Israel or Palestine?

[thorny stone]

You said personal freedoms don't matter with other countries. Did I misunderstand you?

I don't see how saying that a person doesn't have a right to infringe upon another person's rights, unless they're in another nation, is anything other than discrimination against people in other countries.

[jovial abyss]

I said I believe personal freedoms exist on a personal level. I would not infringe upon another humans rights personally. This is not the same at a national level. Nations can and do infringe on other nations. That is separate than personal freedoms. Their country is responsible for the safety and security of their people. If that nation infringes upon the safety and security of another nation, they must face the consequences of said nation.

[thorny stone]

But nations are just collections of people. So you appear to be saying that an individual shouldn't infringe upon another individual's rights, but a group of people can infringe upon another group of people's rights.

I don't see how that statement can be made without saying that people in the other group don't deserve the same rights and protections as the individuals you encounter.

[jovial abyss]

Simple: all people are created equal. No person is more valuable than another.

Nations are not afforded the same equality. Some have access to higher quality or quantity of natural respurces, etc

[civic karma]

So hypthetically, if I buy some land and declare my own nation that has only 1 person in it, being me, would that now give me the right to infringe on the personal freedom of other individuals because now I am claiming it to be out of the interest of my nation instead of as an individual.

[jovial abyss]

This is why coalitions form, smaller nations ally with larger ones to have more access to the resources of larger ones. This push and pull results in war. It can be based on geography or even ideals. Sometimes what a nation stands for is a direct threat to another nation.

[jovial abyss]

You would get promptly squashed by the nation of the citizens you tried to infringe upon.

Goodbye curry nation. Nice knowing ya buddy

[civic karma]

Sure, but you belief I at least had that right?

not as an individual person, but I do as a nation, even though it's only me?

[civic karma]

Also, not all people are created equal in the meritocratic sense. Some people simply have more opportunities than others. Being poor, being a minority etc are all things that limit what you can achieve in life. Life achievements are far from based on merit and mostly based on what environment you're born in.

Which is the same form of inequality that also applies to nations.

[jovial abyss]

Nations aren't afforded the same right to exist as people

[civic karma]

But that doesn't answer my question

[jovial abyss]

People do have different levels of skills and production value, but their value as humanity is invaluable

[civic karma]

My question was if, hyothetically, if I declare a nation, can I now infringe on the personal freedom of others in the name of my country?

Do i now have that right?

[jovial abyss]

A single person does not make up a collective. You can't be doing anything for the "greater good".

[civic karma]

But your statement was that a nation holds the right to infringe on the personal freedom of other citizens of another nation if deemed neccesary

Still didn't answer it

[zenith coyote]

yes they hold the right

it doesnt make it ok

having "the right" doesnt make it absolute

each agent and country determines their rights

and each person and country determines how they interpret other peoples rights and infridgement on their own

which is why might makes right has been a common theme in human history

it isnt an absolute truth, but yes it is a right

[jovial abyss]

A nation can't infringe on personal rights. No killing pows, etc. War is separate, that is a tool to secure national interest/safety

[zenith coyote]

"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory."

the question then becomes who determines the rights and who determines who can determine what is a right

[brittle quiver]

nations infringing on other nations is an infrigment of the people in those nations

i honestly can't believe you aren't trolling when you say the us has the right to go to war whenever they want

you realize that the majority of americans despise foreign intevention right? so does the rest of the world

you've been brainwashed by the elites that going to war is in your intreset, when really it's in the intrest of huge lobbists

also liberal militarism is just completely a terrible frame of thought

[civic karma]

Here we find common ground. I agree that what the rights are is a ''gray'' area. Now my point is that I find it an inconsistent position to differentiate between rights for individuals and rights for nations or coalitions of people. I believe the same rights should apply, where I am referring to rights in the ethical sense.

E.g. to say that I cannot infringe on your personal rights, but in the name of my nation I can

[zenith coyote]

but my point is who determines the ethics

[civic karma]

Yeah i guess that's a separate point then

[zenith coyote]

having the same rights apply to countries and people is impossible/very hard to do

because both have different interests

people can act against the interest of their nation just as nations can act against the interest of their people

it is very hard for humanity to not be inflicted by the might makes right phenomenon. Since if somehow we created something that doesn't fall under it. How will we keep it alive and valid if not with power

the problem of course is that the people with power act in their interest to keep the power so they can stay on the moral highground

and the oppression is a cycle

also just a point , why doe humans even have the right to own land?

take away from both nature and animals alike to help ourselves prosper

[jovial abyss]

As do I, but it is still a right of a nation

[civic karma]

Because we feel morally elevated compared to the rest of nature.

[jovial abyss]

It's the nation's responsibility to protect the rights of their citizens. They are the ones that grant said rights to their citizens. We don't give the right to vote in US elections to foreign citizens. So there are some rights that only exist within a nation

[brittle quiver]

it's really not

[jovial abyss]

Agree to disagree then

[brittle quiver]

alright

what do you think makes a nation

i think that's an important discussion

[jovial abyss]

That is indeed a very important discussion. One the UN could have benefitted from before just mandating the existence of isreal.

In simplest terms. A nation exists bc the people in it allow it, and just as importantly the neighboring nations allow it. This last bit created a lot of strain for Isreal since Egypt didn't recognize its existence

[thorny stone]

I don't see how any of that is relevant. Can you explain what that has to do with people being denied their rights simply because they are in a different country?

[thorny stone]

So people are allowed to infringe on the rights of others if they call it "war"?

Nations are just a collection of people. If you infringe upon the rights of nations then you are infringing upon the rights of the people in them. There's no separation possible there.

[zenith coyote]

why not?

playing devils advocate here i know the obivously surface level response is because of society

[thorny stone]

Because of a thing called equality? Because if we encourage that then it's only a matter of time before others use it against us? Equality is better for everyone.

[zenith coyote]

if everyone uses it against each other is that not also equality?

if every country infringes rights how is that not equal

the only thing fair about life is that its unfair

also equality is not better for everyone, equity would be a better alternative

[thorny stone]

No. Because everything else isn't equal. Some people start with massive advantages, which means if you create a situation where nobody gets any support, all you are doing is ensuring that the people with the advantages are more likely to keep them.

[zenith coyote]

so how is it equality if the people with advantages arent able to use them

[thorny stone]

I don't like that use of language. I don't think that's what those words actually mean.

[zenith coyote]

only people with disadvantages are able to gain stuff?

sounds like communism

[zenith coyote]

it is a bit of an oversimplification but the point still stands

[thorny stone]

They were gifted advantages that others were not. That's why it's unfair.

[zenith coyote]

equality would be everyone able to use their advantages and equity would be trying to raise everyone to similiar status

[zenith coyote]

blame life then

[thorny stone]

Only if you choose to use the words inaccurately like that. Trying to raise everyone to similar outcomes is just equality of outcome.

[thorny stone]

Why not just fix it?

[zenith coyote]

because thats selfish

[thorny stone]

?

[zenith coyote]

you are trying to help yourself while pushing other people down onto your level

[thorny stone]

No, you are letting everyone share in the benefits that everyone worked to produce.

[zenith coyote]

communism

have you read Harrison Bergeron

[thorny stone]

Not always, but yes, communism is one way of trying to do that.

Never heard of them.

[zenith coyote]

its a book

title not author

it describes a dystopia where they try to make everyone mentally and physically equal, smart people take dumb pills and have implants so they cant focus, strong people are weighed down by weights, pretty people wear masks

[thorny stone]

What a strange idea that would be.

[zenith coyote]

communism cannot come from a capitalistic society successfully

[zenith coyote]

basically what youre describing on a more personal level

[thorny stone]

Er no, not in the slightest.

[zenith coyote]

everyone equal

people with born advantages punished

[thorny stone]

You don't need to force people who can do good things to not do them any more, to create an equal society.

[zenith coyote]

^

[thorny stone]

I think you misunderstood. It's not unfair for people to be able to do things that others cannot. It's just unfair to translate that into them getting more benefits than others.

[zenith coyote]

i think you are just changing the goalposts

[jovial abyss]

For example, if you want to vote in an American election, you must be American.

[zenith coyote]

moving the goalposts

people being able to do things that other cannot already gives them benefits

[thorny stone]

I think you just misunderstood. I don't think we need to make accusations like that.

[zenith coyote]

its ok i forgive you

[thorny stone]

Only in a society that allows people to keep the things they produce for themselves.

[zenith coyote]

there are born advantages that arent for produce

production*

things like enterntainment value in professional sports

[thorny stone]

If you live in Florida can you choose to vote in Alaska?
Just because you vote in different places, that means you're not entitled to the same rights?

[thorny stone]

How does that differ? They produce things that are more highly valued.

[zenith coyote]

what are they producing?

we should abolish all professional leagues because some people arent good enough?

[jovial abyss]

Nope

[thorny stone]

So how is that different if they vote in a different country?

[thorny stone]

They are producing entertainment.

[thorny stone]

Where does this question come from?

[jovial abyss]

If they live in America, but aren't an American citizen they aren't afforded the same right to vote

We do not allow people in other countries to vote in our election either

[thorny stone]

My point is that people in different parts of the US vote in different ballots. So why are other people that vote in different ballots, but in a different country, not entitled to equal rights? They don't need to vote in the US, they vote in their own country, but it's still voting.

[zenith coyote]

you say its unfair for people with abilities to get benefits from it. There are people with sports abilities i cannot dream to achieve either because of my drive when i was younger, or because of my own bodily limitations like height. So its unfair for someone like lebron james to benefit from being atheltic and tall and wanting to acheive sucess in basketball, and he gets his benefits from being in the nba, something i cannot join, so we must abaloish it

[thorny stone]

We don't need to abolish it. We just don't need to give out individual rewards for participating in it.

[zenith coyote]

the problem with communism is that it limits peoples drive to achieve greater things

if im getting the same benefits from walking peoples dogs whats to make me want to further my career and become a cancer researching scientist

[thorny stone]

It doesn't, it only limits what people can do to achieve those things, to things that don't harm others.

[zenith coyote]

capitalism isnt perfect because as ive said before it helps the people uptop the most but its better for human drive than communism

[jovial abyss]

Not the same thing. Voting in another country does not affect mine.

