Israel or Palestine?

[hollow token]

Exactly I mean you still said you would find that person being violent 99% of the time and 1 google search shows nothing especially when hes a human rights defender

[forest vale]

Tell me where it's illegal to target terrorists as long as they are using human shields.

[forest vale]

Lol man, I need details. You can't just give me a story with zero details and expect me to agree.

I'm happy to agree if there is actually a story, but I see nothing.

[thorny stone]

UN definition of war crimes, 2. a. i. Wilful killing [of civilians in areas of armed conflict]

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml, if you're having trouble finding it.

Nowhere does it say it's fine to kill civilians if they happen to be stood next to soldiers.

I mean, Israel is guilty of at least the first four defined war crimes:

Wilful killing
Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

[hollow token]

search it up again i mean dont u think they would post more about the violence

[thorny stone]

2. b. iv. Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

[hollow token]

https://www.facebook.com/reel/426362893463648 this isnt that much valid proof but he is the victim talking about it

[forest vale]

I mean I'm still looking through articles. None of them have details except that he was arrested. From the way it describes his family, it's obvious that the IDF expected resistance and got it, so they were interested in shutting that down as quickly as possible during the arrest. It's highly likely that the arrest was violent as a result.

[hollow token]

I mightve mixed it up between him and his family being beaten actually

but thats good enough

that person wasnt violent

[forest vale]

I mean, kinda. I don't know that he wasn't violent. I don't know that they weren't justified in their actions. If they already conducted 20 arrests and met extreme resistance, maybe even lost a few soldiers due to armed resistance, then I can't fault them for coming in hot and heavy.

[thorny stone]

There are another 50 stories of Israeli abuse here: https://www.ochaopt.org/50Stories/
We're not short of evidence.

[hollow token]

they would spread it everywhere if soldiers died

[forest vale]

If you're chanting "from the river to the sea," then you're not a non-violent protestor. You're literally calling for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Even if you aren't violent yourself, you're inciting violence, and that's illegal in the US and pretty much everywhere.

[hollow token]

They are asking for Palestine to be 1 country with no israel just like the time of british mandate of palestine

[forest vale]

It's different if you say it here in the US, because people are ignorant and don't understand context. But they aren't ignorant over there. They know exactly what they are calling for.

[forest vale]

Yeah, with no Jews. You're calling for the destruction of Israel and the mass murder of the Jews who live there.

[thorny stone]

That's actually not true. That song is simply calling for the freedom for Palestinians. It is sung by various groups, some of whom want to wipe Israel off the map, but not exclusively by them.

[hollow token]

You arents really

They never say no jews or anything, they just dont want israel there

[forest vale]

Oh? Then why aren't there any Jews in any of the countries that use that phrase?

[hollow token]

Because of the harm israel is inflicting towards civilians

[forest vale]

There are Arabs and Muslims in Israel. You can already freely live in Israel.

[hollow token]

Specify what countries, as well as many jews moved to israel actually or the US

[thorny stone]

Hahahahahaha. Good joke. An Arab in Israel is not able to live there freely. It is an apartheid state; arabs have significantly fewer right than Jews.

[forest vale]

Pick a country or territory bordering Israel. Look up the Jewish population. Any of them should be full of Jews, since they have historically always lived there.

Apartheid state my ass. The only reason you can't call all the surrounding countries apartheid states is because Jews have already been murdered or forced to leave, and no longer live there at all.

Hard to claim apartheid when one group has already murdered all of the other group.

By contrast, you're free to live in Israel no matter what your ethnicity or religion.

[thorny stone]

Again, do the crimes of one group justify the crimes of another group? Is that what you're arguing?

[forest vale]

I'm saying you couldn't care less about apartheid or equal rights. You just care about condemning Israel, even though it's a shining beacon of human rights compared to anywhere in that region.

[thorny stone]

At worst, the Jews and Arabs were both attacking each other.

[thorny stone]

Oh, so you're not even arguing the point any more but making personal attacks instead? Gotcha.

[forest vale]

Civilians generally just want to live in their homes. They won't leave unless forced to.

[hollow token]

Jews mainly migrated to Israel over the last century, its not only the jews who have been murdered and force to leave everywhere but also christians muslims zoroastronists and everyone. Jews have been discriminated but you cant really expect as much of anything else because everyone that was different were discriminated everywhere not like it justifies it but its worth pointining it out. Still many muslims and Jews lived in peace for the most part and sometimes they were kicked out or discriminated

[forest vale]

That's not a personal attack, that's just facts.

[forest vale]

Jews didn't migrate, they were forced out or murdered. People don't just leave their ancestral homes unless they are forced to.

[thorny stone]

Jewish people have left from many places to go and live in Israel. People do often move because they think it will be better in the new place, without being persecuted in the place they currently live.

[forest vale]

But the fact is, they were persecuted. You don't get a population to zero without extreme persecution.

You've got Christians in Gaza. No Jews. That's insane.

You've got Christians in all the surrounding territories. No Jews. The level of persecution for that to be true has to be so high.

[hollow token]

Some were some werent, also what do you mean by ancestral homes

I think many jews flocked from europe when they heard of Israel

[forest vale]

I mean homes that they've passed down from generation to generation. Lived there for hundreds of years.

[thorny stone]

In this example, it wasn't persecution but rather a war. There have been quite a lot of conflicts between Israel and the surrounding countries. No country wants large populations of people who sympathise more with their enemies, and nobody wants to live in a country that is fighting with their friends and relatives.

[forest vale]

The area has had a continual Jewish presence for thousands of years.

[forest vale]

Wars are between political groups. Jew is a religion or an ethnicity, not a political group. If as a result of war, you target an ethnic group, that is literal genocide.

That's the actual definition of genocide. Not whatever nonsense people claim is happening in Gaza.

[thorny stone]

...except in the case of Israel, which is has a much stronger association with an ethnicity than any other country.

[forest vale]

So let's say it how it is. As a result of war, the countries surrounding Israel committed genocide. So the Jews fled this genocide and ended up in Israel, because no other country in the world was allowing them refuge.

[forest vale]

That's not how it goes. You can't just justify genocide because the country you're fighting is Israel.

By that logic, Israel should wipe out or kick out its entire Muslim population.

[thorny stone]

Ok, let's say it how it actually is. Zionists tried to make a racist state in Israel, and started treating arabs badly to force them to leave. The arabs resisted, and conflict ensued which forced people from both ethnicities to leave the areas controlled by their opponents.

[forest vale]

The problem being that they were so horrible at mistreating Arabs that Israel is currently full of Arabs.

Nearly 20% of Israel is Muslim.

So they're clearly horrible at kicking people out who aren't Jewish.

[thorny stone]

Yes. Not all of them have been forced out yet.

[forest vale]

Worst racists ever.

[forest vale]

The surrounding countries are clearly much more effective at racism than Israel.

The Jewish population of the surrounding countries isn't just a few. It's zero.

[thorny stone]

When Israel was created there were 1.2million Arabs in the area. 700,000 of them were forced to leave.

[forest vale]

That's some extreme racism right there.

[forest vale]

I mean, there's a lot more context, but that was also 70 years ago.

I'm sure they were very racist back then. Their very lives were also on the line.

The entire world wanted them dead. They had no allies, no weapons.

It's actually insane that Israel survived. I'm sure they did horrible things along the way to make that happen.

[thorny stone]

Nothing much has changed in terms of feelings. Israeli settlers are still going about killing innocent arabs, even when the Israeli army isn't doing it for them. But the laws in Israel are gradually getting more explicitly racist in recent years.

[thorny stone]

Some of them still think they're fighting that same war for survival.

[forest vale]

I've looked. There's no racism in Israeli laws that I could find. Feel free to point to something if you want to and I'll look it up.

[forest vale]

I mean they literally are. Some strong countries have an official policy of wiping Israel off the map.

[hollow token]

Im not, I havent read what Arklar said but even if he is racist, that doesnt change the fact that you are muslim/Arab hater in some way or another since you are speaking out against them so much

[thorny stone]

I explained it at length to you before.
#1195214812548972685 message

[hollow token]

O wait

]I misread it

fuck my bad

😂

I fucked up there

[forest vale]

Yeah... you did lol.

[hollow token]

my bad ignore it

[forest vale]

It's all good.

[hollow token]

but

[forest vale]

I'm saying it's gotta be racist to get a population to zero when they literally border your country.

That doesn't happen anywhere in the world.

[hollow token]

I do think you have some sort of disliking of muslims is that true though because from the way you are speaking out against most of us I think I recieve it that way

[thorny stone]

Is it possible you're actually replying to the wrong comment there? Maybe you click the wrong message to reply to sometimes?

[forest vale]

I was replying to Skitles

[thorny stone]

It happens any time there is a war. The German population of the UK took a real nosedive during WW2 also.

[forest vale]

A nosedive doesn't mean zero though, does it.

[thorny stone]

Yes, it does.

[forest vale]

Really? You're arguing that there were zero Germans in the UK? Because that's false.

[thorny stone]

14,000 Austrians and Germans living in the UK were interned elsewhere during WW2

[forest vale]

Germans were one of the biggest minorities in the US, and they gladly joined the war against Germany.

[forest vale]

Okay... but that's not all of them and that doesn't mean the population became zero.

I don't think you're getting this concept of zero. You seem to think it means less.

And there are many Germans in the UK today.

[thorny stone]

We resolved the issue. Israel and the Palestinians have not. WW2 lasted 6 years, Israel and the Palestinians have been at it for nearly 80.

[forest vale]

Many of the countries surrounding Israel are no longer at war with Israel and haven't been for some time. So they should naturally have a Jewish population.

[thorny stone]

Why would Jews move back there?

[forest vale]

When I say surrounding territories, I certainly include Palestine. But I mean all the surrounding countries as well.

[forest vale]

If the extreme racism wasn't present, then of course they would.

But they aren't allowed to move back without fear of horrible things happening immediately.

[thorny stone]

Really? You think they would choose to live in an Arab country over a Jewish country they are now settled in?

[forest vale]

Are you so racist that you can't imagine someone living in a country that contains something other than their own ethnicity?

[thorny stone]

Are you so racist that you think racism is the only reason for everything?

[forest vale]

Is there no reason at all to live in Egypt? In Jordan? Are those countries just cesspools to be dismissed? Of course not.

People in Israel are still human. Many are not religious. They would move to other places for all sorts of reasons if they were allowed to.

[thorny stone]

They can move anywhere they like. Most other countries in the world are safer for Jews than Israel, given the current long-term war.

[forest vale]

The only reason the population would be zero is if there was extreme racism forbidding people from being safe to move there.

[forest vale]

I mean this is objectively false.

You'll be murdered.

[thorny stone]

What planet do you live on?

[forest vale]

Reality.

They would live there if they could.

[thorny stone]

Do you have any evidence of this?

[forest vale]

I'm sure we'll see Jews move there soon, since relations are starting to normalize.

[thorny stone]

Where are you talking about?

[forest vale]

My evidence is that Jews are human and they've lived all over the world throughout history.

Including during times of persecution.

It's stupid to think they wouldn't return to where they used to live, or wouldn't go out and explore other places. That's basic human nature.

Why would you want to be confined to a small country like Israel your whole life and not want to see the neighboring countries?

[thorny stone]

Jews already can live in most places around the world. But is the trend for Jews to move from Israel to other countries, or from other countries to Israel? I think it's fairly obvious what the trend is.

Sure, some Jews leave Israel to live elsewhere. Especially now, with Israel being such a racist state even many Jewish people don't even want to live there.

And yes, there is racism against Jews in many countries surrounding Israel. Like it or not, Israel has caused a lot of trouble for the surrounding countries, so it's understandable that people in the area hate Israel. And there is a big campaign by Zionists to have Israel be considered a Jewish religious state, so it's not surprising many people associate Judaism with the actions of Israel.

[forest vale]

The stuff you're saying is a hundred years outdated. It is the normal way of things for people to move to the countries they border. The fact that Arabs are comfortable living in Israel but Jews are not comfortable living in the surrounding countries makes it obvious where the racism is.

If what you are saying applied, then you would see few Jews move. Instead, we see zero. That's not normal.

It is not natural for an ethnic population to go to zero.

[thorny stone]

Arabs aren't comfortable living in Israel. They just have no choice, like most people in the world.

[thorny stone]

I've already explained that it is totally normal during a period of extended war.

[forest vale]

And I've already countered that that's nonsense.

[thorny stone]

...without providing any explanation for your assertion, yes.

[forest vale]

That only happens as a result of actual genocide

[forest vale]

I did actually.

You cannot get a population to zero without genocide or extreme racism

[thorny stone]

Do you have evidence that Germans moved to the UK to live during WW2?

[forest vale]

Israel hasn't been at war with the surrounding countries for quite some time. Hasn't been at war with Gaza either.

So that point is nonsense.

[thorny stone]

You might need to catch up on some news.

[forest vale]

Germans lived in the UK during the war and continued to live there after.

Really? Israel and Egypt are at war right now?

Since when?

[thorny stone]

Israel has been engaged in a conflict with the Palestinians, and a racist conflict with Arabs, for nearly 80 years.

[forest vale]

Crazy how they haven't kicked the Arabs out then, isn't it.

If your point made sense, then that's what Israel should have done.

[thorny stone]

They HAVE kicked Arabs out. 700,000 of them almost immediately.

[forest vale]

I mean, they were ordered to evacuate by the Arab countries who were invading Israel. Many did. But amazingly, they returned.

[thorny stone]

It's just the racist zionists aren't always in total control, so they need to make it appear as though they aren't as racist as they are. So they're using slower processes than simply killing them all immediately.

[forest vale]

And that's the point. They still live in Israel. But Jews aren't welcome in the surrounding countries. That's the current state of things.

[thorny stone]

Arabs aren't welcome in Israel, and Jews aren't welcome in the surrounding countries. That's the current state of things.

[forest vale]

But amazingly, the racist antisemites are in total control of the surrounding countries, making the Jewish population zero.

Arabs being "not welcome" means they can freely live in Israel. Jews not being welcome means they aren't allowed to be there at all. It's not exactly equivalent.

[thorny stone]

Arabs can't live freely in Israel at all. They are just being exterminated more slowly. They are still there because they have nowhere to go. Unlike the Jews in neighbouring countries, who had Israel to move to just a few miles away.

But I still feel like you're trying to argue that it's fine for Israel to be racist because there are other racist people in the world.

Which is obviously a really poor argument.

[forest vale]

Arabs have nowhere to go, when every surrounding country is Arab? What a nonsense argument.

[thorny stone]

Do the surrounding countries freely accept anyone just wanting to move in, when they have already accepted hundreds of thousands?

[forest vale]

Are Arabs so racist that someone living in Israel means automatic refusal to enter? The reality is that Arabs in Israel are doing better than Arabs elsewhere.

Israel is much smaller than the other countries. The idea that people would love to move but can't just doesn't match reality.

[thorny stone]

That's a frequently told lie, whose only basis is racism.

[forest vale]

Or statistics. It could be based in statistics.

[thorny stone]

...But it's not. It's based on your particular moral values, not on those of the Arabs, which are the only values that matter in this situation.

Arabs are treated worse than Jews in Israel. That's a fact, and it is a clear example of racism.

[forest vale]

You're saying that the moral values of Arabs make living in Israel atrocious? Are you calling Arabs racist? That makes no sense.

[thorny stone]

I'm saying Arabs are persecuted for holding their beliefs in Israel.

[forest vale]

I actually don't doubt this. But that doesn't equate to Arabs doing worse in Israel than other places.

I'm sure many don't feel like they're treated worse at all.

And some feel it a lot.

[thorny stone]

Who gets to decide where Arabs are doing best? You, or the Arabs themselves?

[forest vale]

Neither. Statistics.

[thorny stone]

So you don't get to decide what you prefer, it's decided by statistics?

[forest vale]

Jews are certainly doing better in Israel than in the surrounding countries. It's nice not to be dead.

I don't know how you can think it's a fair comparison.

It's obvious where the extreme racism must be

[thorny stone]

You're the only one trying to make a comparison here!

You're the only one that thinks that trying to make a comparison is relevant.

[forest vale]

Obviously. You seem to think Arabs are being murdered slowly by living in Israel.

But they're doing better there than in other countries.

[thorny stone]

Yes, because I can see the evidence.

[forest vale]

So that makes no sense

Do Arabs murder Arabs faster than Israel can murder them?

[thorny stone]

Even if Arabs were being treated better in Israel than in other countries (which they're not), that still wouldn't mean Arabs weren't being mistreated in Israel.

[forest vale]

Yes, it would.

[thorny stone]

I'm just talking about Israel. Israel is racist towards Arabs.

You don't get to claim that you're not racist, simply because someone else treats other people even worse.

[forest vale]

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'm sure the racism hits a solid 3. By contrast, there are zero Jews in surrounding countries, meaning the level of racism is the highest possible, so a 10.

There's a difference between people being treated differently and racism. That's not the same thing.

[thorny stone]

Is it possible to be considered racist if you don't actually do anything racist?

But I think your whole argument about trying to compare levels of racism is insane.

