You have to admit that if the camera stayed on her long enough, she’d float away, she’s such a lightweight.
Israel at war
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
Day of action here and around the world.
Nobody is protesting for Israel.
Nobody is protesting for Israel.
From Wikipedia:Jewish Writers et al Denounce Conflation: Criticism of Israel/AntiSemetism
A Dangerous Conflation
We reject antisemitism in all its forms, including when it masquerades as criticism of Zionism or Israel’s policies. We also recognize that, as journalist Peter Beinart wrote in 2019, “Anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitic—and claiming it is uses Jewish suffering to erase Palestinian...www.nplusonemag.com
SIGNED,
The magazine (n+1, your source) has received mixed criticism to date. Generally, n+1's detractors decry the editors' youth and perceived elitism. As the magazine is purportedly an effort to engage a generation in a struggle against the current literary landscape, such elitism seems counterintuitive to the ideals upon which the magazine was founded. The New Criterion critically asked, "is your journal really necessary?"[10] and accused them of exaggerating their own importance. The Times Literary Supplement wryly satirized Kunkel's quote, "We're angrier than Dave Eggers and his crowd", and compared that quote against their third issue's unsigned article about and titled "Dating".[11] Literary editor Gordon Lish has called the magazine a "crock of shit".[12]
BTW, that was a hell of a list of no name wannabes. (At least from what I could see.)
Last edited:
The IDF lying about human shields and using them as excuses in multiple attacks that kill civilians doesn't mean Hamas doesn't use human shields.
No, but you have to provide some evidence at some point to justify continued targeting.
Given that Israel has killed 10,000 people and the reports say that 73% of those are women, children and the elderly, you need really solid evidence to prove its not either directly targeting civilians or at best disproportionate response.
Saying 'it may be happening' should most definitely not be enough to justify killing 10,000 people. Israel alleges there are tunnels everywhere and that where they hit is because they thought there was a tunnel there. If you take away that justification then what they are doing is just terrorism. Then the question becomes 'If I say I saw a terrorist can I kill everyone and say I was justified'? That's a very low bar in a battle where multiple sources are alleging Israel is committing genocide.
The only side that has ever been convicted of using human shields has been Israel, during the 2008 attack on Gaza. Amnesty and Goldberg both reported these allegations.
Last edited:
Have you seen Israel's intelligence reports? If not, what you consider an irrefutable assertion is nothing more than pure conjecture. You are hoping that you are correct, just as you claim that the IDF is hopeful of hitting Hamas.
You have no proof that Israel does not have reliable intelligence. Citing dead civilians is not proof since Hamas leaders and fighters are deliberately embedding themselves among the Gazan populace.
I've mostly stayed out of this because there is not a lot to be gained from talking about the subject of the war on this board.
What I have commented on was you going all in on war crimes as a solution.
Not a regrettable tragedy.
Not a mistake.
No. You said it is impossible to commit war crimes in this situation and also that Israel should absolutely do them.
This is the thing I'm commenting on, because I was both genuinely surprised you made that argument and because it is a much worse thing in my eyes than the people denying war crimes are happening.
The latter at least still implies that one thinks war crimes are bad and should be avoided - they are just saying these specific things aren't really war crimes.
Rooting for war crimes as the solution is worse, in my opinion.
Statements by hamas officials stating that the tunnels they built are to protect themselves....not the civilians tells you a lot about where hamas stands when it comes to civilian safety...but it's ok right? As long as civilians get hit by Israeli bombs...
And how is the deaths of 19,000 Gazans, mostly civilians, many of them children, going to help reduce that hate?
And look at how much the international sanctions have hurt Russia. Meanwhile bring up Hamas in the UN and the conversation quickly turns to, "Sanction Israel for illegal settlements," instead. Something might get done if you eliminate that counter-argument. Nothing gets done otherwise. Isn't some chance better than no chance?
Very distributing. Disturbing enough that other countries might not want to see this continue and actually do something about Iran and Lebanon if they weren't so focused on Israeli war crimes.
They also aren't illegally occupying land, except for Russia currently who is also getting attacked every day. Terrorists live within our borders; we are not out of reach. We could be hit any day. I realize life seems peaceful and such a thing seems unimaginable, but that's reality. There is a lot of work and resources that goes into preventing them. The CAF, CSIS, CSE, RCMP and every other major police force have counter-terrorism departments and those guys aren't just sitting around every day waiting for an attack.
Israel has these resources too, but what they don't have is a secure border or friendly nations surrounding them. And as long as the have no international support, that's always going to be true. They could completely take over Gaza and the attacks would still keep coming. So what then? Go to war with Iran? Just war after war after war until there is no antisemetic terrorist groups left?
At some point Israel's response to terrorist attacks is going to have to become one of policing and international pressure. Whether that happens before the millions of civilians in Gaza and the West Bank are killed or after, it eventually becomes the reality. I'm proposing maybe the death of millions of civilians isn't worth it if you just achieve the same end result anyway.
I literally work in aviation. So I visit an airport almost every day.
9/11 could literally occur every day. The flimsiest lock ever on the flimsiest door ever is not stopping anyone. Airline magazines have the thinnest paper you can find because the weight savings results in millions of dollars saved per year. They're certainly not putting reinforced steel on the door. However safe you are in an airplane bathroom is about how safe the pilots are in the cockpit.