[thorny stone]

Some people prefer doing science to walking dogs.

[thorny stone]

Of course it does. Countries interact, just like different states in the US interact.

[zenith coyote]

so we shouldnt reward people for doing stuff to further human society?

[thorny stone]

They already get rewarded by the benefits to human society that they produce. They don't need extra individual benefit.

[zenith coyote]

thats claiming that humans inherently care about society

[thorny stone]

Well they do.

[zenith coyote]

proof?

show me studies

you are always asking me for proof then disregarding it

if humans inherently care for the good of society than why is the world the way it is

if that were true then human history would be vastly different

humans are selfish

they care about themselves

that doesnt mean they cant be compassionate or selfless

but we are wired for survival of ourselves

i wont deny the evidence and need for cooperation

we arent strong enough to live by ourselves which is why we have society

an interesting phenomenom is how many english words start with self-

doesnt prove either of our points but shows how much america and english speakers focus on the self instead of the community

[thorny stone]

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-021-09633-6#:~:text=RB%3A The core point of,health and physical health deficits.
https://www.thesocialcreatures.org/thecreaturetimes/evolution-of-social-connection
These also contain links to many more studies if you really want to delve deep into it.

Working together with others is beneficial for everyone.

[zenith coyote]

That doesn’t prove that humans aren’t selfish

The first article is talking about how humans need connections, which I stated

[jovial abyss]

But the right to vote in America is only afforded to Americans by the American government. Other nations allowing their citizens to vote or not is up to them

[zenith coyote]

The second is a bit longer and I’ll look at it more in depth later but the conclusion is talking about school

https://www.shortform.com/blog/are-humans-selfish-by-nature/#:~:text=behaviors come from%3F-,Are humans selfish by nature%3F,live a completely selfish life.

We can be groupish as well as selfish

[jovial abyss]

The governments job is to protect the rights of its citizens. It does not have the same obligation to citizens of other nations. If you can't see a difference, I am not sure I can explain it any better. I'm sorry, there simply is a difference in rights to people and rights of nations

[zenith coyote]

@thorny stone I do think we should move the topic of selfishness to a new channel. It’s an interesting discussion by itself

[thorny stone]

Start one, I'll reply when I have time.

[thorny stone]

What you're saying is both that the rights of nations supersede the rights of individuals, and that human morality isn't important on a national level.

The reality is that nations are still groups of humans. So what you're saying is that one group of humans is allowed to do whatever it likes to another group of humans, simply by virtue of grouping together. I don't think that's a morally defensible position, at all.

[jovial abyss]

It's an age old philosophy of might makes right. It's the way the world works. I don't understand what you don't understand.

[thorny stone]

I understand it just fine. I just don't think it's morally defensible.

[jovial abyss]

Thats fine. And to be frank, I don't care. I came here to understand how someone could be "pro-palestine" without being antisemitic. And all I've seen so far is one sided history claiming isreal is evil which doesn't give me confidence that your position is not antisemitic

Whether we like it or not. The UN gave that land to the jews. The US uses them as their puppet in the region. You can be blind to that, and hate isreal for it. But that is the reality

[thorny stone]

The UN actually didn't give the land to the Jews. They proposed giving some of the land to some people who were Jewish, but those Zionists started taking the land by force before that could happen, so it never did.
Of course the US uses Israel to it's advantage sometimes. But dislike of Israel's actions clearly have nothing to do with that, and I'm not sure why you would say that it does.

[thorny stone]

I asked you to tell me which part of that history you thought wasn't correct, and the only part of the history you said you disagreed with concerned the war in 1956, which you seemed to have mistaken the US' involvement in. I've heard nothing that contradicts the summary I provided, so it seems somewhat prejudiced of you to suggest anything I've said is anti-semitic.

[jovial abyss]

You denying US involvement doesn't mean it didn't happen

[thorny stone]

Making unfounded accusations of anti-semitism is quite a common tactic nowadays to try and shut down legitimate criticism of Israel, so I hope you can back up your claims.

[thorny stone]

...but the lack of evidence of it happening does suggest that it didn't.

[jovial abyss]

I don't dispute the rest of the facts presented, only how they are presented. It's clearly biased, but I don't hold that against you

[jovial abyss]

I linked you an article from Britannica

[thorny stone]

Which contained no mention of the US being involved in Israel invading Egypt.

But did contain mention of the US opposing it.

[jovial abyss]

No we didn't invade. Our aim was to prevent Russia from getting involved. So publicly we tried to broker peace.

But we started the mess by not financing Egypts dam. If we were cool with egypt, we would have financed it. And we get to look like heroes by brokering peace. It's a win/win for us

[civic karma]

It really is not tho. This is the same argument that is used against a UBI and even there it cannot be consistently shown in experiments. Most of the time, the individual contribution of people to society increases with a UBI. Capitalism is what limits peoples drives, as it becomes quickly apparent to most of people inside a mostly capitalistic society that they cannot achieve what they want, due to the social or economic position they are in and therefore have to lower expectations. People in pure capitalist societies on average always perform worse as they have to spend a bigger amount of their time and energy only on surviving.

[civic karma]

Humans are altrusitic yes. That's not some new thing, that has been the way for longer than homo sapiens have been alive

Homo erectus were altruistic too about a million years ago

Homo neanderthalensis were altrusistic.

Maybe even australopiticenes were altruistic too, but proof for that is quite dubious

Humans are altruistic by nature, and their brains make happy hormones when they contribute something to society

It is a biological reward system that is literally built in your body for doing good to other humans

[zenith coyote]

Is there any evidence you have for that statement? The second part

My point still stands that humans are selfish/altruistic

[zenith coyote]

I agree that UBI is a better system than capitalism, but still not perfect. I disagree that capitalism limits people’s drive. It definitely limits people’s ability and opportunity depending on their birth. But think of the American dream, I am not saying that it is possible for everyone because of how American society is right now the people at top want to stay at top, but I think that’s a problem with the people at top having hands/control of the governments abilities to limit their power. But a cash motive is a lot more effective for human technology furthering than “for the good of humanity”

Especially the way that we have formed society currently

That isn’t saying that capitalism is the best method right now, but especially with globalization it has become more powerful

https://www.spring.org.uk/2008/05/why-money-is-part-of-human-nature-money.php

If humans were inherently selfless and had a desire to help others more than themselves than things like capitalism wouldn’t flourish as much. But humans are competitive

[civic karma]

I think the point you miss here is that humans can be altrusitic, AND selfish simultaneously depending on the context and conditions

Its not an either or

But in general, humans want to be altrusitic, since we are group animals and we rely on the altruism of other members of our group as well

[civic karma]

Well that is in part the biological funtion of Oxytocin and to lesser extent of dopamine too. I guess you can look up any basic human biology textbook that's used in university and there you'll find plenty of information

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108876681.005

This is an example of such a chapter

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.606858

This is a paper that focusses more on brain activity rather than hormonal changes, but either way they are physical representations prosocial behaviour that seems to be related to the brain reward system

[civic karma]

But think of the American dream,
The American dream does not exist, because it implies a societal structure based on merit. American society is much more focussed on wealth and social status than on merit. If you are good at something but you don't have a network to support you or the funds to support you, then you will most likely never reach what you could have reached if the system was based on merit. Meritocracies do not exist, and taking the US is a prime example of why meritocracies do not exist. I see the American dream as a counterexample to the point you are trying to make to be honest.

Also I think the difference in our opinion on this topic may be largely driven by cultural differences, assuming you are from the USA. Based on what I have heard from people that have worked and lived in both the USA and EU, most of them think that working culture is much different and in the US money is by far the main motivator for peoples work, whereas here it is a motivator, but not the only one and for many people definitely not the most important one.

But take that with a grain of salt because that's based on what people have told me, i have never lived or worked in the USA myself

But I can guarantee you that for many people here, working pleasure, work environment, amount of paid vacation days and many other factors are all just as important as straight up monetary compensation

Money is a motivator sure, but I can't fathom why anyone would reduce their quality of life in order to increase their monetary compensation

Capitalism would be a good motivator, if it would be possible to express the value of anything in monetary terms and have a free market where no market failures exist

Since that is not possible in the real world, I don't think capitalism is such a good motivator. At least not from my personal experience.

Although I have no way to proof or disproof that statement, thats just my personal idea/hypothesis.

[thorny stone]

If the American Dream was at all realistic it would be called the American Reality instead. The simple fact is that capitalism has the effect of encouraging inequality end exploitation, restricting benefits to only a small number of highly over-privileged elites.

[thorny stone]

So ok, let's take a step back for a moment. We have a nation in Israel where a large number of the leaders are committing war crimes, state terrorism is the normal way of operating, some civilian groups routinely torture and kill innocent people, and riot at the mere suggestion of soldiers not being allowed to do the same, a significant proportion of the country is so racist that they hate the entire rest of the world to the point they won't even talk to them, including some of their fellow Jews, and where the national mission is ethnic cleansing and military conquest of the holy land. Military attacks on nearby nations are routine and normalised, and they are constantly interfering in the internal politics of other countries.

Doing nothing doesn't seem like an option. Israel is getting worse, and causing more and more problems.

What would we have to do to make Israel tolerable? Is Israel even salvageable, when there is so much racism and violence embedded into the fabric of the country?

OK, we remove Netanyahu. But then we're still left with a political structure where at least half of the Knesset is openly racist, and a lot more seem to back the ethnic cleansing and violence against their neighbours. It's not a simple fix at all to get that country to the point where it won't be a danger to everyone else. I think at the very least, it will have to involve a significant change of government in Israel, a lot of internal crackdown on racism, and the UN pointing a lot of guns at Israel for decades until it works out how to coexist with others.

But, would even that do it? Zionism started out with the understanding it would take a long time to complete it's conquest, so waiting another few decades wouldn't really impact on it. Is the best solution just to nuke the whole country, and save us all a lot of trouble in the future?

Thanks, but I already saw your demonstration of racism and hatred earlier.

[zenith coyote]

thats what happens when you bomb a soccer field full of a Druze and Israelis

[thorny stone]

Only if you're a Palestinian. If you're an Israeli and do far worse, you're rewarded.