[forest vale]

Because you already murdered them all? Yes, absolutely.

[thorny stone]

Which of course, isn't what actually happened.

[forest vale]

It's insane to even discuss racism in the least racist country in the region.

But here we are.

[thorny stone]

Ok, thanks for clarification. You actually are literally saying that racism isn't a problem worth discussing as long as there are people even more racist than you.

It's insane to even discuss racism in the least racist country in the region.

[forest vale]

You're right. Some escaped. So they started a war to kill the rest, but they lost. Hard. Multiple times.

[forest vale]

Well it makes no sense to focus on the country where it is less of an issue and ignore the surrounding countries. You're acting like the other countries are somehow justified.

[thorny stone]

I think we're finished with this conversation. You said you don't think the racism in Israel is worth talking about, so there's no point trying to talk about it with you.

[forest vale]

And yeah, Israel absolutely would be justified. The entire region tried to wipe them off the map multiple times in recent history.

[thorny stone]

....AFTER they started trying to wipe the Arabs off the map.

[forest vale]

I mean it's not like you're actually talking about it. You're pretending it exists without giving any examples.

[forest vale]

Or rather after Israel accepted a two state solution and the Arabs rejected it.

[thorny stone]

OK, and now I go back to blocking you. You know for a fact that I have provided examples, including the specific lines of specific laws. I have provided them to you at least 3 times, which is easy to verify with a simple search.

Have a good life in your land of lies.

[forest vale]

I don't. You said there were laws, but stated none.

[civic karma]

Don't be too harsh

Everyone experiences propaganda

[forest vale]

And I don't recall any other examples at all.

@civic karma I'll try not to hold it against him too much.

[civic karma]

Well both of you actually

And me as well

[thorny stone]

I wasn't being harsh to Falcon. This is what they do every time. Argue for a while, ignore the points that prove they are wrong, and then claim that black is white when cornered.

[prisma harbor]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7S17Fr8z_Oo&si=OwaSU4SHO5yvreka

[versed quartz]

Well this thread popped off

[brave ferry]

Thank you. Very outstanding choice of words! I switched it to conditioning but its all the same. Thank u for seeing it and saying it

[junior delta]

Which part, Hamas using human shields and forcing civillian deaths? First hand accounts.

Israel minmizing civiallian deaths? Statistics. Look at any war in modern warfare history and you will see that most of them, if not all of them, have more civillian casualties from one side than Israel has in thsi war.

[civic karma]

Yeah the second part about minimizing casualties. I looked up my sources and found something different. Generally during a war the amount of casualties is about 50/50 civilians VS combatants. In the post-9/11 wars America somehow got this figure to about 2:1 (fuck you America you deserve a war crime conviction as well) in the previous Israel Palestine conflicts this too was about 2:1. In the CURRENT conflict this number is as high as 3:1 to 4:1. So your conclusion about civilian deaths is impossible to draw with the figures I have. On the contrary, this conflict has the most relative civilian deaths of any conflict in the past 150 years.

So again, where did you get this information from?

WHAT statistics you looking at

If you have so many stats you surely can send me a couple of links/papers/journal articles

[prisma harbor]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=_FNtMV2i8-8&si=wflm0Dd6tnf_Yyot

Israel is clearly the root cause of the problem. Hamas is punching back. However, any person causing violence at this point is furthering the problem; Even if in self defence. The problem is violence; So, how much violence is someone ready to endure before deciding to either attempt to flee, fight back or stand their ground peacefully in protest, sacrificing themselves as to be an example for the world and make the aggressor lose face in front of everyone. The Palestinians can flee which might save themselves who are fleeing or might not. They can fight back if they think they have a chance but this option will create gruesome consequences, and if they are fighting back only out of vengeance, it’s wrong and evil. Or they can stand ground and be an example for the world. The more they sacrifice themselves standing ground peacefully, the more Israel will be persecuted by the whole world for their evil doing.

[forest vale]

Anyone who calls parachuting into a music festival and mowing people down punching back should probably reevaluate their life choices. You don't rush into a town and into homes to rape mothers in front of their children as a way to punch back. You don't toss babies into ovens as a way to punch back.

[forest vale]

You can find lots of inaccurate information when you're relying on Hamas for your numbers.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-69025420.amp

[prisma harbor]

Some punch back and don’t plan to stop there. Some get punched and punch back and keep punching and do much worse than what was done to them as a vengeance and yes that is evil and wrong obviously.

[forest vale]

You don't "punch back." You eliminate the threat. Period. All of it.

You don't leave terrorists to live and do the same thing again in 5 or 10 years.

[prisma harbor]

I meant punch back as an expression of retaliation and or vengeance. I agree that the word I used could have been better. What I meant by punch back is: continue the violence and or escalate it.

[forest vale]

This idea is predicated on the notion that wars being fought in other areas are similar to Gaza, which is not the case. Show me in these other wars where civilians were prevented from fleeing by the terrorists who set up military camps underneath civilian population centers, schools, and hospitals. That doesn't normally happen in other wars. Your civilian casualties should be pretty low when all civilians flee the area. But still, somehow, even with Hamas maximizing casualties, the numbers for this war are comparable to other wars. It's insane that they've done such a good job of minimizing casualties.

[forest vale]

Well, they aren't escalating the violence, they are ending it by wiping out Hamas fully.

Violence will come from other sources, sure. But the rockets have been nonstop for decades, and now October 7. Just get rid of the terrorists, no reason to let them live.

[civic karma]

Yes this only speaks about women and children and completely negates any innocent civilian men. Therefore the actual numbers are much higher than 50%

again, you just ignore all the data and pretend like only your sources are correct and everyone else is wrong

[civic karma]

LIterally EVERY war that the US has waged in the middle east (Iraq, Iran, etc..) The US were the ones starting with mass murdering of civilians on ratios never seen in any previous war before, and now the israeli goverment is just following the example

[prisma harbor]

Time will tell if it becomes escalated or not. Yes they could crush hamas and end it, or crush hamas and create other hate groups in the process. It’s violence all the same. I’m not saying it’s completely unjustified, all I’m saying is it’s the state of Israel that is the root cause of most of this violence so it’s their responsibility to do it as carefully as possible. It is also Israel’s responsibility to re-evaluate their ways and find a way towards reconciliation afterwards, however hard that might be. It’s kind of like when the europeans occupied america when the natives were already there. It is still our responsibility as citizens in north and south america to work towards reconciliation for the violence of the past.

[civic karma]

Do you believe by wiping out HAMAS the violence will stop?

[forest vale]

Don't know how you don't have any condemnation for Hamas in this. You're acting like they're a legitimate power over there, as if October 7 was just another day that can totally be justified. We have recent examples of wars that have claimed far more lives in less populated areas.

I don't see any condemnation from you for Hamas attacking civilians when they try to evacuate. I don't see you condemning Hamas attacking the pier the US was constructing in order to deliver aid. I don't see you condemning Egypt for refusing entry to refugees. I don't see you condemning military bases being put under civilian structures like schools and hospitals.

[civic karma]

We just gonna ignore the systematic oppression and agression from Israel towards the occupied territories?

Heck, the israeli government has been condemned multiple times BY THE UN to stop the settling in the west bank

[forest vale]

Europe didn't occupy North and South America, they colonized it and then took it over. That's not the same thing.

[forest vale]

Gotta maintain that apartheid. Can't have those dirty Jews moving into the area, right?

That whole concept is complete nonsense anyway. The best thing that could happen to Gaza and the West Bank is that it's fully absorbed into Israel. The sooner the better.

The UN is a joke anyway.

[forest vale]

Hard for people to keep shooting you when they aren't breathing. It's a good start.

Keeping them alive and trying to make peace with them certainly didn't work, now did it.

[prisma harbor]

North and south America are enormous compared to Israel so obviously it's not exactly the same (It was mostly colonization but there was still occupation in many areas as many native villages were overrun, displaced and occupied). My point still stands.

[forest vale]

It's not Israel's responsibility to keep Hamas from murdering civilians. It's not Israel's responsibility to stop them from using human shields.

[forest vale]

No, it's still inaccurate. There was pretty much never a time when we occupied territory. Settlers generally preceded the army.

[forest vale]

And besides that, Israel isn't occupying territory. It was historically their own territory. They actually pulled back, which is the opposite of occupying.

[prisma harbor]

Listen, it's a war and you've got to seriously look into who started this war and why. Peel back the layers of the onion. In any case, it's everyone's responsibility to reduce violence and go towards as peaceful a solution as possible. That's pretty undeniable. But are you aware of why this whole conflict is a thing in the first place?

[prisma harbor]

I would love to see your sources about how and why this situation in Israel came to be. Meanwhile, I'll find and share my sources. If we both really want to have a better understanding of the situation, we should pay attention to each other's sources of information.

[forest vale]

Israel has been in that territory since around 1000 BCE. Islam wasn't even founded until over 1600 years later. There has been continual Jewish presence in the land ever since. Around 636, Arabs invaded and occupied the area, and the land was passed back and forth several times until Israel regained control of it shortly after WW2 in 1948. All the surrounding countries tried to attack to wipe Israel out, but failed despite an arms embargo against Israel and a lack of support from other countries. The surrounding countries kept up their attacks despite cease fire agreements and kept losing, and eventually were made to accept that Israel had regained its lost territory. Then Israel, despite it being inadvisable, despite great military disadvantage in doing so, and despite continued open policy of the destruction of Israel by many countries, decided to voluntarily give up much of the territory it regained during the war. They should not have given it up and should have absorbed it all, because then all of it would be as prosperous as Israel currently is.

[dapper island]

I think the MOST clear cut example of Israel being shitty without requiring learning a thousand years of history is that their constitution is explicitly racist in that it literally elevates one ethnic group over all others. Like that alone should be enough to realize that Israel isn't this enlightened democratic utopia defending itself against terrorism.

[junior delta]

If you think you're sources are more credible than other peoples, you should provide yours too then. It seems like you're doing exactly what you're saying other people are doing.

[junior delta]

I'd love to see your sources, I can give you mine. But, there also is something to consider. The type of battle field. There were a ton of civillian casualties in the War on Terror, something like 300,000+. Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same as the Gaza strip. Gaza is a dense city pretty much, the entire thing is urban warfare, civillian deaths are expected to be higher than in a rural warfare scenario such as with most of the GWOT. Even then, the numbers are almost even when considering the fact that Gaza is entierlly urban conflict, when as an example Iraq (https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/reference/press-releases/12/) if you take the civ. deaths/day from March 2006 - March 2007, there were 73 deaths a day. If we take that, and multiply it by the amount of days in 7 months (how long it's been since October [~213 days]) there would have bee ~15,549 civillian deaths in Iraq. About half of what Gaza claims, which to be honest is likely inflated. Even if it isn't inflated. The same amount of time in Iraq, with no where near the same amount of urban warfare and strikes, Iraq only had about half the deaths.

The truth is, war is brutal, especially when it is urban warfare. Also, I agree with you that my conclusion was impossible to draw based on what you were saying, because what you were saying had nothing to do with what I was saying. You're talking about ratios of civillian to militant deaths, I'm talking about the actual number of deaths. Ratios mean nothing without the actual numbers.

Also, in no way am I saying that the situation is good, or right, I'm simplying pointing out that they are not going out of their way to target civillians in mass.

[forest vale]

Got an example of this from their constitution? Because that is something I'm very interested in learning about.

[forest vale]

People have really conflated deaths with civilian deaths. It's rather hard to say, especially when we have many examples from Iraq of women and children being used as fighters. When your ideology is strong enough for you to put a bomb in your child's hands and send them to their death, then the line between civilian and combatant really gets blurry.

[junior delta]

^ That is true. It is hard to count deaths, especially when relying on the local populace as they're going to view more people as civillians than combatants, even if the death was due to the person becoming militant.

[dapper island]

Got these links from a pretty anti-isreal article, but stuck to the wikipedia links here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People

The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.
Honestly not sure what this actually means or what it actually results in. I don't think this is an explicit "only jews can vote," but definitely refers to jewish people differently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_and_Entry_into_Israel_Law

The law makes inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip ineligible for the automatic granting of Israeli citizenship and residency permits that are usually available through marriage to an Israeli citizen.
Whether you are pro or anti immigration, the fact that it calls out like a specific region of the worlds definitely pretty yikes. This law would be akin to passing a law like (immigrants from Mexico can't get citizenship through marriage or something)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba_Law

The law authorizes the Minister of Finance to withhold a limited amount of state funds from any government-funded[1] institution or body that commemorates "Israel's Independence Day or the day on which the state was established as a day of mourning", or that denies the existence of Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state."
Some good old fashioned first amendment violations. I know a lot of European countries have similar laws. But this did lead to some cancel culture in universities.

There's probably more but not a lawyer, hope this is enough examples.

[forest vale]

It would be much easier to respond if you'd broken up the links instead of the massive block.

Well good. If those are from an anti-Israel site, then it ought to be the best arguments they've got. So now we can look at them and see if any hold water.

[forest vale]

1. Israel was created for the Jews.
   There might be something here in this symbolic law that doesn't actually give preferences or rights to anyone. I'll count this as symbolically treating people differently.

[forest vale]

2. Citizenship and entry.

So I've looked at this quite a bit. The idea that this is somehow racist is... well, quite ridiculous. It doesn't treat citizens differently at all. It doesn't matter who you are or where you come from, if you have family in certain countries, you don't get to automatically bring them in without additional scrutiny. This makes a lot of sense. Why? Because all the countries in question explicitly have the death of Israel as their official policy.

What country in the history of the world has made it automatic policy to allow entry and citizenship to people from countries actively at war with them? That seems ridiculous. It's like saying Ukraine should be required to allow entry and citizenship to any citizen of Russia right now. Complete nonsense, right?

Next.

[forest vale]

3. Nakba Law

That's it? You're just getting funding withheld if you celebrate the demise of Israel or mourn its founding? Sounds extremely reasonable. You shouldn't reward people with state funding for advocating for the destruction of the state.

Do you have anything that actually discriminates in favor of one group over another in the law? Some set of rights that one group has that another doesn't?

[forest vale]

I mean we're looking to charge Israel with crimes here for their horrendous apartheid policies, worse than South Africa! Surely there must be something more extreme than laws that still treat all citizens the same.

[hollow token]

I think what’s interesting is the hypocrisy of Israel. When the Germans started their whole thing they were discriminated and flocked to Palestine for refuge where they accepted them and didn’t discriminate them despite being 10:1 in majority. Now Israel is even teaching their kids in schools to hate palestenians (not directly) you can search up many articles about it.

[forest vale]

Palestinians were cheering in the streets when they found out that 1200 Israelis were raped and murdered. You really want to make that comparison?

Palestinian civilians were documented joining Hamas fighters in going over to Israel to rape and murder civilians in nearby towns.

I don't know why you'd expect Israel to do anything but hate all of Palestine, but amazingly, they're just clearing out Hamas and still trying to avoid civilian casualties.

[forest vale]

I also really don't know how you can claim people didn't discriminate against Israelis when they literally started fighting each other before Israel was even established as a state, and then all the surrounding countries banded together to wipe out the Jews.

Arabs were already attacking Israelis in 1947, 5 months before Israel was created. People like to ignore the fact that it was a war already at that point. When you've got a group of people who are attacking you for your ethnicity, and you're fighting a war against them, then yeah, you're probably going to throw them out of your country.

[forest vale]

I mean you had literal Nazis joining the Arabs to attack the Jews. Reading about this is fascinating.

[hollow token]

Some were some werent, I think they are cheering for someone who atleast fought for them. Its not like Hamas is doing any good but neither is Israel. Im talking about Israel making their children hate palestinians which arent Hamas. Palestinians would join Hamas because they were fed up with the food and water supply shortage that the Israeli's set up (again doesnt justify neither Hamas or Israel).

Israel is not trying to avoid civilian casualties I thought we cleared that up already, since there have been many accounts of Israeli Soldiers killing or harming children or civilians who have done nothing wrong and if you think everything given to us is propaganda from Hamas then you should reconsider. They started fighting jews before Israel was established because they already were trying to establish a country in the first place (since before the 20th century)

They didnt want to lose 50% of their land to people who recently migrated to their territory. So they started fighting them and lost.

Nazis joining Arabs to attack the jews doesn't make the Arabs Nazi's or vice versa, Nazi's were different people and they were simply fighting a common enemy. Its like saying The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were the same because they both invaded Poland. They simply had a common enemy and fought against them.

[forest vale]

There was never anything credible about Israelis targeting civilians. You can't just say it and then claim that it's "cleared up". No it's not. Israeli attacks have been against Hamas, who use human shields. The IDF has been documented calling off attacks over and over and over again due to the civilians present, but ultimately, Hamas is still launching attacks and must be destroyed, even with human shields present.

I'm not saying everything is Hamas propaganda, but when there are clear documented cases of Hamas propaganda that were obviously false that people ran with and promoted as fact, I'm not going to trust any of that nonsense without a lot of additional scrutiny.