What is stopping it is international support. Terrorists can only walk across our border from one place, and we're friendly with them and share intelligence. They can come by boat, but all our neighbours within reasonable boating distance of us are friendly and share intelligence. Places that have unfriendly borders and no terrorist attacks achieve it thanks to international support. Example: Golan Heights. It would be the most devastating place to launch attacks from. Crucial Israeli water supply and an elevated position make it strategically advantageous. But international support has allowed a permanent multinational peacekeeping force there.
Where's the multinational peacekeeping force in Gaza and the West Bank? Nowhere. Because there's no international appetite to help thanks to illegal occupations.
Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49. You can move people only if imperative military reasons demand, but they must be kept within the borders of the occupied territory if at all possible. Regardless, they must be allowed to return home as soon as possible. Re-settlement, as you put it, is a war crime.
Pakistan is not occupied territory. It's not a war crime to deport illegal refugees and immigrants from your country, but it is a war crime to attack a territory, occupy it militarily, and then deport the people you don't like from it. The best example is what the Soviet Union did with the Tartars in Crimes. War crime.
Then Israel should leave the occupied territory if it's no longer worth fighting about.
These "gripes" didn't end 75 years ago, they are ongoing. The West has no peace treaty with North Korea, which is why there's a heavy military presence there. Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt which is why the Sinai is no longer Israeli occupied, and lo and behold, no terrorist attacks from it either. That peace process is also credited with causing Egypt to drift and eventually leave the Soviet sphere of influence.
Israel is still at war with Syria and the unofficial state of Palestine. The 4th Arab Israeli War has never been fully settled or ended. In large part because Syria demands either the return of Golan or peace talks, and while Israel stated they were prepared to enter peace talks they never attended any of the actual talks and have never left the Golan.
Let's be very clear here: Israel does not claim to own the Gaza strip, the Golan Heights, or the West Bank. They have never made any formal claims of annexation, and they do not recognize it as annexed. They themselves say, "We do not own this land."
So you say these are "75 year old gripes not worth fighting about", but if that's the case Israel should either annex the land or end its occupation. The problem is they're aware annexation is going to cause problems and they don't want to leave it. The West Bank in particular is a huge money maker. But these doesn't change anything: it's occupied territory and therefore it's illegal for Israel to settle there.
This is actually why they are called settlers. Canadians moving to a new subdivision that was forest or prairie 5 years ago aren't called settlers because it's Canadian territory. Israelis aren't just "moving" to homes to in the West Bank or Gaza because nether place is Israel. "Settling" is illegal because it's unfair. You tell your civilians to go live in a place you don't own, and then what happens? You either have to refuse to give it back in peace talks because your people live there now or force your civilians from their homes. It's not fair to them, or the people they've displaced who are now homeless.
For your idea of just "let it go" to work, Israel needs to pick one: annex or end the occupation. Until then, these aren't 75 year old gripes, they are ongoing gripes. If Israel annexed these territories today, then in 75 more years from now you could call them 75 years old. But as of right now, they are current.
Let's pretend they do have a plan. They kill all Hamas and eliminate all stockpiles, then return to their old routine. Nothing changes. More attacks, more criticism of Israel, more death, more war.
The status quo doesn't work. Over 21,000 people, mostly civilians, a lot of them children, have been killed on both sides with this status quo. That's a lot of death for nothing to change and everyone to keep doing the same thing. How many people need to die before something else is tried? Maybe that something else will fail too. But surely it's better than the status quo and hoping something changes.
I do not understand anyone that supports these actions. Thousands of civilians die for the save thing we had on October 6th. A bunch of death for nothing to change. Don't you get sad at the pointlessness of all those dead people? And all they have to say to justify it is that they think the terrorists should be the bigger man and be reasonable first? C'mon. Just try something, anything, different from "kill a bunch more civilians and see if that changes anything."
For once, you are right. There IS another solution,
The solution is for Hamas to immediately surrender and release the hostages. Just think of how many lives will be saved just by ending this war quicker.
BDS has been going on for years and will take more years to get Israel to acquiesce.
My solution would basically be instantaneous. It is undeniable that my solution would save many, many lives. They've lost 10,000 Gazans already in 4 weeks. And you want it to keep dragging on and on and on until a boycott works.
This proves that you don't care about the Gazans. You just care about hurting Israel, not saving Palestinian lies.
Care to back that up?
I'd be curious.
But of course, "war crimes were committed" is not the same as "war crimes should be committed".
You do get that, right?
Happy to show people who I am.
You're doing a good job of showing people who you are.
BTW - Is there a war crime you are against?
Since you've said no war has ever been conducted without one. (And presumably no one has ever been criticized or punished for these war crimes?)
Since you think war crimes are the proper and best way to conduct war, is there anything you think would be out of bounds?
Or is it purely tactical for you? If it might give tactical advantage, it is legitimate and should be encouraged?
LOL.
You didn't answer if you care who wins.
Since your position seems to have now evolved into an even bloodier "Neither side can agree to peace, so they should commit war crimes to try to win" - are you now just straight up embracing "Might equals Right"?
I thought you were rooting for Israel, but now it seems that you really don't care.
You just expect Israel to win and are all about being on the side of the strongest team.
Please post these intelligence reports.
Also please post a list of those Hamas militants Israel says they have killed through this intel.
Then give us a ratio of civilians to militants.
Thanks for your comedic relief Little Buddy, master insulter.