[zenith coyote]

So ok, let's take a step back for a moment. We have a 'nation' in Palestine where all the leaders (hamas) are committing war crimes, state terrorism is the normal way of operating, some civilian groups routinely torture and kill innocent people, and riot at the mere suggestion of jews existing. a significant proportion of the country is so racist that they hate the entire rest of the world to the point they won't even talk to them, including some of their fellow Arabs, and where the national mission is ethnic cleansing and military conquest of the Jews. Military attacks on Israel is normalized, and they, along with other iran backed terrorist groups are constantly interfering in the internal politics of other countries.

[zenith coyote]

sorry when you bomb innocents when there aren't terrorists hiding under the field where they are playing, its kind of a valid response to target and destroy the militariant leaders that caused this attack

[thorny stone]

You never answered my question before. What connection to Israel do you have? Are you a member of Likud or one of the other racist parties?

[zenith coyote]

how is it relevant?

maybe im israeli

maybe im an arab

or maybe i have horns

what is your connection to palestine and hamas? are you a iranian backed agent

[thorny stone]

I'm just interested because you've never done anything except post Israeli propaganda sources and display racism towards Palestinians.

[zenith coyote]

im sorry that you see it that way

[thorny stone]

and because you won't answer the question.

[zenith coyote]

because i dont feel the need to justify it with a response

im sorry that unlike you i think both october 7th and the war is a bad thing

[thorny stone]

No you don't. You've said many times that you think killing Palestinians is fine, including twice today when you actively celebrated it.

[zenith coyote]

the killing of the terrroist leader? yes i celebrated it

[thorny stone]

Pretty sure glorifying violence is against Discord TOS, so you might want to tone that down a touch at the very least.

[zenith coyote]

were you also sad when stalin and hitler died?

"Ismail Haniyeh is the leader and President of the Political Bureau of Hamas, which was designated in 1997 as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and in 2001 as an SDGT. Haniyeh has close links with Hamas’ military wing and has been a proponent of armed struggle, including against civilians. He has reportedly been involved in terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens. Hamas has been responsible for an estimated 17 American lives killed in terrorist attacks."

But the source is america and they aren't allowed to designate terrorist right?

[thorny stone]

So here's the thing. Although you repeat Israeli propaganda as though it's a fact, you don't actually know all that much about Israel or Palestine beyond what that propaganda contains, as we discovered earlier. And you've also admitted that you also do just troll a fair bit of the time, which I assume is what today's outburst of racism and glorifying of violence was about. So, fun though you may be at times, I don't think we have anything more to discuss here for now.

[zenith coyote]

so here the thing. Although you repeat anti-israel propaganda as if its fact. You ignore stuff that proves youre wrong. Denying facts and research from agents and government because "you dont like them". You've also jusstifyed hamas war crime actions like october 7th, hiding in terror tunnels, using human shields and denying the rape of october 7th. I assume that somewhere in your past you were taught many antisemetic propaganda that started your hatred of israel down your rabbit hole of hate

As i've admitted constantly and you refuse to see, is that i don't blindly back israels actions in both this war and the past, unlike you who blindy beleives all of hamas reportings and ignores the findings that prove them wrong

as ive said before, the fact that israel is bombing one of the most tightly pack populated plalce in the world and is having such a low civilian rate is incredible. You can keep denying that and say that israel doesnt need to bomb the civlians, hamas doesn't need to hide behind civilians but them and israel know that israel will keep attacking no matter how scared hamas is. This is a proxy war for hamas, a war of attrition that they can outlast the hate that israel is getting, knowing that the more of their civilians they can cause the death of the better their cause looks to people like you who like to think that they know and understand everything

This is a war crimes are committed from both sides, war is the worst of humanity

[thorny stone]

Nice try, but you're repeating yourself. I've responded to all of those points already, apart from the obviously trolling personal attacks you've added in.

[zenith coyote]

😦

yup you're right, when you said you dont agree/beleive the sources was in fact a response

What happenned in your life that you've become such a vehement anti-zionist?

[thorny stone]

Do you know what Zionism is? It's a belief system that says it's your religious duty to invade someone else's country and take it from them. There isn't any way of looking at that that makes it fine.

[zenith coyote]

annnnnnnnnnd there it is

the jews are out to conquer the world

age old tale

Zionism is simply the re-establishment of a state for the jewish people in historically judea and israel and more recently palestine that was held under british and ottoman rule

https://x.com/idannimtso/status/1752701732554211521?s=46

Idan Nimtso (@IdanNimtso) on X

Give Palestine back? 🇮🇱🇵🇸

Twitter · Jan 31, 2024, 2:33 PM

some more propaganda for you to watch 🙂

youve made a lot of good points arklar and i feel we've had a lot of constructive discussions and i hope ive changed your thoughts on this conflict as you have changed mine

[thorny stone]

I mean, you're not contradicting what I said. You're just ignoring the inconvenient fact that the Zionists have absolutely no rights to the land whatsoever. Their entire argument is "Our imaginary friend told us it belongs to us." If we start allowing people to use that as justification for things, we end up with those people murdering, raping, torturing, stealing, and committing acts of genocide.

Zionism is unjustifiable when you look at the reality and not some myopic artist's interpretation of it.

[zenith coyote]

i mean your problem is with religion then

[thorny stone]

Don't worry, I don't take many things that you say in good faith.

[zenith coyote]

also i feel that the current wave of zionism is not for a religious reason as was in the past with god commanding them, but instead with hisotrical of the jews wanting their land back

[zenith coyote]

that shows a lot about you

[thorny stone]

I just have experience with you, and know how you operate.

You've literally admitted to trolling.

[zenith coyote]

when?

what was the context

i find it hard to seriously argue and discuss with people who have crazy views

[thorny stone]

Then maybe you should consider not automatically assuming that views that disagree with yours are crazy.

[zenith coyote]

you are implying with your conflated definition on zionism that the jews MUST kill and cleanse every non jew in the area

[zenith coyote]

im sorry but your justifying the terror tunnels and the oct 7th attack is a little crazy

i never said wrong because its all objective

but crazy

[thorny stone]

At no point have I ever justified or sought to justify the attacks on October 7th. I have been very clear on a number of occasions that those attacks were wrong. As all of the violence is.

[zenith coyote]

also ive shown you the hamas charter saying they want to kill and cleanse the jews (later changed to zionist)

look at the numbers of both christianity and jeudism in the arab countries

and then look at muslims and christians in israel

[thorny stone]

Do you really want to have the same conversation all over again? We've discussed this before.

[zenith coyote]

nope im good

[thorny stone]

Then stop just repeating yourself over and over again.

[zenith coyote]

just letting you know that you're definition on zionism is wrong

[thorny stone]

None of your statements have done that. You've been talking about completely different things.

[zenith coyote]

statistics and history show you are wrong

i attempted to extend the peace branch but you wanted to keep fighting

[thorny stone]

Statistics have got nothing to do with the definition of Zionism, and the history of Zionism shows that Zionists have done exactly what I said they have done. They regarded it as fine to invade another country, set up their own state there, and conquer militarily more and mroe of the region.

[zenith coyote]

who invaded?

where

[thorny stone]

Maybe you need to work on your construction of peace branches.

[zenith coyote]

sorry this was too violent for you

i shouldnt have justified a peacefull discusion of our past

that is me trolling you with what you said earlier btw

you trully did make me rethink and relearn the history of the conflict

its just too bad that you aren't able to have a dynamic view and are vehemently on the side that israel is bad all the time

[thorny stone]

That's not a peace branch in any way. You haven't changed your thoughts on this conflict in the slightest, you're literally repeating the exact same thoughts all over again now, and saying that you hope you've changed my mind about things is not at all a statement of a desire for mutual cooperation, but a statement of your desire to have an impact on me, which is almost the opposite.

[zenith coyote]

im sorry you took it that way

[thorny stone]

And that's not a nice statement either.

[zenith coyote]

but it was intended to lead our discussion away from the toxicity you wanted to impose and instead focus on the similarities of our human expereience throughout the discussion how we can change and evolve through different views

[zenith coyote]

im sorry you took it that was

i forget what channel it was in but when you started calling me a anarachist and then got really offended when i said you were attacking me, it seems you just want to play the victim card

[thorny stone]

You know that phrasing it like that, saying you're sorry for the other person's actions, is insulting to them because it's implying they were in the wrong, right?

[zenith coyote]

im sorry you took it like that

[thorny stone]

You need to check your memory on that one.

[zenith coyote]

sorry youre right it was in this channel

it seems you have fallen to your own statement with falcon being a bad influence on you

[thorny stone]

I mean, you posted a racist meme, twice, and then launched into a series of personal attacks on me. All I did was point out that your post was racist and displayed hatred.

[zenith coyote]

what racist meme?

[zenith coyote]

hmmmm attacking me ehre

[thorny stone]

So...I guess you just proved yourself wrong with that quote.

[zenith coyote]

attacking me here

[zenith coyote]

?

[thorny stone]

That's not an attack. That's a question.

[zenith coyote]

i took it as an attack

"You know that phrasing it like that, saying you're sorry for the other person's actions, is insulting to them because it's implying they were in the wrong, right?"

[thorny stone]

That's also not an attack on you, it's a statement about your message.

[thorny stone]

Then you need to learn what the difference is.

Three times now.

[zenith coyote]

four

[urban turtle]

[thorny stone]

The quotes you posted showed that I did not call you an anarchist, thereby disproving your statement that I did.

[zenith coyote]

there you go

[thorny stone]

You're still digging that hole deeper.

[zenith coyote]

that was a rhetorical question

you are both accusing me and questioning me about being an anarchist

[thorny stone]

I still haven't called you an anarchist. It wasn't rhetorical question, it was an actual question.

[zenith coyote]

you accused me

[thorny stone]

I invite you to look up the definition of "accuse" in a dictionary sometime.

[zenith coyote]

then tried to backtrack

anways make it 5

[thorny stone]

....anyway, to return to the topic at hand:

Looking at the situation we're faced with now, we have a nation in Israel where a large number of the leaders are committing war crimes, state terrorism is the normal way of operating, some civilian groups routinely torture and kill innocent people, and riot at the mere suggestion of soldiers not being allowed to do the same, a significant proportion of the country is so racist that they hate the entire rest of the world to the point they won't even talk to them, including some of their fellow Jews, and where the national mission is ethnic cleansing and military conquest of the holy land. Military attacks on nearby nations are routine and normalised, and they are constantly interfering in the internal politics of other countries.