[hollow token]

And you also justify that to kill tens of thousands of civilians, plus there have been multiple reports (news or just general things on the media) of Israelis targeting civilians, if you think that isnt credible enough then you can also say that the 1200 jewish people dead is also not credible enough?

[forest vale]

Again, Hamas targeting civilians and then reporting that it was the IDF that did it, which has been documented many times, is not something I take seriously.

[hollow token]

There is propaganda on both sides I think you have to acknoledge that, you and I both are being fed some fucked up shit but you cannot deny that Israelis have been targetting civilians and some of it may be Hamas propaganda which I doubt however most of it isnt and it makes sense why the Israelis are killing civilians in the first place

[thorny stone]

I think it's very clear that Hamas actually is organising things for civilians in Gaza, and they are often the most effective people at supporting civilians' needs, given they are basically the only organisation that has been able to resist Israel trying to destroy any and every organised Palestinian group. They exist as they do, because they are the only thing that works to accomplish anything in Gaza, while it is under constant attack from Israel.
In times of war, you turn to warlike leaders and groups. For example Winston Churchill was a terrible peacetime leader for the UK, nobody liked him of his policies, but he was needed during a time of war because you need a different type of person then.

[hollow token]

Ive also noticed you dont like to accept that you are wrong, maybe its your pride getting in the way but I have been able to in the other conversations I dont know why you wont. You claimed no Israelis have been in Gaza for 20 years which was obviously BS and a lie and either you have been fed propaganda again or you dont wanna claim you are wrong

[forest vale]

War is blurry. Civilian vs militant is blurry. Hamas attacking civilians makes things blurry when trying to say the IDF caused casualties.

There was nothing blurry about October 7. There weren't military battles, these were civilian zones. Homes. A music festival. There were no military bases attacked. You're pretending that attacking military bases is the same as parachuting into a music festival to mow down civilians. How do you expect me to take you seriously?

[forest vale]

I can absolutely deny that Israel is targeting civilians, and you've given me nothing that shows otherwise.

[hollow token]

The documentaries and reports arent good enough?

"nothing"?

Multiple Websites btw ^

[forest vale]

What are you talking about? They withdrew 20 years ago. All Israeli settlements are gone, whether they were legitimate or not. How do you not know that?

[forest vale]

No, they really weren't good enough, because there was nothing of substance there.

[hollow token]

What about the recent ground invasion of the northern Gaza strip, also your claim was and I quote "I don't know how you call something an occupation when no Israelis have been in Gaza for like 20 years." Which means israelis havent been in Gaza for 20 years which is full BS

[forest vale]

Don't know if you've heard, but something being on the internet doesn't make it true. All you've sent were third hand accounts. There weren't actually any incidents listed.

[forest vale]

Are you talking about when they went in to take out the people constantly firing rockets at them?

[hollow token]

What kind of proof do you want then 😂💀, I think its pointless to argue with you at this point now since you are refusing to believe everything

[forest vale]

Yeah, shame they didn't kill all of Hamas back then.

[forest vale]

What do you mean, what kind of proof? How about you come up with one incident.

One incident of Israel targeting civilians.

[hollow token]

I know and I literally said that but if theres so many claims on that parcticular claim then theres a good chance it is true indeed

[forest vale]

We'll start with one and go from there. But right now we're at, "a lot of people claim incidents have happened."

[hollow token]

https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/week-israeli-army-executes-13-children-and-near-al-shifa-hospital-enar#:~:text=Since Palestinian children make up,widespread manner is clearly intentional.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/08/28/west-bank-spike-israeli-killings-palestinian-children

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/5/21/israels-war-on-gaza-live-40-of-gaza-population-displaced-in-two-weeks

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/23/israel-killing-children-west-bank

https://www.dci-palestine.org/israeli_forces_shoot_kill_three_palestinian_boys_in_the_occupied_west_bank

There are PLENTY more and I dont think this isnt good enough for you either is it?

[forest vale]

Gotta love how Arklar is literally defending Hamas. I don't care how much you might do for people. If you fight war by going into music festivals and mowing down civilians, or by raping old women until their bones break, then you deserve to be wiped off the planet as efficiently as possible.

[forest vale]

I guess "one" was a bit much, right? Gotta make it hard to respond to.

[thorny stone]

Israel fights a war by deliberately shooting innocent children. By your logic, Israel should be wiped off the Earth.

Israel has done things far worse than anything Hamas has ever done.

[hollow token]

In general there have been multiple accounts on different occasions that children have been hurt/killed by Israeli forces when they pretty much had nothing to do with hamas

[forest vale]

Except that doesn't actually happen.

[thorny stone]

You're again complaining about being shown multiple sources of evidence disproving your case?

[hollow token]

Both Hamas and IDF deserve punishment but not jewish or palestinian people. I dont like the governments or the forces but the people are interesting individuals with lots of culture and identity. I think jewish people have some of the coolest cultures Ive seen but the Israeli's (government and military) should be wiped out and so should many other countries governments and/or militaries dont get me wrong

[hollow token]

Prove to me it doesnt happend

[thorny stone]

While you're at it, prove any old women were raped until their bones broke by Hamas.

[hollow token]

Hamas people actually have a purpose to fight for, its not just kill civilians and pretend victim

[hollow token]

Also he thinks israeli's havent killed or raped any women either and that they are pure forces who try to avoid killing civilians 😂

[forest vale]

Asking for negative proof is stupid. You don't prove things didn't happen. You provide proof that things did happen and then counter that proof.

I'm not even a little bit interested in proving that October 7 was horrible. If you don't already think that it was horrible, then I have zero interest in anything you have to say.

[thorny stone]

We have provided proof it did happen. You just haven't countered any of it.

[forest vale]

You're a literal Hamas supporter, so there's that.

[hollow token]

I have atleast gained some personal experiences with people who simply do not care and put their hatred and biasm up front.

[hollow token]

Youre a literal Israel supporter, so theres that.

[thorny stone]

You've invented that yourself as well, I'm afraid. I'm not a Hamas supporter.

[forest vale]

Okay so that first link, the organization was founded by a Hamas activist. Not a Palestinian activist, but a Hamas activist. So we're back to Hamas claiming the IDF kills civilians.

I'm not going to trust Hamas to give me data on the IDF when they have been demonstrated to lie over and over again. They consistently make attacks and then blame others for what they just did. So sorry, the Euro Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor is out due to being founded by Hamas.

[forest vale]

Yes, definitely. Don't know why that's some sort of insult, but whatever.

[forest vale]

You are defending their actions and claiming that the horrific actions of October 7 didn't happen. That's good enough for me.

[hollow token]

Show me proof that it was founded by a Hamas activist

[thorny stone]

What the fuck are you talking about?

[hollow token]

Thats actually funny

I think this guy is out of his mind, I dont want to insult here because it makes my point invalid but it is actually getting pretty crazy here 😂

[forest vale]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramy_Abdu

Link two, the Guardian uses Palestinian Health Ministry data for their story. Again, Hamas organization. Next.

[hollow token]

This isnt good enough for me

^ Im using your logic btw

[thorny stone]

Yes, I'll defend some of Hamas's actions, but only when they are trying to defend themselves from the insane Israeli attacks. Not when they're also attacking civilians. And show me any occasion where I've denied anything happened on October 7th that there is actual evidence for that has been presented here.

[forest vale]

I genuinely don't care if it's good enough for you. The man was a lobbyist for Hamas. I'm not taking data from Hamas.

[thorny stone]

Reliefweb is run by the UN, and formerly the US state department. So it's actually the UN saying the IDF kills civilians in that first link.

[forest vale]

As I said before, I'm not presenting evidence for October 7, because anyone questioning October 7 gets put in the category of terrorist sympathizer immediately. It's like those claiming 9/11 was justified, but much worse.

[hollow token]

I genuinely dont care if its not good enough for you, you are a Israel supporter and justify the tens of thousands of civlians killed in under a year by a government who "tries" to avoid civilians and teaches to hate Palestinians. Also cuts the aid and water/food supply to Palestine and is claiming to be in the right here.

[thorny stone]

Anyone who doesn't just take Israel's government's word for things is a terrorist sympathiser?

That's quite a claim.

[forest vale]

My claim was that the ones claiming civilians are being targeted are Hamas. Then you give me links that show Hamas claiming civilians are being targeted. You can whine about it, but the reality is that this is really easy to look at.

[thorny stone]

In fact, it's not even Israel's government. Anyone who doesn't believe any random accusation posted on social media is a terrorist sympathiser?

[hollow token]

Its completely pointless to have a converstion with anyone who doesnt claim their wrongs and has hatred and biasm, as well as simply doesnt want to hear the other side out.

[forest vale]

The civilians were killed by Hamas, who then blames the IDF. Hamas is doing their best to maximize civilian casualties. This is well documented. You defending Hamas and parroting their claims gives Hamas power. You're enabling those who use human shields.

[thorny stone]

Do you have any evidence of THAT claim? Any of those claims, in fact?

[forest vale]

Do you think "hear the other side out" means "accept anything without looking into it"?

I'm looking at the links you're presenting. You didn't want to just discuss one, like I asked. You posted a dozen. So I either go through them quickly, as I was doing, or I ignore what you posted to focus on one.

[thorny stone]

Even the Israeli government agrees it has killed innocent Palestinian civilians.

[forest vale]

That's not the claim though, is it.

You can't just change words and expect people not to notice.

Israel doesn't target civilians.

[thorny stone]

Yes it is. You just said the civilians were killed by Hamas.

[forest vale]

They were.

[thorny stone]

Yes it does, and everyone but you agrees that it does.

[hollow token]

Whats funny is that if Hamas or other people in general claim that palestinian children have been hurt or killed is simply propaganda, but then claim that the IDF claims of Hamas being in every little corner and therefore they can bomb that place and still be justified as well as it not being propaganda

[forest vale]

When Hamas uses human shields, then Hamas is responsible if those innocents die. It's really that simple.

[thorny stone]

So if they were killed by Hamas they weren't killed by Israel, right?

[forest vale]

Depends.

[thorny stone]

I literally provided you the direct link to where the UN calls that a war crime committed by Israel, which i'm still waiting for a response to.

[forest vale]

Hamas killed them by using them as human shields. Hamas is responsible. That's also the case if Israel attacks Hamas.

No one is claiming that Israel didn't launch attacks.

[thorny stone]

It's literally a war crime to kill a human shield at the same time as killing an enemy soldier.

[forest vale]

No it's not. That's literally wrong.

You are not allowed to use human shields to launch attacks. If an opponent attacks you while you are using human shields, then the war crime is on you, not your opponent.

[thorny stone]

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml

2. b. iv. Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

Here's the link AGAIN. It's specifically listed as a war crime

[thorny stone]

That's not how it works. BOTH would be war crimes.

[forest vale]

Oooo, those little details are so annoying sometimes, aren't they? The little words like which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage expected.

Shame that they included that, isn't it? Otherwise you might be right. Better luck next time.

It is absolutely justified to kill fighters who are going to launch future attacks that will kill people.

You aren't required to save a life when that will kill 5 lives later.

[thorny stone]

You might need to brush up on your reading skills. You're quoting the line about damage to the environment, not the part about loss of life.

[forest vale]

Thus far, casualties are comparable to other wars, despite conditions being far, far worse.

[forest vale]

No, I read just fine. Grammar not your strong suit? That original "loss of life or injury to civilians" is in a long chain of "or" that ends with the statement I made. It's not only applying that last part to the environment.

[thorny stone]

But if you need it clarifying, then you can look slightly further up the page at 2.a.i. Wilful killing [of civilians]

[forest vale]

Except that would not be in the context of attacking Hamas, so that's irrelevant again.

[thorny stone]

Anything that comes after an 'or' is a separate part, unless delimited by a comma.

[forest vale]

Lol, no. Gotta take some English classes again my friend.

It's not saying that only environmental damage has to be proportionate to expected military gain. It's saying any of those things. That's why it's all the same sentence.

English can be tricky and ambiguous at times, but it's pretty clear here. The other wouldn't actually make sense.

If you could kill 1000 enemy combatants but would wound one civilian in doing so, your reading would make that a war crime. That's not a thing.

It's always been clear that civilian casualties will happen in war, but causing disproportionate civilian casualties compared to the military advantage you expect to gain is the war crime.

[thorny stone]

I'll accept that you that you need a reasonably detailed understanding of English in order to understand the relevant sentence, so I'll forgive you for misunderstanding it.

If you look at 2.b.x. of the same document, for example, you can see that where there is another specific requirement, they use a comma and an "and" to indicate there is another factor that applies to all of the previous.

If they had wanted to indicate that "which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated" applied to all of the previous conditions, they would have written it so:

Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment, and which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

[forest vale]

Lol man. You do you. It's not a war crime to harm a civilian object while you're attacking the enemy. Your reading leads to complete nonsense.

Every single attack you could ever launch would cause damage to civilian objects. Are you really trying to say that all of those attacks would be war crimes?

There are definitely ways to write it that would be less ambiguous. That doesn't mean you just get to choose your own adventure.

Can't do this or this or this or this which would be excessive to what you gain out of it. That's how it's phrased. There are many, many examples of how they phrase it where there is no modifier. They just write one line and then move on. They didn't do that here, because all of the things listed have the same modifier, namely being excessive compared to advantage gained.

[thorny stone]

Really? Blowing up a tank or shooting a soldier always destroys civilian objects, does it?

I'm just pointing out how the law is written. Sure, maybe they mis-wrote their laws and used language inconsistently. This seems like an area that nobody would really pay attention to and errors would easily creep in. 🤔 But ok, let's go with your interpretation.

But even if we take your definition, and even if we take Netanyahu's nonsense figures, it's still a war crime to kill 16,000 innocent civilians in order to kill 14,000 enemy soldiers. That is clearly excessive.

And that's even before we get to the looming starvation and disease.

[forest vale]

No, it's not clearly excessive. First, Israel didn't cause all of those casualties, even if you consider them to be the cause for the deaths of human shields. Many were killed directly by Hamas.

Hamas recently launched an attack on the pier that the US was building to deliver aid. Do you blame that on Israel? But anyone who died during that attack would be part of the overall figures.

Second, "civilian" is a blurry line when Hamas intentionally dresses as civilian and attempts to portray any deaths as civilian, even if they were fighters. We've seen many women and children used as fighters in Iraq. I have no reason to believe Hamas wouldn't use women and children as fighters. So all of these lines are blurry.

When a Hamas rocket misfires and lands around a hospital, Hamas blames Israel. Any casualties are added to the overall war total. That has nothing to do with actually being caused by Israel.

Even if we took those figures and claimed that it was the IDF that killed 16k civilians. That's basically one civilian per fighter. Still a way better ratio than many modern wars that didn't have an enemy using human shields and wasn't in a densely populated urban area where civilians weren't allowed to flee.

But when you removed the deaths directly caused by Hamas rockets and bullets, and when you account for the dirty tactics of the enemy, then the civilian casualty ratio drops significantly.

[forest vale]

You are not pointing out how the law is written. You are pointing out how it could be misinterpreted by someone with poor English skills.

The way you read the law makes it a war crime to destroy civilian objects. That's an absurd reading. When there are multiple ways to read something, and one of them is absurd, you move to the one that isn't absurd.

[thorny stone]

You have no evidence for the claim that many of the innocent deaths were caused by Hamas, so there's nothing to respond to there.

[thorny stone]

As far as I can tell, someone (probably Hamas) launched an attack on the Israeli soldiers waiting for the pier, not the pier itself. That seems no more than what is expected in a war.

[thorny stone]

You have to be able to prove that the people you are killing are enemy soldiers in order to justify it. Otherwise even from your own point of view you're killing civilians. If the lines are blurry you wait until they are clearer, and don't just kill anything in sight. That's the reasonable response.

[thorny stone]

Evidence for this?

[thorny stone]

It's not a better ratio of direct military casualties. In the Iraq war, for example, the numbers were 28,000 combatants to 13,000 civilians, before the wider effects of the war were taken into account. Afghanistan was about 60,000 soldiers to 30,000 civilians.
If we're waiting to compare total casualties from all of the effects of the war, the 1 million+ people currently starving to death in Gaza will raise the civilian casualty figures up quite a lot.

[forest vale]

You're attributing all deaths to the IDF in a war with two sides. That is unreasonable no matter how you want to argue it.

[prisma harbor]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=vi6Rd3bF9p8&si=isPzkwifCZSRsNl1

Both the IDF and Hamas are guilty of war crimes.

[forest vale]

You're going to defend launching an attack on people trying to administer aid to civilians? But it's still solidly the responsibility of the IDF to ensure aid is delivered in the middle of Hamas attacks. What a ridiculous standard.

[forest vale]

The ICC is a joke and doesn't understand law.

[thorny stone]

No, that's actually fine, because the IDF are the aggressors here. This current war wouldn't be happening without the IDF.

[forest vale]

No, you don't. It's much more simple. Someone fires at you, and you shoot back. You aren't required to maintain video footage in order to prove they were shooting later. That's an unrealistic standard that has never been expected.

