - you may even have an argument. However, responding to military violence is not collective punishment...unless you wish to accuse Hamas of collectively punishing Israeli citizens for the actions of the IDF?

 

[IDB87]

It means what it says - that when a weapon goes astray, whoever fired it is 100% responsible for the resulting carnage.

Perhaps morally - certainly not legally.

Is it so pure to use them on a population that you have forced to live in a slum for decades so that you can have the land they used to live on?

This doesn't work with Gaza since Israel has withdrawn. But, yes, they are that good. This is known because Gaza is nothing like Grozny post siege.

The whole "targeting civilians" Spiel (ignoring the fact Israel that killed far more civilians) is all about proving the moral superiority of Israel naked, colonialist aggression.

It's about proving the legality of the actions. Stuff morals.

When the founders of Israel didn't have the advantage of high-tech weaponry, they also used crude, terrorist tactics.

The Haganah also reigned in the Irgun by force when it refused to play by the rules.

The Hunting Season

It's tough finding examples of disciplinary action of Islamic Jihad or other minor groups in Gaza.

 

[IDB87]

...thus disproving your apparent hypothesis that lack of advanced ordnance = terrorism.

It's moot, really. The Irgun was punished and then folded into what would become the IDF - given rules to follow, essentially, as well as more conventional tactics.

But, at that time period, it was not unheard of for villages to be raided and innocents killed - on both sides.