Doing nothing doesn't seem like an option. Israel is getting worse, and causing more and more problems.

What would we have to do to make Israel tolerable? Is Israel even salvageable, when there is so much racism and violence embedded into the fabric of the country?

OK, we remove Netanyahu. But then we're still left with a political structure where at least half of the Knesset is openly racist, and a lot more seem to back the ethnic cleansing and violence against their neighbours. It's not a simple fix at all to get that country to the point where it won't be a danger to everyone else. I think at the very least, it will have to involve a significant change of government in Israel, a lot of internal crackdown on racism, and the UN pointing a lot of guns at Israel for decades until it works out how to coexist with others.

But, would even that do it? Zionism started out with the understanding it would take a long time to complete it's conquest, so waiting another few decades wouldn't really impact on it.

[zenith coyote]

So ok, let's take a step back for a moment. We have a 'nation' in Palestine where all the leaders (hamas) are committing war crimes, state terrorism is the normal way of operating, some civilian groups routinely torture and kill innocent people, and riot at the mere suggestion of jews existing. a significant proportion of the country is so racist that they hate the entire rest of the world to the point they won't even talk to them, including some of their fellow Arabs, and where the national mission is ethnic cleansing and military conquest of the Jews. Military attacks on Israel is normalized, and they, along with other iran backed terrorist groups are constantly interfering in the internal politics of other countries.

[zenith coyote]

https://x.com/elicalebon/status/1817317371016876076?s=46

Elica Le Bon الیکا‌ ل بن (@elicalebon) on X

Are Hezbollah (“Party of God” created by the regime in Iran as a second IRGC to wipe out Israel from the closest possible border for its own pseudo-religious goals of “Mahdism”) also “resisting the occupation”?

No. That’s the jihadist narrative responsible for the endless

Twitter · Jul 27, 2024, 9:53 PM

Thoughts on the thread?

[sand rain]

"They kill Hamas. Hamas is in civilian centers. If you put military buildings in civilian centers and then launch attacks from those civilian centers, then you are responsible for the civilian deaths." ... this is called war crime...

[junior delta]

Not exactly. If you take over a hospital and use it for military purposes, it is not a war crime for the opposition to strike that hospital.

[zenith coyote]

it is to use it for military purposes, same with schools

[thorny stone]

We went over this a couple of months back in this discussion. The wording of the Rome Statute on War Crimes on this specific issue is a little bit vague:

(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;

Basically, it comes down to how many civilian casualties and how much damage to civilian structures you consider "excessive". Most of the world agrees that Israel's actions on both of those fronts is excessive, but we can't prove it to someone who doesn't value Palestinian life until it actually goes to a court and someone official gives a clear definition of what counts as excessive. So yes, it's a war crime, but there's enough wiggle room in the wording at the moment that Israel's supporters don't have to admit that it is guilty of that specific war crime.

.
Helpfully, the other war crime definitions are a lot clearer.

2. For the purpose of this Statute, ‘war crimes’ means:
   (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
   i. Wilful killing
   ii. Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
   iii. Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
   iv. Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
   v. Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;
   vi. Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
   vii. Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
   viii. Taking of hostages.

Israel is clearly guilty of seven of those eight definitions. The only one that is open to interpretation is v. , because although Israel does force Palestinians at gunpoint to enter potentially dangerous areas to persuade other Palestinians to give themselves up, whether that counts as them serving in the Israeli armed forces is a bit unclear.

But as far as the question about whether Israel is committing war crimes or not goes, yes, they most certainly are. A lot of them.

[sand rain]

I really respect and appreciate you way of being so polite and analysing the situation in this terms

I think that unfortunately, USA committed a lot of war crimes, which still complicates the resolution of the term it self, as it would mean to admit to have committed such crimes, and they are still one of strongest powers in the western world.

I come from southern Italy, where WWII was quite brutal, my grandma always tells me that when the UK was defending us, they were bombing the port and few military sites, when US army came to "save" us, they started bombing everything, a lot of Italian civils died during those bombings.

I think this is part of the reason why is so difficult to admit Israel's crimes for western countries.

[thorny stone]

Yeah, the US is certainly the biggest obstacle to international law being enforced. But I think it's less about them knowing that certain US citizens have committed war crimes, because US citizens tend to be quite fair about prosecuting their own criminals. I think it's more about the US feeling of insecurity, feeling like the rest of the world will view US people as guilty even when they are not.

On the one hand you have a lot of people in the US that feel like the US law and morality is superior to everywhere else on earth. But on the other hand, they're also incredibly insecure because they know deep down they are not good at working with others, and so have a basic distrust of any cooperative processes. It's a country made up from the people who felt like outsiders in the rest of the world so they moved to a place where they didn't have to think about anyone else. So whereas most countries would go into the ICC and present their ideas and trust that good arguments would prevail, the US just isn't confident that it can work in someone else's system and present it's case effectively enough, so it remains too afraid to participate.

[zenith coyote]

For the purpose of this Statute, ‘war crimes’ means:

i. Wilful killing I think its obivous the examples
ii. Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; The rapes as well as treatment of hostages which is also a war crime
iii. Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; By hiding your military bases inside civilian centers like hopsitals and schools you are causing danger to your citizens
iv. Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; Ill give them half a point for this because israel is causing the damage with their bombs, but their have been reports of their own bombs going off, and from point iii knowing that your enemy will bomb you no matter what and hiding behind civilians in a hospital is not justified, but neither is attacking them (israel is guilty here), But if israel didnt have the iron dome there would be so much damage in israel
v. Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power; Havent heard any reports of this but i feel like when there are reportings fighting on your side its a bit of a grey area
vi. ~~Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or ~~other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial; Ive heard reports israel does this but they do give war trials unlike palestine which would use more dangerous methods
vii. Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement; can blame israel here maybe but they are warning civilian areas that they are going to bomb them because there are military infrustructire there. Raffah was completely Hamass fault, ive heard that either their own bombs went off &/or they had infrastructure withen a km and israel bombed them
viii. Taking of hostages. I mean bring them home

War crimes are being committed on both sides, that doesn't justify them but blaming israel

and ignoring the crimse commited by the other side allows hamas to continue putting the people of palestine in constant danger

[zenith coyote]

“I acknowledge the completion of the investigation by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) into the serious allegations that 19 area UNRWA staff members in Gaza were involved in the abhorrent attacks of 7 October on southern Israel.

“The allegations were brought to the Agency’s attention in January. In close consultation with the United Nations Secretary-General (SG), I immediately terminated the contracts of the staff in question, in the interest of the Agency, while the SG tasked OIOS to launch an investigation. Additional allegations were brought to our attention in March and April and the concerned staff were added to the OIOS investigation. “

Philippe Lazzarini, UNRWA Commissioner-General

https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements/investigation-completed-allegations-unrwa-staff-participation-7-october

Not complete admission of guilt but clearly a cover up

[thorny stone]

I mean, they investigated, found some evidence that some UNRWA employees might have been connected to the attacks, dealt with it, and reported it. There's literally nothing they could have done better than what they did.

Nobody believes Israel's accusation that the whole organisation is corrupt. We all know that's just Israel trying to undermine any aid whatsoever for the Palestinian people, because they view them all as the enemy.
False accusations are the standard operating practice for Israel.

[zenith coyote]

https://newsblaze.com/world/united-nations/the-unrwa-story-an-internationally-accepted-scam_195311/

The Arab (“Palestinian”) refugees, for whom UNRWA is responsible, are the only refugee group in the word that not only have their refugee status in perpetuity, but it is also inherited from generation to generation though none are in fact refugees.

Thoughts on the perpetual refugee scam that UNRWA does? Taking millions away from refugees that actually need it instead of moving people to a new place and setting them up while keeping the refugee status, something no other organization does. The fact that the Hadid family are still considered refugees is laughable considering how well off they are now

[thorny stone]

Their refugee status will last as long as as they are denied their homes. Anything else would be rewarding Israel's terrorism.

And Newsblaze is a known publisher of outright lies. There's no reason to believe anything that appears on that website.

[turbid anvil]

If were talking about gaza specifically in terms of who owns the land, then its egyptian land. The brittish mandate were the ones that named 'palestine' and it wasn't even a country, it was a colonial area, covering modern day isreal, jordan, lebanon and syria iirc. The best solution is a complete dissolution of HAMAS, and a 2 state solution. But that aint never going to happen. Simple fact is "from the river to the sea" is calling for the EXACT same thing that the left are arguing and protesting against. Its laughable. There have been many peace deals brought forward in the past, and the first when isreal declared independence, was given a vastly lesser portion of the land they have now, and Isreal was happy with that. It was the PLO, and the arab states around them that refused. Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan etc.. which is what resulted in the 6 day war.

Can you tell me where you think isreal is an apartheid state? Arabs serve in the military, the government, the police and are allowed to vote? Ill wait.

[thorny stone]

A lot of what you said there is simply incorrect.

The phrase "From the river to the sea" is used in lots of different ways. In itself it is simply a phrase that refers to the whole of the land of Palestine. Some people use it when declaring that the whole of that land should be Palestinian, some use it to declare that the whole of the land should be Jewish (or a particular brand of Jewish since they don't all agree), and most use it simply to ask that everyone be allowed to live there peacefully.

Both sides have made a number of peace offers over the years, both the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Palestinians have gradually asked for less and less in their peace offerings, whereas the Israelis keep demanding more and more. Currently, it is Israel that is rejecting any attempts at peace, which I think removes any possible ambiguity about who is currently in the wrong, even for people that don't understand the history.

The UN's partition plan of 1947 proposed that Israel would receive 56% of the land area. The Zionists were very clear, at least among each other, that they would only agree to that figure if they treated it as a stepping stone to eventually taking control over the whole land. They never for one moment considered that amount of land sufficient. That was proven immediately, by the fact that the first thing they did after the partition plan was agreed, was start to use their terrorist groups to murder and drive Palestinian Arabs off even more bits of land, not just what they were allocated in the partition plan. This was what led to the partition plan never actually being implemented, since it was clear that the Zionists were already ignoring it basically as soon as it was made.