[thorny stone]

No, I'm definitely not going to defend that. But the Israeli soldiers that were attacked in that mortar attack were not trying to administer aid, they were at that time an occupying force, trying to restrict aid entering Gaza.
But if you want to talk about people who definitely are attacking people trying to administer aid, we can talk about the Israeli settlers who are doing exactly that daily.

[thorny stone]

What happens if you shoot someone who wasn't shooting at you?

[forest vale]

I love how you're pointing to wars where civilians were allowed to evacuate, and how you include, "before the wider effects were taken into account." Either of those makes the comparison useless. You can't just cherry pick a war where conditions were much easier for minimizing casualties and then call it good.

[forest vale]

Maybe later. No time for a while.

[thorny stone]

I'm saying that by both ways of counting, this conflict is significantly worse for civilian casualties than either of those.

[forest vale]

Like Hamas does?

[thorny stone]

Like both sides do.

But Israel in greater numbers than Hamas

[forest vale]

I love how raping and murdering 1200 civilians doesn't count as aggression. Your argument is just wrong.

[forest vale]

When the US says the pier was attacked, I'm going to believe the US. You pretending that it was just a military action against the IDF is something I will instead ignore.

[forest vale]

That's what happens when you compare conflicts with drastically different parameters. Imagine that.

In WW2, you had hundreds of thousands killed in a single day, and they were all soldiers, because the civilians had already fled. It's crazy what happens when you change the parameters. But you're acting like that number is supposed to mean the same thing in all cases.

[forest vale]

There's no evidence for that.

And the fact is that Hamas targets far more civilians than it kills, because Israel is very good at defending civilians.

[prisma harbor]

The ICC might be powerless in situations like this, but all the same, you don’t think both the IDF and Hamas are guilty of war crimes? Are you only trying to calculate who is responsible for more than the other?

[forest vale]

I love how you say it's "totally fine" to attribute Hamas targeting civilians to the IDF. Even if the IDF were the aggressors, that still wouldn't be how you'd count it.

[thorny stone]

There's apparently no evidence of raping, and the deaths came after decades of Israeli aggression. This war didn't start on October 7th, those actions were a response to previous violence directed towards Palestinians by Israel, including by Israeli civilians.

[thorny stone]

Did the US say the pier was attacked?

[thorny stone]

Literally every organisation or individual who is counting the numbers agrees that Israel is killing more civilians than Hamas or all the militant groups combined, and has been since it's creation.

[forest vale]

Yes, they did. I don't get my news from Hamas.

[forest vale]

Objectively false, wouldn't even matter if it were true

The context is different. Hamas has attempted to kill civilians and failed. Israel has tried to avoid civilian casualties.

[forest vale]

This is actually insane to believe.

[thorny stone]

Citation needed.

[thorny stone]

Find one that disagrees and we can talk.

[thorny stone]

The Israeli army has explicitly said it targets people who look like civilians. That's not them trying very hard to avoid civilian casualties is it?

[thorny stone]

Which part of those obvious facts I posted, that you replied to, do you have a problem with?

[forest vale]

How about first you find even one that reports the number killed by Hamas, and then we'll talk.

[forest vale]

I would love to see where they have ever said that. That's an obvious lie.

[forest vale]

The part where you claim no rape occurred, despite rape victims, autopsies, and extensive investigations. Even extremely biased sources recognize that rape occurred, even discounting the stories of survivors.

[civic karma]

I do have condemnation for Hamas and I have actively spoken out AGAINST hamas multiple times IN THIS THREAD. It seems to me that you are not reading any of my messages.

What you are doing here is called a ''tu quoque'' argument. It is a fallacy that entails ''pointing the finger'' in the other direction and arguing ''what about them''. I'm not really interested in responding to fallacious arguments. I am happy to discuss this topic if you are willing to discuss it, but im not going to downplay myself in this rhetoric, i'm sorry.

[civic karma]

According to Amnesty International, Israel is an apartheid state so I am not sure what you are getting at. I have not, in any of my previous responses, stated ANYTHING about Jews or any race for that matter. I specifically keep referring to Hamas, Palestinians and/or the Israeli government.

Again, stop this cheap rhetoric. I get that you don't agree with me, but you can just have a proper conversation instead of putting words in someone else's mouth. I have not stated any of the things you mentioned, nor do i support any of them. The mere fact that you think i support terrorism because i am criticizing Israels government policy is all-telling to me.

[civic karma]

THis just shows you have no idea about the extent of this conflict nor about the distribution of power in an archaic system.

Suppose you would wipe ALL hamas members, then someone else will come and fill up the void, often being even more agressive. We see this happen all the time in similar structured organisations, for example organised crime, drug cartels etc. No reason to assume that in this situation it is different.

[forest vale]

I couldn't care less what Amnesty International thinks.

1. Israel doesn't meet the definition of apartheid state.
2. Regardless of whether Arabs are treated differently, an Arab in Israel lives better than an Arab in any other country in that part of the world, so the entire argument is useless either way.

[civic karma]

I mostly base my middle-eastern news on Al Jazeera, but for the specific discussion we had :

Anstrom, Jan; Duyvesteyn, Isabelle (2004): Rethinking the Nature of War, pp. 72-80, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-35461-5.
Hartley, Cathy et al (2004): Survey of Arab-Israeli Relations, p. 91, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-85743-261-9.
Larson, Eric V. (2007): Misfortunes of War: Press and Public Reactions to Civilian Deaths in Wartime, pp. 65, 71, RAND Corp., ISBN 978-0-8330-3897-5.
Snow, Donald M. (1996): Uncivil Wars: International Security and the New Internal Conflicts, pp. 64-66, Lynne Rienner Publishers, ISBN 978-1-55587-655-5.

[forest vale]

I only think people support terrorism when they think it's reasonable to use human shields. And yes, saying, "you can't attack those who use human shields" is the same thing as saying it's reasonable to use human shields.

Lol, figures. Al Jazeera is such a nonsense source.

[civic karma]

Again you are putting words in someone elses mouth. I have never stated that I support using humans as a shield. Yet you keep repeating this like I do. It is a completely insane way of discussing something. Again, you may disagree with me but the way you are arguing on this topic is just the biggest bullshit ever and im gonna call you out on it.

[civic karma]

Two questions about this, 1) Why do you think al jazeera is a bullshit source and 2) Do you think that sources citing official figures of the israeli government are more credible?

If the answer to 2 is yes, then i have a follow up question:

What do you think about the cencorship policy that the israeli government is enforcing in and around gaza right now by deliberately obstructing journalists as well as taking their filming and recording equipment?

[forest vale]

Are you saying that it's reasonable for the IDF to attack Hamas bases that are located under hospitals and schools?

I didn't realize we agreed on that. Great to have you on board.

[civic karma]

Yes ofcourse

but to me it matters HOW

Brother

I have stated MULTIPLE times that i believe that retaliation from Israel government is fully warranted based on the things that happend on october 7th

this really only shows to me you honestly did not read my messages

You just totally ignored all of that, only to put words in my mouth acting like i am some kind of terrorist loving monster

im sorry but thats just not gonna slide with me

And i am calling you out on this

It is really not cool to act like this to another human being

[forest vale]

I generally recognize that Israeli sources are a million times more accurate than Hamas, and that Israeli sources have a history of being critical of their own government, much like the US. But I don't tend to cite them, because the people I'm talking to hate Israel, so it makes no sense to cite Israel as a source.

[civic karma]

''oh you are against israel policy, surely you support hamas then''

[civic karma]

I don't hate israel

[forest vale]

I don't accept Al Jazeera because I don't accept any outlet that cites Hamas as a reliable source.

[civic karma]

then we are stuck because i do the same with israel due to the above mentioned reason, the propaganda spreading and the widespread cencorship

I rather trust an independent media outlet than a government agency that is directly involved in the conflict

that has actively shown its policy towards cencorship

[civic karma]

Wait why did you even assume i hate israel?

If you said i hate the israeli government policies or maybe even specifically netanyahu i would fully agree with you

but that is not the same as israel

I generally dislike extreme right-wing policies and i am not making an exception for the israeli government because israel

let me tell you something, my country recently had elections and now we are probably stuck with a far-right government due to the extreme-right party winning the elections, so i am contemplating on emigrating away from here

I honestly just dislike the free pass israel tends to get for shit their government does, ''because its israel''.

Since they know they will be backed by the US and EU, regardless of what they do

and i hate that

Same goes for the shit the US pulled back in the early 2000s in the middle east. That shit was awful but no one dared to say anything because ''it is the US''

nah man if people do stupid shit you tell them, even if they are your friends

[forest vale]

Whether that's the NYT, the Guardian, or anyone else, if they're using Hamas as a source without pointing out that it's Hamas is not worth anything.

I don't know any time in the last few decades when the US or Israel have been able to do things with the rest of the world just not saying anything. We must not have lived on the same planet.

[civic karma]

Oh they do mention that the figures come from the Palestinian ministry of health

They are very clear about that actually

[forest vale]

People love to hate on the US. Europe loves to hate on the US. I should know, I lived there for years. The rest of the world also constantly and incessantly hates on the US. There's no pass that the US gets because it's the US. That's nonsense.

[forest vale]

Are they clear about the fact that that's a propaganda tool for Hamas?

Are they clear about the fact that Hamas routinely blames the IDF for their own attacks?

[civic karma]

Does the news state its a propaganda tool for Israel when they take their figures?

No ofcourse not but you can use your common sense

[forest vale]

That's not what people do, and that's not what their reporters do.

[civic karma]

What do you mean?

[forest vale]

Half the Israeli news sites are against the Israeli government.

[civic karma]

If a reporter states that their source is from a party that is involved in any kind of conflict, then it is up to the audience to judge the credibility

Both ways you can be sure that what the claims are, is not what reality is

Neither Hamas nor Israeli government tell the truth about whats happening

I thought that would be common sense ngl

[forest vale]

Do they actually state that the numbers come from Hamas, or do they state that the numbers come from the Gaza Health Ministry?

[civic karma]

Did not know that, but in my views its rightfully so. Even without the whole gaza conflict, I personally dislike Netanyahu and his policies very much.

[civic karma]

I am confused, the Health ministry IS Hamas...

[forest vale]

Yeah but you're claiming that anything Israel = bias, which is just ignorant.

[civic karma]

Hamas is a governmental organisation in Gaza

[forest vale]

Right, but does the common man understand that? No. No they don't.

[civic karma]

No I am stating that any news that comes from any involved party in an ongoing conflict is going to be biased by definition

I am not talking about Israeli newspapers, i am talking about Israeli government

And if the newspapers take figures from the government, i am going to take the statements with a grain of salt

[forest vale]

Any news is going to be biased. You don't have unbiased reporters, and you don't want unbiased reporters because they tend to be less effective. The problem is when you ignore one side while being perfectly willing to promote and cite the other side.

[civic karma]

Most people that i talk to in my personal life do but i dont know everyone on earth so i couldnt answer that question

[forest vale]

And yet they still cite those figures as fact, don't they.

[civic karma]

But this is exactly what you are doing no? Fully trusting the israeli government while at the same time doubting anything that comes from Gaza

[forest vale]

And I bet they talk as if all the casualties are due to the IDF, ignoring all the attacks Hamas has made.

[forest vale]

Nope. Not even close.

[civic karma]

here is a quote:

"According to the Gaza Ministry of Health, at least 34,183 people have been killed and 77,084 have been wounded in Israeli attacks."

In my eyes this is not stated as a fact and is actually VERY transparent

[forest vale]

I don't have to trust the Israeli government.

None of what I'm saying relies on me trusting the government.

[forest vale]

Right. And then how does it continue? Do they talk about how horrible it is that so many civilians died? Do they talk about how the IDF needs to do more to prevent all these casualties? Of course they do. They treat it as fact even knowing it's from a terrorist organization.

[civic karma]

no that was the whole statement

[forest vale]

I think you're missing the point.

[civic karma]

According to the Gaza Ministry of Health, at least 34,183 people have been killed and 77,084 have been wounded in Israeli attacks.

About 72 percent of those killed are women and children, according to an update by Gaza’s Government Media Office on Tuesday.

On Monday, United Nations human rights chief Volker Turk said a child in Gaza is killed or wounded “every 10 minutes”.

Meanwhile, 7,000 people are missing, according to the Government Media Office, many presumed dead under the rubble.

They literally state all their sources and do not give a judgement at all

i dont understand how that is not transparent news

[forest vale]

If I go on Al Jazeera right now, you're telling me that no one is going to be talking about how horrible it is that so many civilians have died and how the IDF is to blame?

[civic karma]

Idk i dont read all of al jazeera, probably they do

[forest vale]

Well, it's partially transparent. They don't bother to mention the fact that the figures have been challenged as inaccurate. They don't mention that the UN adjusted those numbers to be 50% instead of 72%.

And they don't cite any figures besides Hamas.

[civic karma]

oh this was an old article, they actually have rectified this later in new articles

my bad

the specific article i quoted was from about a month ago

[forest vale]

So what can I tell you. You can be transparent if you want, you're still just putting out Hamas propaganda, even if you say it's from Hamas.

Then later, people find out everything you said was wrong.

[civic karma]

And my point is that the other way around it is EXACTLY the same

[forest vale]

But the damage is done.

[forest vale]

It is only the same if the government runs the news, which they don't to nearly the same degree.

[civic karma]

I dont think thats quite right.

I mean

[forest vale]

It's crazy how different media control gets when you're put to death for not going along with the government.

[civic karma]

If you take ''official'' figures from Gaza Government obviously that is biased, but if you do the same from the israeli government then its equally biased

that is the point

i am again, not talking about israeli newspapers

i dont read israeli newspapers

I am talking about the figures that are put out by either the Gaza government or Israeli goverment

both are equally distrustworthy

[forest vale]

But does Al Jazeera ever report the other figures? No. They really don't.

One government launches rockets at civilian centers. The other government has built an extensive network to shoot those rockets down. They aren't the same.

[civic karma]

Not as much probably

[civic karma]

i dont understand what you mean here

mind you english is not my native tongue

[forest vale]

I don't trust a government who's official policy is to murder civilians.

[civic karma]

Exactly why i dont trust the incumbent israeli government

[forest vale]

By contrast, the Israeli government has often put out information detrimental to itself.

[civic karma]

we can agree there no?

[forest vale]

No.

[civic karma]

well then i am at a loss

i dont see how this discussion can lead to anywhere

[forest vale]

We cannot agree, because there is no official policy by the Israeli government to murder civilians.

It's not a hard concept.

[civic karma]

To me, you seem to turn a blind eye to the policies of the past years that are backed by the israeli government and if you do not accept on that than there is no point in discussing any of this

[forest vale]

None of those policies involve murdering civilians.

[civic karma]

Officially no

But if that is the result of the given policies and as a government you do not care, than in my eyes it is the same

but maybe we think differently there

[forest vale]

And you don't see how an official policy that involves murdering civilians might present a massive increase in the level of bias?

I'm not talking about effects of a policy or anything hotly debated.

[civic karma]

I am tho

[forest vale]

Hamas has a stated official policy that Israel should be wiped out.

And they launch rockets at Jewish civilians to accomplish this. They have driven out 100% of Jewish citizens.

[civic karma]

Suppose i implement policy A that claims not to have effect B
Then after implementing policy A, it turns out effect B takes place
Then if you do not adjust policy A to prevent effect B from happening, AFTER you KNOW it is the result
THen effect B actively becomes part of policy A

[forest vale]

So no, I don't put them on equal terms

Yeah, all of that is subjective and debatable.

[civic karma]

No it is not subjective at all

[forest vale]

Yes, it is.

[civic karma]

If you do not actively adjust a policy after a given bad outcome is the result than it is just part of the policy

regardless of what that policy is

I am not even necesarily talking about politics here, same goes for business etc

[forest vale]

Name one example.

[civic karma]

Related to the conflict or anything else?

[forest vale]

Policy A

[civic karma]

If i create breathing devices for people that turn out to be toxic, and I do not actively change my product / production process to change the toxicity of the product, then making a toxic product is part of the policy

(happend to Phillips)

[forest vale]

Not a hypothetical

[civic karma]

no this is actually what happened

[forest vale]

What does that have to do with the Israeli government???

[civic karma]

They made breathing devices that had some stuff in it that was toxic, they knew it was toxic and still tried to hide it for mutliple years

Oh i asked whether it had to be related to the confliict yes or no

So i guess it does

[forest vale]

...

You accused the Israeli government of things. I asked for an example.

[civic karma]

I am sorry man, again english is not my native language, I honestly did not understand properly

no need to be a dick about it

[forest vale]

I'm not being a dick. Maybe don't interpret things as being a dick if you don't understand them.

[civic karma]

The whole policy a result b thing was a general statement not specifically towards the israeli governemnt, but it does apply to them as well

LMao

ok i will give an example then we're done

i can't with you anymore

But yeah, invading other people's land in the werst bank and driving them out of their homes, killing them where they stand without them being able to retaliate is actively supported policy of the israeli government. THey dont do shit about it and even endorse it. If they know that this is the result and even tho its not official policy, then it becomes a policy whether its official or not

[forest vale]

You're not pointing to actual policies.

There's no policy A in your example.

You're just pointing to effects.