The Palestinians and other Arabs rejected the UN Partition plan because it would have meant agreeing to having their land and homes stolen from them and their friends and families, which of course nobody is ever going to agree to.

[thorny stone]

The 6 day war was something that happened nearly 20 years later, in 1967, when Israel used the fact that Egypt was denying it access to shipping lanes as an excuse to invade. Israel does that a lot, invade other countries and steal territory, whenever it can find an excuse to do so.

If you were thinking of the 1948-9 Arab-Israeli war, that was merely a continuation of the 1947-8 Palestine civil war that was started by the aforementioned Zionists trying to murder and expel Arabs from the lands they wanted. They just changed the name after Israel was formed, since notionally it was now a conflict between differrent countries rather than an internal conflict within a single country.

[thorny stone]

I typed out a big list a while back. It is ok to just send you a link to those posts instead of copy pasting it again?

#1195214812548972685 message
#1195214812548972685 message
#1195214812548972685 message
#1195214812548972685 message
#1195214812548972685 message

In short, Arabs are second-class citizens in Israel. They are kept segregated from Jews in many situations such as schools, they are given less funding for education, they have fewer rights, find it harder to access public services, can be stripped of possessions or lands, are prohibited from building homes in certain areas, are prohibited from leaving without forfeiting all property, and have much less representation in any supposedly democratic processes.

[thorny stone]

In terms of going forwards, yes, we need a two-state situation, and eventually yes, we need a disarmed and irrelevant Hamas. But the thing is, we can only get rid of Hamas once the problem that caused Hamas to come into existence in the first place is removed. That means we need to disarm and marginalise Zionism, because that's the driving force of this war, the extremist group within Judaism claiming that it has a divine right to own all of that land and treat anyone that isn't Jewish badly.
That's why I asked the question a few posts previously. How do we get rid of at the very least the racist, xenophobic Zionists and stop them causing all these problems?

[junior delta]

Germany should've tried the same tactic as HAMAS during WW2. Kill as many people that you hate as you can, then say "cease fire, cease fire, war is bad, we shouldn't be fighting". A cease fire occurs, not too much later they kill more people and what do you know? "cease fire, cease fire".

HAMAS is literally playing the Boy Who Cried Wolf in real life, and then people are shocked when Israel decides that the ceasefires might not actually be a ceasefire, as they're just crying wolf to rebuild their terrorist organization.

[thorny stone]

It's not like the Palestinian requests to stop the fighting are new, or only happened after the October attacks. Palestinians have been asking for Israel to stop it's attacks since before Israel was even formed.

Israel started the war and are the only ones that can stop it. Hamas is going to continue to fight it as long as Israel does. They can't do anything else.

[junior delta]

I think you missed the entire point of what I said, let me explain for you. The Boy WHo Cried Wolf is a story about the boy constantly lying about there being a wolf until no one believes him anymore and the wolf does come. Of course they've asked for ceasefires before October, and those were all granted. They've asked for ceasefires, they were granted, then they broke them. The Boy cried wolf, the people came to help fight off the wolf, but there was no wolf. So then, the boy cries wolf again, HAMAS and their supporters call for cease fires again, the townsfolk don't believe there is a wolf, Israel doesn't trust HAMAS will uphold the ceasefire, so the townfolk don't come to help, Israel doesn't give them a ceasefire.

It's simple logic. As long as HAMAS is going to keep attacking, Israel has no reason to grant a ceasefire. They can stop it, just like the villagers can keep going to the fake calls for help from the lying shepard crying wolf. It'd be dumb to do that though.

[thorny stone]

I understand the story of the boy who cried wolf. I'm just saying doesn't apply in this instance, because it's Israel who can't keep to ceasefires, not Hamas.

[junior delta]

So you're saying all the HAMAS attacks were staged by Israel?

[thorny stone]

How do you get to that conclusion?

[junior delta]

Because you jsut said Israel broke the ceasefires, nto HAMAS

When all teh ceasefires were broken by HAMAS attacking Israel

or at least the vast majority

[thorny stone]

Yes. Israel ignores cease fires and continues to murder Palestinians whenever it wants.

[thorny stone]

Literally none.

[junior delta]

October 7th

I can probably google right now every cease fire that has been broken by HAMAS as opposed to Israel

[thorny stone]

....was a response by Hamas to attacks from Israel. What is your point?

Show me a time Israel has ever stopped murdering Palestinians for a consistent period.

[junior delta]

Every time that HAMAS has stopped attacking Israel so they can rebuild to do it again later...

Maybe the times where Israel has stepped in to help Palestine to govern itself, police itself, etc.

[thorny stone]

You can't actually be serious. You don't honestly believe Israel is trying to help Palestinians by blowing up their homes and murdering them?

[junior delta]

No, I mean when the PLA was started and they went in to help the PLA

How do you figure "govern itself" means fight a war against HAMAS?

[thorny stone]

Do you mean the PLO?

[junior delta]

No

wait maybe 1 sec

[radiant dirge]

the PLA is part of the PLO, it's just the actual army of it

[junior delta]

yea the PLO

I was thinking of the Palestinian Authority, but its the same thing pretty much

[thorny stone]

So what exactly are you claiming that Israel did to help the PLO?

[radiant dirge]

but i dont think israel had any part in the formation of the PLO? the PLO is very openly an anti-zionist group

[junior delta]

Well up until HAMAS officials were elected into power, they help provide training, food, etc.

[junior delta]

Only after HAMAS leaders were elected

[radiant dirge]

what do you mean

[junior delta]

and in some cases "elected"

[radiant dirge]

the PLO was formed by the arab league, israel had no part in it

[junior delta]

Israel helped support the PLO and Palestine with training their police

I'm not saying they set it up and decided how it'd be ran

[radiant dirge]

israel is actually openly against the PLO, and they've gone to great lengths to exclude the PLO from negotiations between it and other arab states, even when those negotiations actively affect palestine, like they did in 1979 with the camp david accords

1978 not 79. my bad

[junior delta]

Yes, that is why I said "after HAMAS leaders were elected"

I'm not saying they currently do

I'm saying before the PLO was overrun by HAMAS

which granted was very early on

[radiant dirge]

i thought hamas didnt come into power in gaza until 2006? that's a bit after 1978

[junior delta]

Israel not supporting the idea of a free Palestine isn't the same as them not helping them. Idk the exact political situations and timelines, but I know for sure that Israel did help supply training and manpower for the PLO to help police gaza.

Israel has incintives to help the PLO do such, as a stable PLO that cracks down on crime would help to prevent as much extremism in the area, possibly leading to a full 2 state solution. I figure that is probably why they did it

[radiant dirge]

i never said it was the same? you said that israel support for the PLO stopped after hamas was elected, i said that israel has never really "supported" the PLO, because they don't support palestine period

[junior delta]

Not support as in "we agree with you", support as in providing help. Hence me talking about the training and policing

[radiant dirge]

also, even if israel did support the PLO, that doesn't change the fact that now they are actively trying to ethnically cleanse the gaza strip, targetting civilian infrastructure, bombing designated safe zones for refugees (on multiple occasions), even if they actually did what you said, helping police gaza, providing food to them, that means literally nothing because they have proven that right now they do not care at all about the livelihood of palestinians

[radiant dirge]

sorry to ask but do you have a source for this? i've been looking for a bit and cant find anything about this

[thorny stone]

I've looked through all the references I can find, and yes, it's probably the Palestinian Authority that you're talking about.

The PA is essentially the local government that was created by Israel and the US to try and administer parts of the West Bank. Yes, the Israelis have notionally assisted it, but that's mostly because it only exists to facilitate Israel getting what it wants from that area, which is to continue building Jewish-only settlements and forcing Arabs out. It's the collaboration government, rather than an independent Palestinian organisation. So yes, Israeli support for that is not support for Palestinians, but rather support for Israeli control over Palestinians.

Israel working with collaborators has never stopped Israel continuing it's anti-Arab policies. That's why any supposed ceasefire proposal by Israel has to be viewed in context for what it actually is, merely a PR stunt by Israel to hide the fact it's continuing as normal with it's ethnic cleansing.

If anyone believes that Israel has ever kept to a cease fire, I would ask them to present any evidence of any significant gap in time when Israel stopped building Jewish settlements in Arab lands, stopped invading Palestinian territories to murder Palestinians, stopped firing rockets at Palestinians, stopped murdering innocent civilians and stopped stealing Palestinian property and lands.

As far as I am aware, there is no such gap since the formation of Israel.

[junior delta]

So you're saying Israel should stop using some Hamas tactics against Hamas?

As obviously Israel isn't doing things like going into concerts and shooting a bunch of random civillians. Instead, their bombing military targets that Hamas has placed in civillian infrastructure

[radiant dirge]

what are these "hamas tactics" youre talking about

[radiant dirge]

they have bombed multiple hospitals, schools, and safe zones that THEY DESIGNATED

israel literally told refugees to go to these places, and then bombed them

that is absolutely unforgiveable for any nation to do

[junior delta]

Oh the tactics are things like, pretending to stop war, then going right back at it.

[radiant dirge]

israel has consistently shown that they have 0 issue mass murdering palestinian civilians who have no part in this war

[junior delta]

You mean the hospitals storing Hamas rockets, which is a war crime to do and makes the hospital no longer protected by geneva conventions?

[junior delta]

Even if that's true, you're only saying Israel is just as bad as Hamas. So you're saying they're even

[radiant dirge]

both sides have done horrible things in this war, and one sides actions don't justify the others, but you've been acting like hamas is the only side who has done anything wrong

[junior delta]

no I'm not

In the conversation many times I've pointed out both sides have commited atrocities and have done things wrong

Like I don't agree with bombing an urban area like Israel is doing

I'm showing how Israel isn't the only people to blame like Arklar likes to attempt to claim

[radiant dirge]

ok, i admit that that statement was just from what i've seen in my involvement with this conversation, i apologize for that

[junior delta]

It's fine.