I'm asking for the policy

[civic karma]

Governmental subsidies of migrants that go settle in the west bank

Brother they are state funded

What else do you want me to say

[thorny stone]

Here you go:
https://statistics.btselem.org/en/all-fatalities/by-date-of-incident?section=overall&tab=overview

Next point:

I would love to see where they have ever said that. That's an obvious lie.
Just out of curiosity, what is the optimal number of sources to provide you with that is enough to disprove your statements, but not too many that you won't bother to actually look at them? I'll go with one for now. This is a quote from an Israeli general:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine

“We will apply disproportionate force on it [the village] and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases.”

Next point:

The part where you claim no rape occurred, despite rape victims, autopsies, and extensive investigations. Even extremely biased sources recognize that rape occurred, even discounting the stories of survivors.
I didn't claim no rape occurred. I said that there appeared to be no evidence of it, because when I asked you if there was evidence you didn't respond. If there is evidence, feel free to send me a link to it and I'll happily change my mind on that. That's all you need to do.
But either way I'm not supporting Hamas' actions on October 7th. I only said they didn't happen in isolation. They were quite clearly a response to the ongoing persecution of the Palestinians by Israel.

[forest vale]

This is what I was asking for. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to understand what you mean when you say Israeli policies.

[forest vale]

If you're going to a next point, then please put a break. It's really frustrating to not allow people to reply to specific things.

Your first link doesn't even include data about Hamas, but rather Palestine, and ends October 6.

[forest vale]

How about one. Let's start with one and go from there. Gosh, always the same. I ask for sources, you give me zero and then complain that I'm asking for too much. You're not refuting my statements, you're confirming them. If people reported the number of deaths attributed to Hamas, you would have given me a website. But they don't.

The Dahiya doctrine is a quote from a general. Great. Are you saying that a quote from years ago somehow dictates what people do now? That we should judge current actions based on statements from someone twenty years ago? Because that just sounds once again like we're ignoring the current conflict due to lack of data that supports your claim.

[forest vale]

You asking me to send you evidence that rape occurred on October 7 is so stupid. No one worth talking to actually disputes that. I'm not entertaining that line of thought.

That's like someone asking for evidence that planes were hijacked on 9/11.

As far as the number of sources, that depends on you man. If you want to talk about one, then send the one. If you want a bunch to be skimmed, then send more. If you want to send so many that the weight of sources crushes all opposition, then you're probably not interested in thoughts anyway, because you're not choosing your sources carefully to only include reputable ones.

[forest vale]

I'm not interested in discussing evidence that rape occurred. I will send you an article, but I don't care if you don't like it. The fact that you haven't looked into the situation enough to have seen these already tells me you couldn't care less about what Hamas did. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but either way, I'm not going to entertain thoughts about how October 7 wasn't that bad or wasn't as bad as people make it out to be. I frankly don't care how bad people think it is, because my thoughts on it are quite set.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/12/06/middleeast/rape-sexual-violence-hamas-israel-what-we-know-intl

As a reminder, this was live-streamed. It wasn't done hidden in secret. Anyone who has any doubts about October 7 was either in a coma or is themselves a horrible person.

[junior delta]

THe "food and water supply shortage" was not set up by Israel.. That was HAMAS' fault entierly. They stole aid sent to Palestine to use for themselves, they turned crucial water facilities into military storage depots, Israel is not to blame for that.

Also, yes we did clear up that Israel is trying to avoid civillian casualties as we can clearly see by the numbers. Just because civillians do die doesn't mean they aren't trying to avoid civillian deaths.

[junior delta]

Would you be able to point out specific parts of those books that relate?

[junior delta]

Question, honestly just curious. It is considered Apartheid to limit access to your country from hostile neighbors? Would the United States have been considered an Apartheid country during WW2 with the internment camps for Japanese-Americans?

[thorny stone]

The page I linked to shows that even if you include all of the Palestinians combined, Israel still kills far more civilians than they do. We don't need to separate Hamas from the rest of the Palestinians because even the combined numbers are far lower. I've proved my point that Israel kills more civilians than Hamas does. If you want to argue against it, you need to provide some evidence to support your view.

[thorny stone]

I've given you many sources, and you usually don't reply to them and then later claim they don't exist.

[thorny stone]

Yes, I am saying that current Israeli military strategy still uses the same doctrine in fighting the same type of war that it did a few years ago. Or rather, an even worse version of it:

Israeli intelligence sources reveal use of ‘Lavender’ system in Gaza war and claim permission given to kill civilians in pursuit of low-ranking militants
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai-database-hamas-airstrikes

[thorny stone]

Fine, then we won't talk about it. It's not relevant to any of the main points we're discussing. Hamas did bad things on October 7th, we both agree on that.

[forest vale]

That wasn't the point, and you haven't proved a thing. I asked for anyone looking at the war right now and tracking kills by Hamas, and you gave me nothing. It didn't exist. You're claiming that Israel kills more than Hamas, but no one makes that comparison. They attribute every casualty to the IDF, including those from misfired Hamas rockets. That's just complete nonsense.

[forest vale]

The bigger point that you're ignoring is intent. Hamas intended to kill far more civilians. They've launched thousands and thousands of rockets at civilians for decades, so much that Israel has pioneered the technology to deal with it. The fact that they haven't succeeded doesn't somehow make that better.

By contrast, Hamas attempts to maximize civilian casualties every time Israel attacks, and they succeed in using human shields to drive up civilian casualties. The comparison between the two is therefore complete nonsense. Hamas is happy when civilians are killed. Israel is not. That's the only comparison you actually need. And that's something you haven't addressed at all.

[forest vale]

That's just not true. I've replied to more than I can count, and used many, many hours of my life doing so. If you have a particular source you'd like me to look at, feel free to give it to me again.

[forest vale]

The use of this system was interesting to look at. The Guardian is clearly quite tainted as a source. I noticed a number of inaccuracies, as I have in the past, and they clearly rely on Hamas for their numbers.

Even if Israel uses such a system, the number of fighters and civilians killed isn't anywhere near the ratios claimed. They're at close to 1 to 1, not the 5 or 20 claimed. Whether or not there were specific incidents where more civilians were killed, they've clearly been very effective at using it to target Hamas fighters without many civilian casualties, and the numbers still assume that all casualties are caused by Israel, completely disregarding all of the attacks by Hamas.

It's clear from the descriptions of the systems that the intent is to target Hamas, with varying levels of collateral damage allowed. There's nothing in here that shows the deliberate targeting of civilians with no connection to Hamas, even if the Guardian attempts to paint it in that light.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-biden-rafah-e062825a375d9eb62e95509cab95b80c

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/human-rights-watch-says-rocket-misfire-likely-cause-deadly-gaza-hospital-blast-2023-11-26/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna122031

Here is the common story. A rocket hits near a hospital, and Hamas blames Israel, even though it was a misfire by either Hamas or one of the other terrorist organizations in the area. The world blames Israel until people quietly have to come to the realization that this doesn't make sense at all, and it's extremely unlikely that it was Israel, and in fact claiming such was always absurd. Al Jazeera was naturally among those pretending it was Israel to blame. This is why I have very little respect for organizations that routinely rely on Hamas for their information.

[civic karma]

Ofcourse not; I am merely citing the original sources of the the summary where I got the information. That's standard practice..

[civic karma]

No apartheid is the systematic political oppression of a minority group or more specifically race of people. In the case of Israel it is most specifically about the government funded oppression of non-israeli or non-jewish people living in disputed territories in the west Bank.

It is a textbook example of apartheid, I am not sure what is to dispute there..

People are driving out of their homes by government funded settlers in order to establish a certain dominance of native-israelis over the original occupants of the land

That's almost the definition of apartheid

[thorny stone]

Hamas is contained within the category of Palestinians. If the number of civilians killed by all Palestinians is lower than the number killed by Israel, then that proves the number killed by Hamas is also lower. I gave you a link to a page that did include Palestinian deaths caused by Palestinians, so you can't reasonably argue those stats assume all civilian deaths are caused by the IDF automatically.

[thorny stone]

I'm not ignoring intent at all. Israel knows it's going to kill huge numbers of civilians with its current actions, so the intent is clear. Israel has knowingly and willingly killed far more civilians than the Palestinians have.

If you're gong to make the claim that Hamas deliberately tries to maximise civilian casualties when Israel attacks, you'll need to provide evidence for that. Obviously, if you're arguing this based on the idea that they are using human shields, then your argument already assumes Israel is happy to kill human shields.

[thorny stone]

#1238854947756310620 message
#1238854947756310620 message
#1195214812548972685 message
#1195214812548972685 message
#1195214812548972685 message
Here are a few of my messages containing sources that you never responded to my questions about.

[thorny stone]

The consensus is that the data provided by the Gaza Health Ministry is usually pretty accurate.

Do you have evidence to support your claimed death ratio? Or your claim that they have been very effective at targeting Hamas fighters without many civilian casualties? I'm obviously not just going to take your word for it on these issues.

[thorny stone]

An Israeli group, Breaking the Silence, collected testimonies from IDF soldiers in earlier conflicts who said they shot Palestinian civilians merely because they were where they were not supposed to be even though it was evident they were not combatants.

IDF snipers boasted about shooting unarmed Palestinian protesters, including young people, in the knees during nearly two years of demonstrations at the Gaza border fence from the spring of 2018.

That's from this article that I have linked you to previously:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war

Breaking the Silence is an Israeli organisation made of former IDF soldiers who have collected testimonies of hundreds of other IDF soldiers who have admitted, among other things, targeting civilians and using Palestinians as human shields.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8151336.stm
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/16/former-israeli-soldiers-break-silence

I would encourage you to read some of the testimony. When the soldiers themselves admit their actions, there's not a lot you can do to argue they're not deliberately killing civilians.

[forest vale]

Actually, standard practice is to have looked at the sources yourself.

[forest vale]

"Apartheid refers to the implementation and maintenance of a system of legalized racial segregation in which one racial group is deprived of political and civil rights."

Historically, apartheid is a term from South Africa, where it was decidedly the majority group that was deprived of rights. So tell me how citizens of Israel experience this. I frankly don't care about the West Bank, where people have been waging war against Israel for decades and keep losing. Apartheid is about your own people, not those trying to kill you.

[forest vale]

Arabs occupied the land. They are not the original inhabitants. Israel was there first, by a good 1600 years, and there's been continual Jewish presence ever since, up until people started genocide against Jews.

[forest vale]

You didn't give me a page referring to recent events at all. Data stops at October 6. So no, I can't use it to say anything about the current war.

[forest vale]

You're ignoring intent.

Israel works to minimize civilian casualties. This is well known. If you wish to challenge this, then you should provide evidence. All the evidence you've cited has referred to Israeli policies of minimizing civilian casualties.

Hamas works to maximize civilian casualties. Evidence for this is October 7 and the thousands and thousands of rocket attacks against civilian targets over decades.

Nothing about targeting Hamas is evidence that anyone is "happy to kill human shields." They can be very unhappy about it and still consider it necessary to target Hamas despite the risk to the human shields. Lots of the evidence shared in this discussion has made this clear. Feel free to go back and look at it.

[forest vale]

It would be really nice if you'd please learn to post one link at a time so that I can respond to them in that manner. Since you have not, I'll assume you want a generic response to all of them and don't want me to look at any of them in depth. I didn't ask for all the links you've ever posted that I didn't respond to, I asked for something you really wanted me to look at.

And to be clear, I'm not talking about not posting multiple links. I'm talking about hitting send between links, because then you can reply to individual ones, because that's how Discord works. Can you please start doing that?

[forest vale]

This is explicitly not the consensus, unless you're talking about people who routinely use nothing but Hamas for their statistics.

[forest vale]

These are basically things that were responded to or things that basically just use Hamas as sources. What are you specifically trying to say with these?

[forest vale]

You're conflating the actions of war with the policy of a country. In every conflict there has ever been, there have been situations like this, where individual soldiers, due to their own experiences of losing friends and loved ones, perform actions that they are later not proud of. It was well documented in WW2, Vietnam, Iraq, every war. It's not pretty, but it's also not unusual. But I notice that nowhere in these stories of soldiers telling on themselves is there any kind of military order to target civilians. It's a choice they make themselves. So this is more evidence that war is horrible and that the IDF isn't ordering the things you're accusing them of ordering. It also doesn't mention a lot of possible pertinent details. For example, if a soldier shoots someone who clearly isn't a combatant, did he initially misidentify a target and only later realize he had shot a noncombatant? Historically, you can point to a number of times where an IDF attack killed civilians, and Israel got mad about it and people were fired and changed the way they conducted attacks.

[civic karma]

I would like to have sources other than religious ones that can actually confirm this, because to the best of my knowledge this is not true at all. Actually, the term ''palestine'' refers to the original inhabitants of the region, and is regardless of the religion they adhere to. Israeli people make a claim to the land based on the religious beliefs of a subset of their population. Both the original jewish population of the area as well as the current inhabitants of the west-bank and gaza can therefore be categorised as palestinians, whereas the jewish people that came from all over the world to form the state of Israel cannot.

[civic karma]

So i would like to know where this 1600 year figure comes from and why we draw the line there. Why not 10.000 years earlier. Why not 500 years later. What about this 1600 years makes it that that specific date determines who gets the ''historic claim'' on the land?

Then also if we follow the argument, then for example, none of the land in the US belongs to the US since indegenous people have the historic claim to the land as they were there before colonization happened. Would you then also agree that the U.S. should be stopped and it would be rightfull for indigenous people to murder non-native US citizens and drive them off their land since they do not have a historic claim?

[civic karma]

Whether you care about it or not is irrelevant to the question whether it is an apartheid state. Under the definition of apartheid, it is a policy that is actively practiced and endorsed by the israeli government.

If tomorrow the US would start a genocide in Mexico, you could not care about it, heck you could even agree to it for all i care, but that does not change the fact that a genocide is happening.

The motivation of an action is irrelevant to the factual definition of that action

Even if you are right and west-bank palestinians are the bad guys and they make the life of israeli people very hard and even commit crimes whatever you can think of, THE STATE FUNDED POLICY OF SETTLING OF ISRAELI PEOPLE IN THE WEST BANK DRIVING PALESTINIANS OUT OF THEIR HOMES IS BY DEFINITION APARTHEID, regardless of whether you agree to the policy or not

i don't see how that is so hard to understand

If you agree to discrimination, it does not suddenly stop being discrimination

just because you happen to like the outcome

[forest vale]

Here you go.
https://m.jpost.com/opinion/article-752532

[civic karma]

Okay let me specify, do you have any credible source from 1 or more experts in the field of study that agree to that notion or is it just Israeli state propaganda that agrees with you?

[forest vale]

Actually, I'm totally fine with following the European principle of conquest. The idea that someone just indefinitely owns a piece of land and should be able to attack people with impunity generations later is nonsense. You lost the war. Give it up already. That's what you get for trying to kill the other side and losing. I'm sympathetic to those who lose their land without fighting, not those who attack their neighbors and lose.

[civic karma]

But this is not at allwhat happened in the middle east

[forest vale]

I've read so many of your sources. Least you can do is read that one. Rejecting anything that comes out of Israel is your own bias. It has nothing to do with the quality of the source.

[civic karma]

Yeah the source does not answer the questions i had tho,

It is talking about judaism and muslims, but i am talking about the people, not the religion

Because i fully agree with you that islam is a spin-off of judaism just like christianity

nothing to dispute there

thats what the article states: ''jewish people were here earlier than muslims''

[forest vale]

I do care about it. And now I've looked at it and recognize that nothing presented shows Israel as an apartheid state. You've got no examples of people being treated as second class citizens in Israel. There are no examples of discriminatory laws. From what I can tell, you don't have to be Jewish in Israel to enjoy full rights. You can be whatever you want to be, and if you're a citizen, you get all the rights of anyone else.

[civic karma]

well no shit, islam didnt exist back when judaism did

[forest vale]

That's not true at all, especially when we're talking about war crimes.

[civic karma]

how so?

[forest vale]

That's not how apartheid is defined at all.

[civic karma]

if i commit genocide, it is irrelevant whether i think this genocide is righteous or not, it is still genocide

[civic karma]

acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them

[forest vale]

There were multiple wars where Arabs attempted to wipe out Israel. They lost. Now they're suffering the consequences of having lost. But they still keep rising up to try and wipe out Israel, so they keep losing.

I don't know what part of that isn't factual.

[civic karma]

I think we talk past eachother

You talking since 1600 years ago or since WW2

But yeah i looked at the source you provided, it does not answer the question i stated in the beginning, so i am asking again if you have a reputable scientific source for the historic claim to the land of israel

[forest vale]

The questions you had were about where the 1600 year figure comes from. The article discusses secular sources for that figure, although his account is more detailed and his years are more accurate than mine were. It also discusses the origin of the term Palestine, which was specifically a punitive term for the region of Judaea after a Jewish rebellion against a Roman emperor. It describes when people arrived in the region and how the name of the region has changed over time.

I really don't know what question you were trying to answer that the article didn't cover.