But yea, a lot of times I do focus on showing Israel in a positive light, so I can see how you can come to that conclusion, especially from this specific conversation, but I'm also critical of many things Israel does

I don't think Israel should resort to fighting ont he same level as Hamas, even if it makes it more more burtal for Israeli soldiers and citizens

I really don't think Israel should be bombing any targets in Gaza either, even if it is a military target, as that is what Hamas wants. It looks bad for Israel either way

[radiant dirge]

also for this, it's true that they have hidden out in hospitals and other civilian infrastructure, but that absolutely does not justify the absolute destruction that israel has wreaked upon gaza, a large majority of the attacks have been indiscriminate, and they find the evidence after the fact. so it's true that hamas has done that, but it should have been handled MUCH differently, both sides are in the wrong here

[junior delta]

I agree

[radiant dirge]

and there is absolutely no excusing the targetting of designated safe zones, that is a very blatant showing that at least one of israels goals of this war is the eradication of palestinian civilians

[junior delta]

Question, if that was the case, why not just go ahead and bomb all of the West Bank too?

[radiant dirge]

they have been

[junior delta]

Not on the same scale

At least the last time I've checked, which granted has been a little while

SInce I've mostly stopped paying attention to the war

[radiant dirge]

israel has been conducting near-daily military raids into the west bank since at least july, they've struck multiple school building within the west bank, one of which happened like 2 days ago and killed 70 palestinians

this is indisputably an ethnic cleansing, and it's honestly terrifying that israel is able to get away with it

the israeli foreign minister Israel Katz has verbalized that he's interesting in bombing a west bank refugee camp recently

the finance minister of israel, Bezalel Smotrich, said it might be "just and moral" to starve the 2 million people still living in gaza and the west bank

the only reason they aren't doing that is because of EU backlash, but if they could they have very clearly shown that they would

[zenith coyote]

Just adding that Israel released the names, photos and positions of 31 people killed in the school strikes where Hamas had a strong hold. As usual I am not justifying Israel’s bombing of the school but instead giving a little more context of why Israel choose to bomb

Yes it’s horrible that Israel bombed the school but it is also horrible that Hamas choose their stronghold in a school designated safe zone

Also if any country had hostages taken by another country i think they’d be constantly doing daily military raids

[zenith coyote]

Can you show where you found these quotes?

I always hear “Israeli _____ said this about the war” but never an article, not saying you’re lying but I’d like a little more context

Also saying Israel is indiscriminately bombing Gaza and the West Bank is an absolutely wild statement. They are doing some of the most precise strikes in modern urban warfare

https://youtu.be/oKM1FKooRAI?si=KJO7KGq9-cNVyNXt

Traveling rn so I can’t confirm if this is the video I’m thinking of but I’m pretty sure this is the interview with a soldier/ war historian? I forget what they called him.

Saying that Hamas’s only choice in this conflict is with guerilla warfare ish attacks with hiding behind civilian buildings is also just a crazy view to have, Hamas has spent millions on their terror infrastructure under civilians sites knowing that Israel will have to bomb them at one point, making entrances at schools and hospitals and I think Mosques. These aren’t just small tunnels, these are fully furnished with lights and I think they took wifi from the UNRWA buildings

Hamas is fueling this fire as much as Israel is, which of course some people will point out is what Israel wants so they can keep bombing and have excuses

You’re telling me if Hamas and the previous regimes laid down their arms and solely focused on building civilian infrastructure then the current outcome would be the same? Hamas was planning the October 7th attack for months if not years, IDF found notes of the dead soldiers of which houses to go to first, which houses have guns and dogs which could slow them down, they knew when to attack and where the defense was lessened

Constantly building terror tunnels is also breaking the ceasefire btw

Also heard reports that china helped build the tunnels but idk how true that is

[radiant dirge]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/06/middleeast/israeli-minister-smotrich-starve-gazans-intl/index.html

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240812-israel-fm-calls-for-gaza-like-tactics-for-jenin-refugee-camp/

[zenith coyote]

“In November 2022, the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestine refugees reported that it found a tunnel underneath an elementary school operated by the agency.[20] "The Agency protested strongly to the relevant authorities in Gaza to express outrage and condemnation of the presence of such a structure underneath one of its installations", which it complained was "a serious violation of the Agency's neutrality and a breach of international law" that "exposes children and Agency staff to significant security and safety risks."[20] The UNRWA said in a statement that the agency had "cordoned off the area and swiftly took the necessary measures to render the school safe, including permanently sealing the cavity."[20]”

[radiant dirge]

"indiscriminant" not like random, moreso as in they don't care who is affected by it

and let me be fully transparent here, in no way do i think hamas is correct in anything theyre doing

[zenith coyote]

Yeah I won’t deny that they definitely don’t value Palestinian life as much as they should

[radiant dirge]

but one sides injustices do not and never will justify the others

[zenith coyote]

I agree

There’s a cycle of hate on both sides

[radiant dirge]

100%, this war is just a small part of a heated rivalry that goes back centuries, and honestly i doubt that this is the last time even within our lifetimes that there will be conflict over this

[zenith coyote]

It’s a proxy war of US and Iran

Calling it a war against Muslims just seems a little islamaphobic, just as there are Jews that don’t agree with Israel there are Muslims that don’t agree with Iran and other Islamic regimes

[radiant dirge]

he's called an "urban warfare expert", i'll give it a watch

[zenith coyote]

Yeah that’s it

Have you heard of ROCA news?

On Instagram

[radiant dirge]

i didn't mean that as "muslims vs jews", the states (or at least the concept of the states) of palestine and israel have been butting heads basically since their inception, i'm sorry if it came across that i was trying to frame it as that

[radiant dirge]

no i havent

[zenith coyote]

Yeah I got that, I wasn’t accusing you I was just saying what some people are saying this war is

People love fear and war mongering so calling it a war against the islamicficatin of the west gets a lot of clicks

[turbid anvil]

I'm sorry get rid of what caused hamas to get to power in the first place..you know gazans had a much better standard of living pre 05 right? HAMAS was 'democratocally' elected in by the Arabs after isreal completley pulled out. Gaza should be the second dubai the amount of money that gets funnelled into the territory but instead of using it on aid for its people HAMAS use it to fund their rockets and living it large in Qatar

[zenith coyote]

Started a year or so ago on Instagram as a news outlet that is as independent as they can get. They do short little news tidbits on insta and more in depth in their app and newsletter. I’ve seen people call them both left and right leaning so that’s a good sign of being independent lol

[radiant dirge]

very true, ever since 9/11 and the war on terror western opinion of muslims and islam as a whole has been less than positive to put it lightly, and it's very easy for people to jump on that and make them out to be "the enemy" again

[zenith coyote]

Especially with UNRWA I’ll see if I can find the data sheet I saw about how much money per person they compared to other UN refugees and as I brought up earlier they are doing a refugee scam so their refugee numbers don’t go down even if they are already in another country when normally the refugee status is gone

[radiant dirge]

sounds interesting, i'll look into them too, i don't use instagram often which is probably why i hadnt heard of them

[zenith coyote]

Extremist/orthodox of every religion are always a problem.

A little off topic but kinda related, pictures of Iran before the revolution

Blurry asf 😭

[turbid anvil]

So what should isreal do.. give hamas a free pass because they play dirty?.. gaza has a population by 2020 figures as 2.048million In an area of land the size of Las Vegas with 3x the population. Its a hugely densely populated area and hamas know this and are playing into the media's hands and have been for decades... its how they get there money... oh isreal bad, isreal bombed a City, send us money..

[zenith coyote]

That’s simplifying the conflict a little too much, both sides have done unjust things and a solid ceasefire agreement must be made but I don’t see Israel signing anytime soon without their hostages first. But the most recent ceasefire discussions were backed out of by Hamas

[turbid anvil]

And so they shouldn't when a representative of hamas has said repeatedly we will do Oct 7th again and again and again. They don't care for peace and never have. If there was peace then they wouldn't get funded

[radiant dirge]

when did i say they should give them a free pass? all ive been arguing is that palestinian CIVILIANS don't deserve to suffer because of the dictatorship that they are forced to live under

they didn't choose to be born there, they didn't choose for hamas to lead them, that is simply how it is for them, and they don't deserve to suffer for that

my issue is that israel has consistently shown that they don't care about drawing the line between hamas militants and palestinian civilians, they have actively CHOSEN to target civilian infrastructures, they have CHOSEN to bomb safe zones that israel themself designated

in no way do i think hamas is good, but as i said before, hamas being evil is no excuse for israel to go around killing palestinian civilians, and yet they still continue to do so

and honestly? the fact that we live in a world where a nation can get away with very blatant targetting of civilians is horrifying

[zenith coyote]

I wouldn’t call it a targeting of civilians rather a disregard

If they were targeting Israel has the military ability to wipe them out

[radiant dirge]

it is targetting, israel has dropped bombs on refugee camps that israel themself designated as refugee camps

[zenith coyote]

Are you talking about Rafah?

[radiant dirge]

what is that if not a blatant attack against civilians

[radiant dirge]

there have been more than rafa

the jabaliya camp was bombed, the al-fakhoora school was bombed, the abu hussein school was bombed, the jabalaia camp was bombed twice

[zenith coyote]

Both Hamas and IDF have a disregard for Palestinian civilian life, Hamas uses civilian deaths to martyr them and has admitted that the more civilians that die the better their cause looks, IDF is knowingly targeting areas with civilian density which Hamas has military infrastructure nearby

[radiant dirge]

the al-shati camp was bombed, the al-bureij camp was bombed, the al-maghazi school was bombed

all of these were known refugee camps

all of these resulted in civilian deaths

and that's less than half of the list that i found

i can keep going if you want me to

they may say that theyre "targetting hamas infrastructure", and that may even be true, but considering what israeli officials have been saying, the one i sent earlier about the finance minister saying it was "moral and just" to starve out all of the people left in gaza and the west bank (which is a war crime by the way) it's impossible to look at all of that and not even consider that they want the palestinian civilians wiped out

[zenith coyote]

I’m going through the articles of them now because I haven’t been informed about all of them but from the 5 I’ve looked up
Could find anything on abu hussein, maybe I had a typo?
The al fakhoora idf claims it was a warning but still horrible,
Jabaliya Israel uncovered 10km of terror tunnels

Even with the other bombings (which are horrible) the fact that these attacks have killed such little amounts of people in these hugely densely populated areas is insane, you have thousands and thousands of people huddled together and less than 100 people die.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabalia_refugee_camp_airstrikes_(2023–2024)

I didn’t look up all the attacks from the 5 I looked up such a small percent died, and of course Hamas isn’t going to admit that any of the people that died were part of their organization because calling them all civilians is easier.

But once again I condemn these attacks because of the impact on the Palestinian civilian lives

[radiant dirge]

should i spoiler that? it's not much but i wanna be safe

ill spoiler it just in case

||https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/30/world-disgrace-gaza-un-shelter-school-israel here's a link about abu hussein||

[zenith coyote]

Yeah spoiler wa probably smart

But once again, thousands packed in a small area and less than 100 die

[radiant dirge]

they were in a building though, and also actively trying to escape the building

[zenith coyote]

Idk why idf attacked but if they wanted to kill the civilians they have to do a better job

[radiant dirge]

and 200+ injured

[zenith coyote]

What are your thoughts on the iron dome?

[radiant dirge]

i don't think they're actively going around genociding them right now, but considering their actions up to this point, the blatant disregard for civilian life, and the remarks from the officials i don't think it's too farfetched to say that that may very well be one of their eventual goals

[radiant dirge]

what do you mean? like my opinions on how it works? or?

[radiant dirge]

going back to this, israel has very clearly shown that they have no issue killing civilians to further their plans for gaza and the west bank, i'm not saying it would be a genocide out of hate, more of a "you're in the way and i dont want you there" way like we saw happen to a lot of native american tribes

[zenith coyote]

On that fact that it works, protecting civilian Israeli life while allowing them to know that they have the defensive capability

If the iron dome didn’t work we would really see a genocide happen

Hamas officials have said that they want to repeat October 7th again and again

[radiant dirge]

i think the iron dome is a good system, yeah, it's a marvel of modern technology and it has shown that it's an effective system

[radiant dirge]

also agreed, without the iron dome the destruction on both sides would be significantly worse, hamas would be able to strike more effectively against israel which would prompt israel to retaliate

[zenith coyote]

There is absolutely no logic behind thinking that Israel would just bomb these civilian camps for no reason other than to kill a couple dozen civilians. They know that whatever they do will be scrutinized so why would they waste their time and efforts to kill a couple random civilians, that is such an ineffective way to ethnic cleanse. You can say that they’re “testing the limits” of how much they can kill without being punished but that’s just nonsense. Or as you said they’re setting themselves up for the future, similar to native Americans and the colonies. The difference is that the Palestinians have the world’s eyes on them, funding from the UN, from Iran, from Qatar, maybe from Russia and china. And everyone is watching Israel

I have seen country leaders refuse to condemn Hamass actions on October 7th

[radiant dirge]

i don't think they're doing it exclusively to target civilians, i understand why you would get that from what i said though, but i do think that they might be limit testing. and don't get me wrong, i don't think what i said before is "realistic" if that makes sense, i think (or rather hope) that both sides will be stopped before it ever gets to that point, but it's undeniable that both sides have shown that they are more and more willing to ignore collateral damage to continue progressing with their respective campaigns, and it will only continue to get worse until both sides are stopped

and yes, everyone is watching israel, but nobody is doing anything to stop the attacks on civilians from both sides, and that's the scary part

[zenith coyote]

That’s just kind of the way the modern world works

Might makes right

Everyone knows about the concentration camps in china but nobody does anything

[radiant dirge]

the US and other nato/eu states continue to supply israel with weapons despite knowing and seeing that israel is completely willing to use them against civilian targets

[radiant dirge]

and i think that that is an absolutely horrible way for it to work

[zenith coyote]

Iran has launched 20,000 rockets into Israel since the conflict started (or since 5 years ago I forget the stat)

[radiant dirge]

and iran should be punished for that, just the same way that israel and hamas should be punished for what they are doing

[zenith coyote]

These bombs, if they do reach Israel without misfiring and hitting their own civilians and mis launching, do not cause many civilians deaths because of the Iran dome

Who should punish them is the question

The UN is a joke

They can’t do shit against Russia china or the us and therefor Israel

[radiant dirge]

fair point, nobody is really able to punish them without falling into the exact same issues that i'm criticizing them for

the whole situation is just fucked in my opinion, so many wrongs from so many entities and absolutely nothing can be done about it

[zenith coyote]

I agree

It’s not such a simple conflict as Israel is bad or Hamas is bad

I just saw a stat with the Russian Ukraine war that over 110k Russians have been displaced

The Germans had the most civilians deaths in ww2 (I think)

The civilians are punished and used as pawns while the higher ups prosper

[radiant dirge]

i think it was the soviet union but germany is also up there

[zenith coyote]

True that

And china which I didn’t know

[radiant dirge]

yeah it's russia, then china, then germany

china has the most disproportionate losses though, almost 5x as many civilian deaths as military deaths

[zenith coyote]

China had a crazy civilian militant death ratio

lol nice

[radiant dirge]

we said the exact same thing twice in a row LOL

[zenith coyote]

Not the deaths but we said the same thing

[radiant dirge]

it is a horrible feeling though being able to see everything that's going on and not being able to actually do anything

[zenith coyote]

I have nothing against protests but some of these Palestinian protests just are not helping their cause

It’s the white guilt to try to fight a “colonial power”

I’ve seen so many interviews at the protest and half the people don’t know what their talking about

I think the problem with the current generation is they have always seen Israel as a world power and never as an underdog, which is why I personally think more older generations support Israel

[thorny stone]

Israel has never completely pulled out. It has always walked straight back into any of the occupied territories any time it wanted, and has maintained control of Gaza's sea access as well. The idea that Israel has ever left Gaza alone is utter nonsense.

We covered the money that goes to support the Palestinians earlier in the conversation. The accusation that Hamas uses the aid money to live in luxury in Qatar was proven to be a lie concocted by Israeli intelligence, since there was never any evidence to back up the claim.
The amount of money that has been sent there is tiny compared to the amount of money Israel has spent destroying it. Why build anything when the Israelis will simply blow it up with rockets the moment it's complete? It's not sensible to claim Gaza has any ability to build anything or put in place any kind of functional organisational government when Israel keeps invading with tanks and gunships to kill anyone that even remotely looks like they have any power there.

[thorny stone]

Yes there is. A large number of Israeli leaders explicitly want to remove all Arabs from the Palestine area, and believe in fact that it's their mission sent by their god. Israel has the clearly stated tactic of killing civilians in an attempt to force the other civilians to leave. It's been their entire tactic since at least the 1940s, and a substantial part of what they did before then too.

[thorny stone]

What should Israel do? Easy. Stop their genocide. Stop their apartheid. Imprison Netanyahu and any other Israeli leader of any kind who has ordered or supported the killing of innocent people. Ban Zionism. Apologise to all Palestinians, leave all lands occupied except those allocated to them by the UN in 1947, pay for the rebuild of all homes and other buildings they have destroyed, pay for the construction of any facilities the Palestinians need in order to establish a viable state, disband the IDF and Mossad and create a proper army and intelligence service that know how to not be a terrorist organisation, and promise never to invade another country ever again.

[zenith coyote]

What a fantastical world you live in

[zenith coyote]

What Israeli leader claims god told them to murder Palestinians?

[thorny stone]

I'm not saying that will ever happen, because clearly many people in Israel are living in a fantasy world where it's them that are in the right and the entire rest of the world is wrong. But that's definitely what they should do by any standard of moral civilisation.

[zenith coyote]

I think you are confusing Zionism with anti Arabianism

[thorny stone]

Pick any who are Zionist.

[zenith coyote]

All of them are Zionist

They want Israel to exist

It does exist

[thorny stone]

There are some leaders of some kinds in Israel who are not Zionist.

[zenith coyote]

Even the Arabian leaders are Zionist

[thorny stone]

Zionism isn't about the existence of Israel any more. It's about them having the right to rule the whole of Palestine

[zenith coyote]

According to who

Anti-Zionist?

[thorny stone]

literally anyone that reads anything put forwards by Zionist organisations.

[zenith coyote]

Such as

The leaders of Hamas want every Jew and Christian out of what they think is their land

[thorny stone]

I don't understand the question. You just want me to quote something from Zionists that shows they want to control the whole region?

[zenith coyote]

They want a genocide

[thorny stone]

No they don't, and you know they don't because we've covered this before.

[zenith coyote]

Yes I want you to show me an official quote from a Zionist organization that shows they want a complete and total destruction and genocide of every other group of people besides Jews

[thorny stone]

That's not what I asked.

[zenith coyote]

Not from an extremist leader like Netanyahu who we both know is very anti Arab

You make this blanket claim that Zionism now means total control of Palestine

But that’s just not true

[zenith coyote]

Yes they do and we went over this

https://www.voanews.com/amp/middle-east_hamas-official-condemned-after-calling-palestinians-kill-jews/6171870.html

As have Iranian leaders

https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/10/world/meast/iran-annihilate-israel/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna16149717

2014 and 2006

You act as if leaders on both sides of a conflict want prosperity for the other sides

Of course Israeli leaders are going to be anti Palestinian just as the Palestinians leaders are anti Israel

And as you said this war didn’t start on October 7th it’s a long lasting conflict

[thorny stone]

It always has meant that. Previous goals were merely stepping stones on the way to achieving that.

When the Zionist Congress had rejected partition on the grounds that the Jews had an inalienable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, Ben Gurion had argued in favour of acceptance, 'I see in the realisation of this plan practically the decisive stage in the beginning of full redemption and the most wonderful lever for the gradual conquest of all of Palestine.

https://www.wzo.org.il/page/about/jerusalem-program/en
"The foundations of Zionism are:
The unity of the Jewish people, its bond to its historic homeland Eretz Yisrael
....
Settling the country as an expression of practical Zionism."

https://zoa.org/about/
" ...and promoting the Jewish people’s lawful right to live in and settle historic Jewish lands. "

There are three quotes from three different Zionist organisations, all confirming that they believe Jews have the right to the whole land.

[zenith coyote]

Congrats you proved my point

[thorny stone]

Hamas wants the Jews out of Palestinian lands. It's leaders do not want a genocide.

[zenith coyote]

They want the right to their historic land

In none of those quotes do they call for the destruction or death of Palestinian people

[thorny stone]

I never said they did.

[zenith coyote]

Kill Jews everywhere

[thorny stone]

Like you said, they are fighting a war. In wars, you call upon people to kill your enemies.