[civic karma]

No the question i had was:

"So i would like to know where this 1600 year figure comes from and why we draw the line there. Why not 10.000 years earlier. Why not 500 years later. What about this 1600 years makes it that that specific date determines who gets the ''historic claim'' on the land?"

The question what specifically about the 1600 figure makes it the ''true'' historic claim ?

[forest vale]

Because if you intend to attack an enemy combatant, and later discover that the person you shot was a civilian, then your motivation is very, very different from if you are full of hatred and just start shooting at civilians. The first is a horrible fact of war, the second is a war crime. The difference isn't the outcome, it's the motivation and the intent.

[forest vale]

Not sure what this has to do with anything. Genocide is bad, that's true.

But intent actually does determine whether genocide occurs.

[civic karma]

its the same for apartheid

you can enforce an apartheid policy and agree to it, but that doesn't make it less of an apartheid policy

[forest vale]

Genocide is not whether people happen to die. Genocide is killing people based on ethnicity. Intent is extremely important for that determination.

[civic karma]

yeah given that it is racially motivated; hence it fulfils the definition of genocide

than you could theoretically agree with the acts that are happening, but that does not make it less of genocide

similar to how you don't care about the apartheid policy in the west bank, but it still is apartheid policy

[forest vale]

Okay but I still have no idea what that has to do with apartheid. Israeli citizens do not enjoy different rights based on race.

[forest vale]

That's not how apartheid is defined.

[civic karma]

I am talking west bank

But it is

i just sent you the definition

[forest vale]

Israeli citizens in the West Bank enjoy the same treatment regardless of ethnicity.

[civic karma]

the definition of apartheid, in case you missed it earlier: acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them

[forest vale]

Since WW2.

[civic karma]

so driving people out of their homes in order to establish settlements such that the relative abundance of native population goes down in favor of settlers is by definition apartheid

whether it is in the ''same state'' or not

thats irrelevant

and thats even ignoring all other stuff like killing etc that is happening

[forest vale]

"Historical claim" is something people use for why Israel are seen as occupiers by people who don't know history. It's not generally used by people to claim that Israel deserves to own the land, but rather to point out the absurdity of claiming that Israel are the occupiers when if anyone did have historical claims, it would clearly be Israel, with Arabs as the occupiers.

I don't say Israel has a historical claim to the land and therefore should own it. I think such thoughts are absurd.

When people call Israel occupiers, I point out the history to show the absurdity of the claim, because the actual historical occupiers are not Israel, and if one cared about historical claims to the area, even then Israel has a stronger one.

[forest vale]

That's not apartheid.

It actually very much matters that you've got one country that treats all of its citizens the same, and on the other side are the losers of a war where they tried to wipe out Israel. That matters a lot.

[civic karma]

Well to continue in the absurdity; the original inhabitants in terms of humans were Homo Erectus, who were there hundreds of thousands of years earlier, so in that case both Israelites and Palestinians are occupiers

[civic karma]

lmao this wording only

im gonna stop it here

we will never agree

I personally think that your bias is blinding you to take into account facts that may attack your stances, you probably think the same of me

[forest vale]

All races and ethnicities are treated exactly the same there. If your ancestors were trying to murder Israelis, your life is very hard. If you succeeded in becoming a citizen of Israel, you enjoy full rights regardless of ethnicity. So there's no apartheid.

[civic karma]

I try to be open and corteous in discussing this but i have the feeling that it is one sided

I know its probably not your intention

but i dont feel like discussing this any further will do me any good

[forest vale]

You really haven't been that courteous, but it's nice to know what the other side presents as arguments.

[civic karma]

This is exactly what i mean

there is no other side

it is not a black and white situation

and you keep presenting it like it is

thats whats grinding my gears

anyway

i hope you have a nice day

[forest vale]

I specifically said that such claims are absurd. Are you trying to agree with me here or what?

[civic karma]

I agree that historic claims are absurd, yes

thats why i kept asking about it

because it makes no sense to me to make a historic claim on land

[forest vale]

So you agree that it's absurd to call Israel occupiers.

[civic karma]

which is, as far as i have learned in my education system, why israel is in the place that israel is, its based on historic claims

thats why i disagree

Technicallly, the british occupied the territory and gave it to Israel, the question is whether that makes israelites occupiers or not

i honestly cannot answer that question

[forest vale]

Israel is where it is because that's where Jews already were, that's where they were historically, and because that's where wars drove them to when the entire world started murdering them.

[civic karma]

yeah and i think my biggest point is that a claim based on religion is absurd

[forest vale]

Being a historical location still matters, even if that doesn't automatically give you some sort of "historic claim" of ownership.

[civic karma]

jews is not the same as israelites

[forest vale]

They are actually.

[civic karma]

except for, in my opinoin, it should not matter

[forest vale]

Why wouldn't it matter?

[civic karma]

Okay then we got the the key difference in our stances

[forest vale]

What makes you think they are different?

[civic karma]

because judaism is a religion and israel is a state

inhabitants of israel can be jew but they dont have to

[forest vale]

Israelis is the term you meant then.

[civic karma]

and a jew can live in israel but they dont have to

[forest vale]

Israelites is a biblical term that very much does refer to Jews.

[civic karma]

if you have an israeli passport, it does not mean you are jewish

Okay but again, i don't accept anything based off religion

or religious texts for that matter

its not evidence

its a story

[forest vale]

Right but that matters. Because I agree with you that Jew and Israeli aren't the same.

[civic karma]

okay then part of the problem is that in my native language the term for israelites (biblicla) and israelites (inhabitants of israel) is the same word

i did not know in english they were separate

[forest vale]

Yeah, citizens of Israel today are Israelis. No one says Israelites unless they're referring to the biblical people. Once you hit the time of Jesus, then they are no longer Israelites but rather Jews.

I know you dislike religious sources, but the timelines and peoples are supported quite well by secular evidence.

Autocorrect is killing me.

[forest vale]

Jews were actually fighting against Britain. They weren't given the territory, they already lived there. It was the UN that voted on the territories. Britain didn't agree and didn't support Israel.

The entire discussion of occupiers is stupid. You occupy territory when you have an army inhabiting foreign territory. You're not an occupier if you build a house as a civilian.

If you move in with an army and then civilian houses follow, that's not occupying, it's just conquest.

People decided on an inaccurate political label that makes Israel seem temporary and therefore able to be thrown out of the region.

[thorny stone]

You don't need to say anything about the current war. You just need to admit that Israel has historically always killed far more civilians than the Palestinians have. There's more than enough evidence to prove that it does, and so far in this conversation absolutely none saying anything different.

[forest vale]

That point is irrelevant even if it were true.

The fact is that Israel is a million times more effective at war than Hamas is. So every time Hamas attempts to kill civilians, they are prevented from doing so by Israel. By contrast, when Israel wages war, a lot of people die.

You're acting like whoever kills more people is worse. That's not how it actually goes.

There are way more factors at play.

Israel could glass the region whenever they want. They don't. Hamas wants to glass Israel, but is consistently prevented from doing so.

[thorny stone]

I've provided a ton of evidence. I've provided quotes from an Israeli general regarding their overall strategy, I've provided evidence from the soldiers themselves on the specific actions, and in the course of these discussions I've provided tons of other accounts from, apparently, more or less everyone who has ever been to look, confirming that both the Israeli military, and Israeli settlers, target Palestinian civilians unnecessarily. Israel deliberately kills civilians, it is part of a deliberate tactic that is well documented, and everybody knows it. That is a fact, and unless you can bring any actual evidence to support your view there is no point discussing it further.

[forest vale]

No country in the world would ever be expected to just put up with constant attacks from the neighboring territory and do nothing about it. But somehow that's what people expect from Israel. It's stupid and absurd. Don't attack Israel if you don't want to be attacked. The fact that more people die when Israel responds to attacks than were killed by rockets doesn't mean you just get to fire rockets indefinitely with no consequences.

[thorny stone]

Discord has a quote function. You can reply to the same post multiple times. I'm not stopping you replying to any individual sources, in any way.

Of course, you didn't reply to my sources the first or second times round. So I'm not hugely surprised you're refusing to respond to them the third time.

[forest vale]

Your evidence showed the opposite.

[forest vale]

I actually did respond to your sources, multiple times. You can scroll up if you need to.

If you want an individual response, then send an individual source. You grouped them, so I grouped my responses.

[forest vale]

I hope you do cease your discussion. Repeating "everybody knows it" is not providing evidence. The sources you actually do provide show the opposite of your claims, and that includes the biased sources.

[thorny stone]

Nobody has better numbers, so there's no argument to be made for their unreliability.

Quote from World Health Organization's health emergencies executive director Michael Ryan:

“We believe that the numbers being reported in Israel and in the occupied Palestinian territories … may not be perfectly accurate on a minute-to-minute basis,” Ryan said, “but they grossly reflect the level of death and injury on both sides of that conflict.”

[forest vale]

And to be clear, you haven't provided any evidence, but rather have provided articles where people talk about what has happened. None of that was actual evidence. We use that term so loosely these days.

[forest vale]

It's a Hamas organization with a history of lying.

There, I literally just provided an argument for their unreliability.

You're welcome.

Even the WHO in that quote is pretty much confirming their lack of accuracy.

"Grossly reflect the level of death and injury" is very far from saying the figures are accurate. It's basically a fancy way of saying, "People are dying, and the numbers going up show that people continue to die." Which is obvious to anyone given that it's a war. That has nothing to do with accuracy.

[thorny stone]

I'm not conflating anything. The targeting and inhumane treatment of civilians by Israel is systemic and organised from the top. I've literally quoted an Israeli general stating their military policy of treating people who look like civilians as military.
The Neighbour Procedure is a named, standard practice of using human shields, that the Israeli military teaches its soldiers to use. It was ruled illegal even by the Israeli courts, but the military kept on teaching it under a different name.
The solders accounts are not accounts from a few rogue soldiers, they are detailing the standard practice everywhere within the IDF. They are describing the standard practice. They are not misidentifying targets, they are deliberately shooting civilians in order to undermine Palestinian communities, and deliberately putting civilians in harms way by using them as human shields, and deliberately killing civilians alongside enemy soldiers because they view all Palestinians as their enemies.
The IDF is, categorically, targeting and harming civilians deliberately and systematically, under orders from their superiors. It is standard policy at every level of the IDF.

[forest vale]

Yeah, sorry. No. I looked at what you sent, and that's not what people were saying. You're misrepresenting their statements.

You're also misrepresenting the Neighbor Procedure quite severely. I don't know if you're just expecting me to not look up these things myself or what, but you're either misinformed or straight up hoping I won't do any research. I'm actually curious about these things. I do read into them. So I do notice when what you're saying doesn't match reality.

The Neighbor Procedure isn't "using human shields," it's having a civilian in the area go into the home of a suspect to persuade them to surrender. It's frowned upon because it puts the life of the civilian at risk. That's very, very different from a human shield. People might compare them due to the risk to civilian life, and those are valid concerns that make the practice questionable, with some calling it illegal. That doesn't make it the same.

The courts also claimed that calling a building that you're targeting ahead of time and asking whoever answers to evacuate it would be forbidden, because it utilizes civilians to warn others. At some level, the court is going off its own thoughts and not really matching the reality of war.

[thorny stone]

It is true, and it's very relevant as it's the exact point we've been arguing over for the past several days. Both sides are doing bad things, but Israel kills more civilians than Hamas does. Israeli's killing of civilians is therefore not a proportionate response to Palestinian terrorism, but instead a coordinated and deliberately disproportionate action to attempt to destroy Palestinian life, as described in their official policy I quote above.

[forest vale]

No, it's the point you've been arguing over. When given the opportunity, Hamas kills as many civilians as it can. Which is why they aren't allowed to do so. You claim that because they've failed, they're somehow better than the IDF. That's just a stupid argument.

[thorny stone]

Every country in the world, except Israel, would be expected to stop deliberately antagonising the Palestinians, before anyone would expect the Palestinians to stop attacking Israel in return. Peace is the only solution that has ever worked in these situations, and it's the only solution that could work here as well. Israel is the only country that thinks trying to kill every member of Hamas will improve anything.

[forest vale]

The IDF is very powerful and wages war effectively. Civilians die during war. Comparing total numbers of civilians killed is not a valid way of comparing morality.

[thorny stone]

Oh what a well-reasoned argument that is. I'm completely convinced now.

[forest vale]

Glad we could work that out.

[thorny stone]

I grouped them because you didn't respond to them the first two times. it's very easy for you to respond to the individual points without me having to do anything else to help you with it. Either respond to them, or I'll assume you're admitting you're a troll.

[forest vale]

I don't care what you assume. I did respond to them. If you don't like my responses, then pick out one you'd like me to respond to.

It's really not hard to hit send between each one. There's no need to group them into one discord message.

[thorny stone]

Israel also has a history of lying, so let's not listen to either of them. Let's listen to an external source, who says...what a surprise, to broadly go with the Gaza Health Ministry's figures.

[forest vale]

None of that is actually true.

[thorny stone]

It's also not hard to hit "Send" when you're done responding to each part. Your request is nonsense. You can either reply or admit you're a troll.

[forest vale]

It makes it much more ambiguous which part is actually being replied to and makes replying less clear. It also makes it more difficult to keep track of what has been looked at and what hasn't been looked at. It's a quality of life thing and a courtesy.

But regardless, I already replied to your sources.

[thorny stone]

Use the quote function then. Like i told you before.

I've provided you with the sources three times now, I'm not doing it again.

[forest vale]

I already replied. You're ignoring my replies. Either ask for a more detailed response to a particular one or move on with your life.

[forest vale]

And I already replied to them.

[thorny stone]

I am asking for a more detailed response to all of them. Any of them. Pick one yourself. I'm not helping you any further with this incredibly easy task.

[forest vale]

You can tell where I replied because I used the reply function that discord provides.

[forest vale]

Lol, no. My response was more than detailed enough.

Either be more specific or move on.

[thorny stone]

Great. Have a good life with your trolling, troll.

[forest vale]

Yeah, I thought so. Why would I bother to give a more detailed response when you refused to engage with the response I already gave? You're just asking me to waste my time.

If you're refusing to engage with what I give you, I'm not going further.

[thorny stone]

For the avoidance of doubt, Falcon is still lying and still refusing to actually engage with evidence. So there's no point having a conversation with them in any shape or form. I suggest that everyone just lets them post their fantasy stories in peace.

[forest vale]

It's really that simple, and that's very reasonable. If you don't think my responses were sufficient, then tell me why and tell me what you're looking for. A generic "more detail everywhere" after you claimed I didn't respond at all just tells me you didn't bother reading my words at all.

Gotta love how people always come with the "you're lying" nonsense if you don't agree with them. It's like no one told them what a lie was when they were a child.

At least I'm not a Hamas supporter.

[steep ivy]

I figured this conflict would have a thread here.

[steep ivy]

I haven’t read anything, but if you don’t mind me asking, who do you consider to be Hamas supporters? Like, what groups?

I’ve seen varying answers to this question since the conflict started from many different sources.

[forest vale]

People who say "from the river to the sea," for starters.

[steep ivy]

Interesting.

[forest vale]

Anyone actively calling for Israel to be wiped off the map is pretty strongly in alignment with Hamas.

[steep ivy]

This is true.

“Wiped off the map” is quite radical.

[forest vale]

I mean that's what "From the river to the sea" means. It means Israel is gone.

Then you branch into those defending the actions of Hamas, like claiming October 7 was a defensive action or denying that it was particularly bad.

Then you can move into those who more indirectly defend the actions of Hamas, like claiming that using human shields means you shouldn't be attacked, or saying that Israel is responsible if Hamas uses human shields and civilians die as a result.

A far weaker version of Hamas support is simply treating them as a legitimate source for information.

[steep ivy]

What is your opinion of people who support a solution of a state where both Israelis and Palestinians are welcome through all the land, whether it be called Israel or Palestine or something else?

[forest vale]

Well, those people aren't the Arabs of that area, who have been rejecting a two state solution for a long time and fought multiple wars to wipe Israel out.

[steep ivy]

I didn’t say two state, I said one state where both groups are welcome all throughout.

[forest vale]

I mean I disagree with the two state solution, but there's nothing wrong with having that view.

[forest vale]

Oh! I misread. Sorry.

[steep ivy]

All good.

[forest vale]

Israel is currently that kind of place, based on everything I can tell. I would argue that absorbing Gaza and the West Bank into Israel as soon as possible is the most healthy thing you could do for those areas and would lead to the most prosperity for those people.

As far as calling it Palestine... the only way that would happen is if Israel disappeared, which would be bloody. There's a reason the Jewish population of the surrounding countries is zero.

There's no solution that removes Israel that avoids Jews being wiped out.

But those are just my thoughts. Happy to hear yours.

[steep ivy]

Well, I can understand why the Jewish population of Israel would fear being pushed out of the region if an organization like Hamas were to somehow take over. No one wants that, or at least no one should, as Hamas is a terrorist organization and nothing more. However, I think most Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere simply want to have a real place to call home, and don’t really care if they have to share it with Israel. Obviously both sides have very long withstanding claims to the region, it’s ridiculous to argue that standpoint for either group, what’s important is that no one feels like they are being forced out of their homeland or even killed simply for existing. When I wrote “From the river to the sea” in my page bio, I did not do so with the opinion I wanting the Jews to be wiped out of the region. I mean that as in for Palestinians being allowed to exist and live in the place they’ve called home for millennia, just as the Jews have. From the river to the sea.

[forest vale]

Well, I didn't specifically see anything about your bio. The phrase "from the river to the sea" refers to the idea that the country of Israel is an occupation and the region needs to be liberated through the destruction of Israel.

Using it for its intended meaning and using the phrase in solidarity with people who want a place to call home are very different things. I'd still call that unintentional support for terrorism.

That's similar to "globalize the intifada." The first two intifadas were attempts to wipe out Israel.

Hamas uses that phrase in its charter, referring to wanting to liberate the entire region from Israel through armed resistance. So in response to a war between Israel and Hamas, it's hard not to see that as support for Hamas.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Happy to hear more if you have them.

[civic karma]

I think this is a very important statement to make. In my homecountry, a lot of people are claiming that the statement ''from the river...'' should be classified as antisemitism. Although, based on the historic context of the phrase I can understand the sentiment, I also acknowledge that the meaning of a word or sentence can change over time. On one side we have people saying ''from the river...'' and what they mean is that they support Palistinians and would like to see the violence/war end. On the other hand are people that stay true to the historic meaning seeing it as a direct threat to the state of israel and the jewish people in general.

When @forest vale mentioned that this specific sentence as supporting hamas, I was quite shocked, since in my personal ''sphere'', the people I see use this sentence do not mean the historic origin of the sentence where they wish that the state of israel seizes to exist. These people just want the violence to end. Although I can understand that the meaning of this sentence can have a drastically different weight to other people who do relate it to its historic context.

(i tagged you not cus i want to start another discussion, but i found it rude to name you without mentioning you.)

Here is a quote that pretty much sums it up:

"Historians, experts, and activists suggest that for Palestinians, the phrase likely refers to the desire for liberation and equal rights, while many Jews see it as a threat and as a wish for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state."

So the actual phrase means something else to different people.

And since it is language, no one is ''right'' or ''wrong'' in their percieved meaning of the word.

I kinda agree with both sides. On the one hand i think its childish to assume that anyone stating the phrase has antisemetic intentions. On the other hand, if you know that other people will interpret it as antisemitism, then you may as well just not use it. Its kinda childish as well

[thorny stone]

I would agree with that, except supporters of Israel will label almost anything as anti-semitism, including any criticism of Israel for almost anything. So it's not actually possible to use what Israel's supporters label as anti-semitism to make a judgement on anything sensible any more. They use it just as a general insult to apply to anything they don't like now.

That's really unfortunate for the people trying to deal with actual anti-semitism. But that's the situation we're in now. We can't trust Israeli supporters to correctly identify racism.

And unfortunately, due to long campaigns of misinformation, their warped view of anti-semitism has spread to many other organisations. So there are really not many organisations out there any more who will correctly identify anti-semitism.

Accusations of anti-semitism are just part of the landscape of political warfare now.

[civic karma]

I heard one professor in a podcast say that one of the biggest dangers with regards to anti semitism is the mislabeling of antisemitism for stuff that's not antisemetic

[thorny stone]

Yes, absolutely. It's teaching people to ignore the phrase, like the boy who cried wolf.

[civic karma]

Oh man i absolutely dispise people that claim that criticism on the Israeli government is antisemetic

[thorny stone]

It might harm your political opponents to scream "anti-semite" at them all the time, but it seriously harms the fight against actual racism.

[civic karma]

Exactly his point

Like it makes actual antisemitism more dangerous

Which we can see in the statistics, at least in Europe

[thorny stone]

Harder to spot, yes.

The statistics are also partly because a ton of stuff gets labelled as anti-semitism when it's actually not. But yeah, when people see other people that claim to represent Judaism lying about anti-semitism, and when they see Israel being presented as a Jewish state carrying out these horrible actions, it will of course lead to a backlash of anti-Jewish feeling.

That's why so many Jewish people are trying to combat the false accusations, and the actions of the Israeli military.

It's just very difficult to do so, in an environment where you're immediately labelled as a racist or religious traitor if you disagree with the extremist views.

[civic karma]

Yeah it fucking sucks to not being able to be able to use free speech on topics like these

But i guess i am in the radical camp where i believe you can pretty much say anything unless it directly restricts someone else's freedom

[junior delta]

Usually standard practice tells people where they can find that information. Every single argumentative essay I've had to write required not only mentioning the source, but also including the exact location of the information I was refering to. I was more asking if you could just so I could read it, not trying to invalidate them.

[junior delta]

Ok, so you think that it only has to do with the race of the Palestinians, not the fact that the group of people are actively and historically have been at war with Israel? It seems like you're just picking and choosing what you want to believe.

[forest vale]

It's also a difficult environment because one side assumes that unless you condemn the Israeli government as genocidal, then clearly all of your points and arguments are wrong.

It is possible to believe that the actions of the Israeli government are correct, support the actions of the IDF, not want civilians in Gaza to die, and not simply be saying that anything Israel does or ever could do is automatically correct. Criticizing one thing doesn't mean you disagree with everything, and agreeing with one thing doesn't mean you agree with everything.

The equivalent would be someone claiming that if you support the US and the US military, then you must also support all the actions of the US government, which is true in zero percent of cases.

Now, on the other hand, it's much simpler to say the opposite.

If I say, "Hamas is a terrorist organization," then a lot automatically follows from that pretty accurately, such as the fact that I'm obviously not going to take Hamas figures and statistics as anything but tools of propaganda without considering them too strongly.

Same goes for someone else saying something to that effect about the Israeli government (apartheid, genocide, terrorists, etc). That means that they probably haven't looked at the quality or the reliability of the sources, dismissing them the moment they see "Israel" no matter how unconnected to the Israeli government or critical of Israel that source might be.

[forest vale]

Is someone restricting your speech?

[junior delta]

I agree with you there, the only thing I think should be illegal are physical threats against another person or group. A lot of people don't support full freedom of speech though because they think not making certain things illegal is as good as endorsing it, which I find not the smartest because if you restrict one groups freedoms it is hypcritical if you don't all groups, but that leads to the slippery slope of the government just restricting freedoms in general which is mostly never a good diea.

[junior delta]

Yea, I think all sides agree that both sides are not perfect. People also think that saying Israel is justified in their response to Hamas is the same as saying we condone the method of attack, other views of random Jewish officials, death of innocent people, etc.

[forest vale]

The issue we've got in America is that in the name of "free speech" people are setting up illegal camp grounds in the middle of schools, taking over and damaging public buildings, restricting the ability of Jewish students to move, yelling and screaming in the face of anyone wearing Jewish clothing. I mean it's actually extremely antisemetic and none of that has anything to do with speech.

[junior delta]

Not just Jewish students, but any students who are not actively participating in their "protests". I've been blocked from getting to class one day before finals started, I never even made opinions know, nor was I wearing anything supporting one side or the other.

[civic karma]

Ah, in my field of study standard practice us different. Generally when you have a source that includes other sources, you cite the original sources, not the one you used yourself

[civic karma]

I don't understand why you think that I am cherry picking. Could you try to elaborate on what you mean because I don't think I understand.

I don't see how that is relevant to the statement that Israel is an apartheid state due to the policy of the incumbent goverment

Like the thing is, the way I read this is that since there is a long history of conflict, the apartheid policy is acceptable, but thats probably not what you meant

I am wondering how history is relevant to the policy of systematically oppressing one specific group of people

And to what degree I am cherry picking

[civic karma]

And yes i very much believe it is racially motivated as Netanyahu has mentioned himself that he thinks it is dangerous for Israel and Israelis to have neighbouring states that are predominantly Palestinian

Exactly the same reason he does not support a two-state solution nor a 1-state solution with equal rights for all

Now I do agree that Israel having neighboring states that are predominantly Palestinians IS a threat for israel

but if you use that to support a policy of commiting racially motivated hate crimes then that is apartheid in the very definition of the word

but maybe the word ''apartheid'' has a different load in the english language than it has in my native language idk

[civic karma]

Very much yes, not on this forum no, but I am not allowed to publicly out myself against the policies of the Israeli government in my home country without being afraid to be arrested

Cus i will be arrested in the name of ''anti-semitism''

[civic karma]

And the other side assumes that if you actively condemn actions of the israeli government you are a hamas-lover, a jew-hater or just an anti-semite in general. Both sides should listen more to eachother instead of making this great division where everything is seen as black and white.

[civic karma]

But the same holds for Israel. It is, in my view, common sense to assume that any party that is actively involved in a conflict benefits from cencoring information about this conflict. Where I agree is that Hamas propaganda is probably not accurate. Where we disagree is that i believe that hamas propaganda is similarly accurate/inaccurate as Israeli propaganda

[civic karma]

ame goes for someone else saying something to that effect about the Israeli government (apartheid, genocide, terrorists, etc). That means that they probably haven't looked at the quality or the reliability of the sources, dismissing them the moment they see "Israel" no matter how unconnected to the Israeli government or critical of Israel that source might be

So just because we have a differnt opinion or we disagree now means that ''i have not looked at the quality or reliabilty of the sources''.

Basically you are saying: "If you dont agree with me you are dumb''

well sir, we can form different conclusions based on the same data

We can disagree based on the same data

But yes, anything that comes from official israeli government sources is, and i thought this was common sense, just as unreliable as anything that comes from hamas

no doubt about it

and if you cannot agree with that, i am in exactly the same boat, because then i believe that you are not willing to look at the quality and/or reliability of your sources

I just can't wrap my head around the idea that on the one hand you believe information from hamas is inaccurate and on the other hand believe that information from the israeli government IS reliable

it baffles my mind

[civic karma]

Are they specifically targetting jewish students or just any student who does not agree with them, because there is a very large difference in the narrative and implicatoins.

[junior delta]

Well because you claim Israel is apartheid, which is fine you can claim that, but you'd also have to claim other countries like the United States are or were apartheid states too. During WW2, the US would have been an apartheid state as they had policy that systematically oppressed people of one specific group (Asians). Currently, the US has things like affirmative action which statistically hurts again, Asian Americans, and to a lesser extent white Americans.

By pointing this out, I'm not saying I condone the actions. I'm simply trying to show that the standards we apply to one group of people should be applied to all group of people, not applied to groups we decide to and not to group we just decide not to.

I am saying though that I don't think it is wrong to discriminate against a group of people you are at war with and who have a collective hate towards you. That is just called national security, doesn't make it perfect, but I think it is justifiable. So, from this particular stance I do see it as acceptable, not just because of the long historic conflict, but because the current conflict they are in too. I don't think countries should be judged for excluding groups they are actively at war with. I don't think Ukraine should be judged for discriminating against Russians while they are at war with Russia, likewise I don't think Russia should be judged for discriminating against Ukrainians while they are at war with Ukraine.

[junior delta]

Is Palestinian a race or nationality? I thought Palestinian was a nationality and arabic was a race. If I work with white people from France, but not England, that doesn't mean I'm racist, you could have the argument for xenophobic though. Also I think where we disagree with is if a can discriminate against another country that is actively at war and is likely to cause harm to their country. I think you can have the stance that they should fully allow countries they are at war with and who want to destroy them to be fully equal to them in their own country, but I frankly think that is just suicide and not a sustainable way to run a country.

And I mean, it's not like they didn't help the Palestinians before either, Palestinians used to be able to leave Gaza and enter into Israel to seek medical treatmen, that doesn't seem very apartheid of Israel to allow, especially hearing how people claim Israel made Gaza into an open air prison (I don't know if you believe that lie though of the "open air prison").

[civic karma]

Yeah i think this narrative is quite dangerous. What I did was say that the policies of one particular government can be classified as apartheid under the definition of the word. I did not in any way talk about any other government nor did I give my opinion on the actions of any other governemnt.

It seems to me that what you did here was ASSUME that since i did not mention any other governemnt, therefore i do not care about that goverment or do not apply the same rules to that other case. In fact, since i did not mention anything about that, you cannot make that claim nor come to that conclusion.

Moreover, it is a ''tu quoque'' fallacy. Pointing the finger instead of actually discussing the content itself.

This is similar rhetoric to when I say i am critical towards the policy of the Israeli government, I get put in a ''camp'' where people assume i therefore agree with the actions of Hamas, whereas in reality, I can condemn both sides. It is not a black and white situation.

Me condemning the apartheid policy of the israeli government does not entail any value-based argument on any other policy of any other authority, so stop bringing that up, it is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

[civic karma]

Now this is an interesting discussion since there is not a single definition of human race that is agreed upon by everyone. Some people claim that races within humans do not exist at all. Some claim race is based on biological distinction, others claim it is based on social distinction and again others claim it is based on genetic distinction.

Although you are correct that palestine is a nation of which its inhabitants are also called ''palestinians'', when i use the word palestinian, i refer to the group of people that have inhabited the lavant area for hundres if not thousands of years, originating in the Phillistine area around 1200 BCE during the late bronze age. Palestines are therefore their own people. Decendants of these people are of course nowadays mixed with many other races of people, including arabs and jews. Therfore drawing the line is really complicated.

Arguments for claiming apartheid is saying that many of the ''original'' (pre-ww2) inhabitants of the region are somewhat related to the original palestines, therefore can be classified as a race. Proponents say they are a nationality. Either way whether you want to name it apartheid or not, fact is that the actions lead to the systematic opression of a minority group including commiting war crimes against those people. Whether you want to name it apartheid or not I find irrelevent. Point is that the Israeli government under lead of president Netanyahu is commiting crimes against huminity and I would like that to stop.

[civic karma]

I am saying though that I don't think it is wrong to discriminate against a group of people you are at war with and who have a collective hate towards you. That is just called national security, doesn't make it perfect, but I think it is justifiable.

And this is why this is not a black-and-white situation but actually a very big gray area. The extent to which certain policies can be justified under the excuse of 'national security' is not very clear. My personal opinion is that for example the settling-policy in the west-bank IS motivated by 'national security' however is not proportional to the actions that are done, and I think it is precicely this proportionality concept that makes it very hard to discuss / find common ground.

In other words, the end is not justified by the means

Whereas I get the impression that for some people they believe the opposite, namely that the goal is more important than how you get there. If you have to drive out and or murder innocent people out of their homes in order to feel secure, than it is justified under the wing of 'national security'

And I get a feeling that wherever you are on that spectrum heavily defines the stance in the israel-palestine conflict as a whole

[civic karma]

By pointing this out, I'm not saying I condone the actions. I'm simply trying to show that the standards we apply to one group of people should be applied to all group of people, not applied to groups we decide to and not to group we just decide not to.
To react to this, i am also heavily critical on many other policies by other nations, but it is not relevant to this specific topic, so it seems irrelevant to mention that here

But then whenever i do not mention it, i get put into a camp where it is assumed that ''therefore you only care about specific policy X''

which is not the case, its just that specific policy X is the only policy that is relevant to THIS discussion on israel-palestine

I disagree with EU migrant policies, I disagree with US military policies, with US domestic policies, with Russias military policies, with Turkey military policies, with China domestic and military policies and the list goes on and on and on

but it seems totally irrelevant to mention that in this specific discussion

Turkey is an apartheid state too

China same

US can be argued, but i doubt it

[junior delta]

You are corret in saying you did not talk about other government or give your opinions on their actions, but you implied that their actions would be apartheid based on your definition of apartheid.

I assumed nothing, I never attempted to claim you made a stance on other countries, I simply was informing you that with your logic, various other countries would fall into the same category. You don't have to make a claim about the direct governemtn I am refering to in order to have your opinion on it made clear, unless you apply double-standards. As you said "under the definition of the word" that implies we are going off of the definition, not opinions, the US would be an apartheid state and therefore that should be your view, but I did not assume that.

Also I did discuss the content itself, I used the entire last paragraph of that post talking about my specific view on apatheid states. You are correct that these situations are not black and white, but in terms of apartheid they quite literally are based on the definition as again you said was what we were going off of.

I can bring it up too either way, it may not be directly answering your question, but it is showing a flaw in your argument which is perfectly reasonable.

[civic karma]

I assumed nothing, I never attempted to claim you made a stance on other countries, I simply was informing you that with your logic, various other countries would fall into the same category.

YES THEY DO THATS PRECISELY MY POINT

[civic karma]

Also I did discuss the content itself, I used the entire last paragraph of that post talking about my specific view on apatheid states. You are correct that these situations are not black and white, but in terms of apartheid they quite literally are based on the definition as again you said was what we were going off of.
The problem here is not the definition of apartheid but the definition of 'race' which is heavily debated

Thats why I said, name it all you want, if you don't agree on calling it apartheid thats fine, but the actions still do not change and thats what I am trying to argue about

[junior delta]

Phillistine and Palestinians are two separate groups of people though. Palastinians are arabs. But, if you are saying that drawing the line is difficuly and ultimiately is subjective based on one's own definition of race, then I find it hard to claim apartheid states are apartheid as that too would be subjective based on your own view of what race is, if there are races at all.

I don't deny that the policies Israel has may harm certain groups. As I said before though, I don't think it matters if you descriminate against a neighbor who is at war with you - that is only logical. I think we both would like the war to stop, but that seems like an unreasonable thing to request given the circumstances that Palestine started a war, are still fighting a war, and there is no reason to assume they won't keep fighting if Israel does.

[junior delta]

Well the way I view it though is who started the conflict. If both sides are doing the same thing, lets look at who started the conflict. Now this probably is personal opinion as I'd argue Palestine started the conflict. I don't know much about West Bank though I will admit.

[civic karma]

Phillistine and Palestinians are two separate groups of people though.
That is not my understanding of the history in the area (talking from bronze age to today)

But, if you are saying that drawing the line is difficuly and ultimiately is subjective based on one's own definition of race, then I find it hard to claim apartheid states are apartheid as that too would be subjective based on your own view of what race is, if there are races at all.
But this is exactly what I am saying. Race is subjective, therefore anything including race in its definition, for example apartheid, will be subjective.

[civic karma]

Now without saying i agree or disagree with you I would like to know what your motives are for arguing Palestine started the conflict, and to what specific conflict you are referring then.

Like what time period we talking here

[civic karma]

I don't deny that the policies Israel has may harm certain groups. As I said before though, I don't think it matters if you descriminate against a neighbor who is at war with you - that is only logical. I think we both would like the war to stop, but that seems like an unreasonable thing to request given the circumstances that Palestine started a war, are still fighting a war, and there is no reason to assume they won't keep fighting if Israel does.

Yeah i don't neccesarily agree that 'Palestine' started a war, it heavily depends on where you draw the line historically and geographically and what context you take into acount

I can make arguments for both sides of the conflict starting the conflict and personlly i find it impossible to point towards a ''start of the conflict''

like this conflict has been going on since before jesus was born

and proper archeological and historic evidence from that long ago is hard to come by

so i think we all have to admit that no one knows for sure ''who started it''

Unless you only take into account a specific subset of the conflict, e.g. from ww2 till now, but then you are not taking into account the full context so then im wondering wheter it would be ''fair'' to take that as a boundary

If you want to go all the way back you have to go to when proto-Judaism was split off from the polytheistic Canaanite religion, where gradually over time city-states and later kingdoms were formed that either accepted the (proto-)judaism or not

Then later on christianity, and even later islam, split of from judaism, but technically they were the same 'people' as in having the same descendants

Then those religions and people spread, mixed and mingled around north africa, middle east and south-eastern europe

So strictly historically speaking, at least based on the limited evidence we have, one could argue that both jews, arabs, palestines whatever are all the same people historically, but mostly differ culturally

I dont know if you can still follow, all im trying to say is that in my opinion it is impossible to point at one moment in history and say: ''this is where the conflict started'' and therefore it is impossible to point at one of the parties claiming they are the ones who started it.

[civic karma]

Also, something that has not felt right about this comment that I only found the words for now to explain is that this notion totally negates any form of proportionality. If you say that the party responsible is the party who started, and therefore the other party can retaliate however they want, than I think that is a problem too.

Suppose give someone a slap with the back of my hand and in return i get beat up so bad i have to be hospitalized and will be disabled the rest of my life, than on the one hand you could argue: ''you started it so its fair''. However I would argue that based on the principle of proportionality, even though I started it, the reaction was not warranted as it is out of proportion. Therefore, even though I started it, I am now also a victim.

but i have a feeling you disagree

[junior delta]

Phillistines were Aegeans who immigrated to the lands of Caanan in the 12th century BC where they assimilated elements of the Levantine Semitic societies, but still with a distinct culture. Then they were destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar II and being exiled into Babylonia where they pretty much vanished as a distrinct group fro archaelogical and historical records.

Palestinians on the other hand are culturally Arab. There was never any territory there called Palestine until the 5th century I believe which was used by 1 Greek historian who used "Palaistine" (I don't have some of the fancy letters to make it exactly correct spelling) to refer to the coastal lands all the way from Phonecia to Egypt. When the Romans came in it was called Judaea, but coming to the 2nd CE Syria Palaestina became the official name for the region to, what most scholars assume, punish the Jews for the Bar Kokhba revolt. They were always considered Arab until 1898 when one man decided to call himself just Palestinian instead of a Palestine Arab.

To talk about the apartheid thing, I think it's safe to say that is just a tangent and we should focus on the other aspects, would you agree?

[forest vale]

There are already equal rights for citizens of Israel, and no one has put out anything to the contrary. Not allowing automatic entry and citizenship to people from countries you're at war with has nothing to do with restricting the rights of citizens, and such an argument is completely absurd.

[forest vale]

Saying "Israel is an apartheid state" means that Israel treats its own citizens differently, which is a lie. The people in Western Palestine and Eastern Palestine have been at war with Israel for many decades. Pretending that Israel is supposed to give equal rights to people they are actively at war with is nonsense.

[forest vale]

Probably because rather than criticizing the policy of the Israeli government, you'd instead be chanting "from the river to the sea," "Israel is an apartheid state," and other such slogans that have roots in actual extreme antisemitism, even if you don't mean them that way. I guarantee that if you actually confined your speech to criticizing actual policies of Israel, no one would restrict your speech.

[forest vale]

That's not true at all. You can certainly criticize policies of Israel's government without supporting Hamas. The problem is when you start chanting terrorist slogans and have no clue what you're actually doing. Reading the Hamas charter out loud still supports Hamas, even if you're ignorant about it. It also doesn't help when such protests commonly target random Jewish people walking by who have nothing to do with Israel. That might be a much bigger indicator of antisemitism than any supposed criticism of Israeli policy.

[forest vale]

This take is just wrong. Israel is not a terrorist state. If you call them that when they're objectively not, then it's no wonder that people say you're supporting Hamas. If you pretend that the propaganda of literal terrorists is somehow comparable to the media of Israel, even when that media is often very critical of the government of Israel, then you're just showing ignorance, extreme bias, and delusion. Counting any media that says "Israel" as propaganda is nonsense. There's obviously some with close ties to the Israeli government, but the hold on media isn't anywhere near as tight as you pretend it to be.

[forest vale]

Not if you don't even bother looking at the data, which is my actual point. You dismiss anything coming out of Israel without looking at it, which is not reasonable. You don't confine your rejection to "official Israeli government sources," which might be more understandable. You actually reject anything at all from Israel. And that's just wrong.

[forest vale]

That's not at all common sense, because even Israeli government sources routinely share news that paints Israel or the Israeli government in a bad light, where Hamas never would paint themselves in a bad light. I thought that would be common sense.

[forest vale]

It's easy man. One side is terrorists, the other side isn't. If you don't see that, then you gotta wonder at what point it's just racism talking. Non-Israeli sources routinely investigate and confirm Israeli data while disproving Hamas stories. It's not hard to see. There's no moral equivalence.

[forest vale]

Jewish students. I did not misspeak.

[forest vale]

The idea that you shouldn't discriminate against people you're at war with is mind boggling. I mean we're not even talking about Israeli citizens here. It's literally people that were attacking Israel and trying to wipe it off the map.

[forest vale]

Palestinians and Jews are very similar from an ethnicity standpoint. The accusations of racism are nonsense and inaccurate. It's all about religion and nationality.

[forest vale]

Gotta name specific policies and the specific definition. Right now, those two don't match.

Your definition of apartheid is something to the effect of treating a group differently based on race, ethnicity, whatever, having different policies for different groups of people. And then you name the policy of settlements in the West Bank, which first of all has nothing to do with policy in Israel and second has nothing to do with ethnicity but rather the fact that the non-Israeli citizens in the West Bank are either enemy combatants or are the civilian counterpart to enemy combatants, and that's active enemy since they never stopped attacking.

[forest vale]

Except that you put yourself in that category by claiming that Hamas and the Israeli government are the same, because that's what Hamas charges. So whether or not you think you support Hamas, you're still repeating their propaganda line for line. They don't care about being labeled terrorists, as long as they can get Israel labeled as terrorists too.

[forest vale]

Palestine is a region of the world. It is not a nation and has never been. It's the equivalent of the term "mid-western".

[forest vale]

Oppression of enemy combatants is not the same as a "minority group," especially when the group has a clear majority in the area. The way you just take random American liberal terms and toss them in where they don't make sense is really fascinating.

[forest vale]

How about the fact that Israel pulled out of Gaza and allowed them self-rule for a couple decades, and in response, Hamas orchestrated an invasion that killed 1200 civilians. Anyone who claims this war isn't about Israel responding to something is completely delusional.

You can claim that conflict already existed, and that's valid, but if I'm arguing with someone for years, the moment he pulls out a knife and starts stabbing my sister, he has created a conflict that has little to do with what came before.

[forest vale]

Considering Islam doesn't come into existence until the 7th century, this makes no sense.

[forest vale]

Conflict existing in an area in no way shape or form makes it impossible to point to specific events that created conflict. This is basically a way of ignoring the fact that Israel has responded to attacks over and over again, pretending that they are themselves instigators. It's not accurate.

[forest vale]

You're acting like "proportionality" means you only get to kill as many people as were killed. That's not it at all. That's not what it means. That's why this whole comparison of who killed more of whom is complete nonsense.
You are attacking to end a threat. You use force in an appropriate manner to end a threat. If the force is appropriate for ending the threat, then it is proportional. How many civilians the threat initially managed to kill is largely irrelevant to whether the threat exists and to its potential for harm.

[forest vale]

If you are slapping my sister, I will do what is necessary to end the threat. If slapping you back doesn't stop you from slapping my sister, but putting you in the hospital does, then you're going to the hospital. That's what proportionality actually means. Not proportional to the damage already caused, but rather proportional to what is needed to end a threat.

[forest vale]

Dunno, I feel like if you take away the apartheid argument, the entire justification for attacking Israel goes away. That's pretty important to a lot of people.

There you go. All the responses you didn't need to this discussion. Enjoy. Looks like 21 of them. Time to get back to work.

[civic karma]

TOld you my definition twice already if you forgot you can scroll back

[civic karma]

I did not claim hamas and israeli government are the same. I claim that the reliability of their information should be judged similarly

[civic karma]

Palestine is officially recognised as a state...

[civic karma]

Certainly interesting since i am not American, nor is english my native language. Im not sure where i spoke about enemy combatants though, I think you just made that up.

[civic karma]

So is your claim that this conflict started on october 7th then?

[civic karma]

Well to the best of my knowledge this is not a religious conflict so I am not sure what the timeline of islam existing has anything to do with it.

[civic karma]

Yes, i am pointing out that I myself am not able to point at a specific point in time and state that this is the start of the conflict. Feel free to do so if you happen to know the exact starting point.

[civic karma]

Thats not how i am acting. That is how you misinterpret my statements

Pretty much everything I have said today you have misinterpreted as something else, before you started to attack my misinterpreted claims. Almost none of the things you called me out on I have actually said. You have created a ''meta-discussion'' with yourself, arguing against things I did not even remotely imply. I am not sure why you do this. I do not assume any malicious intent, but I would urge you to quit doing that.

[civic karma]

Agreed, but thats not what I said

[forest vale]

And I referenced the fact that they don't match. If you're saying "policy A exists which discriminates against group B," then name the policy and name the group. Right now, I have policy A, funding settlements for Israelis in the West Bank, and group B, enemy combatants. Sorry, it's not apartheid to fund settlements and it's not apartheid to treat enemy combatants differently than your own citizens. I haven't seen anything that really discusses the settlements being funded. Is there some sort of religious or ethic component to it?

[forest vale]

I wasn't arguing that you said they were the same, I was arguing that you claimed they had equal credibility. So however we got there, you're confirming that I understood you correctly. Sorry if I made it confusing.

[forest vale]

Not by those I care about.

[forest vale]

I made up the fact that people in Gaza and the West Bank have consistently attacked Israel since before WW2?

[forest vale]

This particular war? Yes, absolutely. You can call it part of a broader conflict if you want, but it's important to recognize cause and effect. Israel didn't attack Hamas out of nowhere. Hamas didn't have a particular Israeli attack that October 7 was a response to.

[forest vale]

I think the charter of Hamas would beg to differ. Objections to the state of Israel are highly religious in nature even today, and they certainly were even more so back in 1948.

[forest vale]

October 7 started this war.

[forest vale]

Hey, if I misunderstood you and we actually agree, then I'm glad we came through that.

It's just that "how many civilians has Israel killed vs how many were killed on October 7" has been a constant item referenced in the discussion on proportionality, which is really misplaced in my opinion. If killing a million people is the only way to stop someone coming in and killing 1000 of your people, then the world doesn't just get to say, "You are required to let them kill 1000 of your people." No, you are allowed to defend yourself, even at a high cost. If you kill a million where you could have achieved the same objective with killing only a thousand, that's where big questions need to be answered in terms of proportionality.

The world has been expecting Israel to just let Hamas live, and get attacked occasionally. Just get used to it, right? For decades, they've accepted constant attacks from Gaza and the West Bank. That's completely unreasonable.

[civic karma]

That's however not what I have been saying though. I do however believe that there are many things that have happened since October 7th that I personally believe have gone too far and that the Israeli government should be called out for. I don't care that they are in a war, there are still things that go too far, even in a war. To give one example, closing off Gaza for humanitarian aid because "maybe Hamas will use those things" is really out of proportion considering over a million people were facing acute levels of food insecurity. Considering it is estimated that Hamas consists of approximately 40 thousand people, that's a 25:1 ratio of people on the brink of starving to death.

However appaling the acts of 7 October were, nothing in the world could justify mass starvation like that.

I don't believe that any human deserves a fate like that, doesn't matter what they've done.

But I don't believe that the end justifies the means. I am under the impression that you have a different opinion on that.

[forest vale]

What have you not been saying?

[forest vale]

Zero people have been saying, "Maybe Hamas will use those things." What people have been pointing out is that Hamas has been using those things, which is why the leaders of Hamas all ended up as billionaires. It's crazy to me how the world seems totally cool with Hamas stealing fuel from hospitals and stockpiling food in their terror tunnels instead of distributing it to civilians. The best way to prevent hunger is to end Hamas. Delaying Israel doesn't help Gaza.

[forest vale]

The ends justify the means as long as you consider all of the ends. Long term, short term. Intended and unintended.

[forest vale]

Where do you even get the term "food insecurity"? That's such a ridiculous word to use during a war. I couldn't care less about someone's "food insecurity." Just say you're worried about people starving.

[thorny stone]

Another reminder in the news today:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/23/whistleblowers-allege-widespread-abuses-at-israeli-detention-camp-sde-teiman

And one from a few days ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/may/20/icc-prosecutor-seeks-arrest-warrants-israeli-pm-netanyahu-hamas-officials-war-crimes

[forest vale]

I'm consistently impressed by the low quality of Guardian articles every time I open them. Real trash media, that is.

[civic karma]

It really does not

Not in my opinion at least.

[civic karma]

How come every time something does not fit your narrative it's "trash" but whenever it foes fit it somehow is reliable?

[civic karma]

It's how the UN defines the availability of food.. it's the proper term to use in such a scenario. Why so mad about a term that is widely used by all proper organisation's?

It would really suit you to look further than your own brainwashed opinion

Anyway I am never going to respond to you in this topic agaun

[forest vale]

Really? Why not?

[forest vale]

That's not the case. I just don't like the Guardian. But I can understand why you'd make that accusation. How come any media that has Israel in it is dismissed, even if it has nothing to do with the Israeli government? Seems a bit hypocritical, right?

I still read the Guardian articles. They just give me CNN vibes. The headlines are all off and you can tell they're really biased in how they choose their reporting topics.

[civic karma]

I would suggest reading Kant. This branch of phillosophy is called deontological ethics and basically describes that the outcome of a certain action is irrelevant to the value of the action itself. An action can be good or bad and the outcome does not matter. You cannot justify a good outcome by a bad action to get there. Ofcourse you may disagree, but you should not act like your opinion is a fact.

[forest vale]

I didn't ask for Kant, I asked for your reasoning. Can you name one scenario where the ends wouldn't justify the means?

[civic karma]

Again, you are just not actually reading what I am saying. I am not dismissing any Israeli media, although i don't read it myself, however I deem the ''facts'' that are put out by the Israeli government as similarly reliable to that are put out by Hamas, based on the fact that they are both parties that are actively involved in a conflict and therefore both benefit from spreading lies and misinformation.

[civic karma]

Killing someone in order to prevent someone else from being killed

I think that is morally wrong

That is my personal belief

Take for example the trolley problem to make it easy

Would it be morally wrong for someone to actively flip a swtich in order to kill 1 person to save 3

in my personal opinion that is morally wrong

Since you actively make a choice to kill someone

But i have a feeling you disagree with that stance in moral ethics

Another (less extreme) example: If you have a company and you can evade taxes in order to grow your business, which leads to hiring more people, i believe that to be morally wrong.

Even though the outcome may be ''good'', the method of getting there is morally wrong, therefore i dont care about the outcome