[zenith coyote]

They called for the genocide of Jews

Which you just claimed they never did

Also none of those quotes say anything about the needing/wanting control of the whole region

[zenith coyote]

If you meant that they want the right to have their own government in their historic land then yes you’re right

But they don’t want a Jewish regime

[thorny stone]

I said they don't want a genocide. Like you have said, both sides posture during wartime.

[zenith coyote]

Nor to kick peaceful people out of their land

[thorny stone]

It's very clear that they explicitly do want a Jewish-only regime.

[zenith coyote]

“He continued: "Seven million Palestinians outside, enough warming up, you have Jews with you in every place. You should attack every Jew possible in all the world and kill them."

I rest my case

[zenith coyote]

Where

[thorny stone]

You invalidated your case when you admitted that people say outlandish things during wartime. It doesn't mean they expect them to happen.

[zenith coyote]

Why isn’t Israel all Jewish rn

[thorny stone]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_Zionism
Just read the first paragraph.

[zenith coyote]

You said the leaders don’t want a genocide, I show you a quote saying they want their people to kill every Jew, a genocide, you claim “it’s during war and you said nothing during war matters”

[thorny stone]

Partly because Israel doesn't have the strength to do that, and partly because it's trying to avoid doing anything that would alienate the US, which trying to annex the remaining territories all at once surely would.

[zenith coyote]

There is a HUGE difference between a Jewish regime and a Jewish majority

[thorny stone]

Did you read the paragraph?

"The common definition of Zionism was principally the endorsement of the Jewish people to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine, secondarily the claim that due to a lack of self-determination, this territory must be re-established as a Jewish state. Historically, the establishment of a Jewish state has been understood in the Zionist mainstream as establishing and maintaining a Jewish majority."

[zenith coyote]

Jewish majority

Not a Jewish regime

[thorny stone]

"The common definition of Zionism was principally the endorsement of the Jewish people to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine, secondarily the claim that due to a lack of self-determination, this territory must be re-established as a Jewish state. Historically, the establishment of a Jewish state has been understood in the Zionist mainstream as establishing and maintaining a Jewish majority."
Does that help you spot it?

[zenith coyote]

"The common definition of Zionism was principally the endorsement of the Jewish people to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine, secondarily the claim that due to a lack of self-determination, this territory must be re-established as a Jewish state. Historically, the establishment of a Jewish state has been understood in the Zionist mainstream as establishing and maintaining a Jewish majority
Does that help you spot it?

[thorny stone]

It is explicitly both.

[zenith coyote]

If you want a religious regime look at Iran

America is a Christian majority

[thorny stone]

😂

[zenith coyote]

Is it a Christian regime

Bad example it kinda is in some states

[thorny stone]

Yes, America is basically a Christian regime. They pledge their Christian-ness every day.

But that's not the kind of religious state that Zionism is calling for. Zionism wants a full-on Jewish state ruling all of Palestine.

[thorny stone]

If it takes a genocide to do it then they're not going to object. But what they actually want is for Israel to just go away.
This is the same argument as the one about Zionists wanting genocide. Zionists just want everyone else gone from the lands apart from Jews, they don't want genocide. But they are prepared to carry out a genocide if that is what it takes.
Both sides are prepared to carry out genocide, but it's not what they actually want.

[zenith coyote]

Killing Jews around the world helps their cause?

[turbid anvil]

and hamas will still continue to do what it's doing until the Jewish state is no more.. congratulations you have just caused the same thing your saying isreal is doing. Well done....

[zenith coyote]

It was a call for genocide around the world

That is different that killing your neighbors who want you dead (both sides)

[thorny stone]

Of course. But it will have no support in doing that if the Palestinians are given a fair chunk of land for their own state and sufficient resources to make it work.

We don't need to worry about extremists if we ensure that the vast majority on both sides have what they need.

[zenith coyote]

If Netanyahu called for the death of every Muslim around the world would you still say he doesn’t want a genocide and just wants the Muslims out of his land

[thorny stone]

Yes. That's what I said.

[zenith coyote]

Yeah that’s 🧢

That is straight up a call for genocide there is no justification

[turbid anvil]

Mate your delusional. HAMAS charter literally says they want the dissolution of the Jewish state and thus the Jewish people. 🤣...

[thorny stone]

There are people in Israel who want to carry out a genocide to exterminate the Arabs. But I don't think Netanyahu is one of them.

[thorny stone]

No it doesn't. It explicitly says their argument is with Zionism, not Judaism.

[turbid anvil]

What the 2 million Arabs that are routed in Jewish society, in government, in the army, in the police force.. or the 21% of the Muslim faith who live within isreal...

[thorny stone]

I assume you're aware of the Jewish settlers who roam Arab settlements killing indiscriminately?

Or perhaps not. Maybe that's new to you.

[turbid anvil]

Ok, clearly you lap up whatever the Western media propaganda machine spew out. So I'm going to remove myself from this conversation. Can't believe we're we live in a world where a democracy is fighting a terrorist organisation and people are blaming the democracy 🤣🤣 its laughable

[thorny stone]

Israel is the original terrorist organisation in that region. I invite you to look up Haganah and Irgun sometime.

Sadly, it's all too believable that people will simply take in whatever Israeli propaganda is fired into their brains and never question any of it.

The idea that anyone would defend Israel's actions, when they have invaded other countries, massacred tens of thousands of innocent people, instituted an apartheid regime in the areas they control, and used biological warfare and rape in an attempt to ethnically cleanse the areas they want to control, would be beyond belief in any reasonable society. Israel is the only country that gets such special immunity from the consequences of regularly committing horrible war crimes. It's well past time that immunity was revoked.

[junior delta]

Do you think Israel should not be able to respond to Hamas attacks is my first question, and then, how do you think they should respond? Only send in ground forces, leading to more dead Israelis and less dead palestinians, but also less dead hamas fighters?

[junior delta]

Palestine does too..

[thorny stone]

There are four answers to that question.

Firstly, in the current war situation, any time anyone responds to any attacks with more attacks of their own, that just continues the war. Revenge is not a right that anyone has, and never makes anything better. So no, no one should respond to any attacks with attacks of their own. All of the attacks are bad, by both sides.
Secondly, in an idea future scenario where the war stops, then no, Israel does not have the right to invade or attack a foreign territory. If it can identify the individuals involved then it can ask for those individuals to be arrested and turned over, but it has no right to use force against another people or country. That will only ever make things worse.
Thirdly, in a hypothetical situation where Israel is simply being attacked by stateless terrorists, the correct response would be a proportional one, to try and target the exact people responsible, and no one else. Yes, they definitely do need to value the lives of innocent Palestinians more than the lives of Israeli soldiers. The Israeli soldiers signed up to put their lives on the line, the innocent Palestinians didn't. If trying to target the enemy soldiers without killing innocents requires you to send in unprotected foot soldiers, so be it. Either do it that way, or not at all.
Fourthly, there is no circumstance where Israel has any right to kill innocent people and call it a response to attacks against Israel. That only ever makes things worse.
.

The actual correct Israeli response to Hamas's attacks is for them to realise that they are doing something wrong, and work to correct that. That means all the things I've repeated a few times. Imprisoning Netanyahu and the other leaders who are guilty of the war crimes, withdrawing from all territory seized by military means, paying for the rebuild of Palestine, and promising never to invade or carry out terrorist attacks again. That is what Israel should be doing regardless of whatever Hamas does, Hamas' actions don't affect that.

[thorny stone]

I mean, yes if you're comparing them to other victims of ethnic cleansing around the world, because if you're the victim of that you're lucky if anyone cares enough to do anything historically. But it's still nowhere near fair treatment.

[junior delta]

So to make sure I understand each position:

1. So an invasion of your country by government forces of another country is not grounds for war against the invading country? If so, you are saying that Palestinians have no right to invade Israel or attack Israel either. Israel is perfectly fine where they are, and they're perfectly fine taking land and holding land, because Hamas/Palestine shouldn't attack back.

2. Same as the first one. If you're attacked you cannot respond to the attack, you must ask the government of the foreign forces to turn over their own government to be arrested for their attacks. Seems like a perfectly logical conclusion 💀

3. This is where I get confused, as you said no to being able to respond to an aggressor attacking you, but now you're saying it should be proportional. If the attacker commits war crimes, does that mean your proportional response could include war crimes? How is targeting the people responsible proportional to attackers murdering thousands of civillians and taking hundreds hostage, a proportional response would be to do the exact same thing. I don't think a proportional response in that scenario is called for at all, I do agree though to target the attackers specifically trying to minimize civilian casualties. My only other issue is "the innocent Palestinians didn't" as the only people you can say truly didn't would be the ones who voted against Hamas.

4. But you just said proportional responses are allowed, although you did say two times before that, that they were not allowed. So why would they not be able to kill innocent civillians if Hamas did, as that is proportional, or do you mean they don't have the right to kill more innocent people that Hamas has?

[junior delta]

Im confused on this response, are you saying Hamas gets a pass for what they did because they're the "victims" or are you agreeing that Hamas does too, but it's somehow more acceptable because Palestine is being treated "less fair" or has less people supporting them?

[thorny stone]

I'll respond to this first as it's much quicker.

I'm saying that the Palestinians do get better treatment by the rest of the world than most victims of most genocides and ethnic cleansings. That's probably due to them being relatively highly educated and the area having pretty strong historical connections to a number of Western governments.
But even though they are treated better than most victims of this type, they're still not treated as well as they should be. The international community should be invading Israel and removing it's government, in support of the Palestinians, if the Palestinians were being treated fairly. That's what any fair international law would require.
There's nothing about anyone getting a pass in what I wrote.
Israel are being treated disproportionately well compared to how they should be being treated, and the Palestinians are being disproportionately badly compared to how they should be treated. Hopefully that makes it clear about what I'm saying.

[thorny stone]

1. In this part I'm basically just making the point that peace is better than a war that is based only on getting revenge for earlier parts of this same war. And also making the point that peace is better than war. The appropriate response to violence is not more violence. The appropriate response is something that stops the violence, not something that continues it.
   Right now, Israel should not be attacking Hamas in response to Hamas' attacks. Revenge is not a valid goal. The acceptable goal is to stop future attacks, and the only way that can be done is by both sides stopping attacking each other.

2. Countries only have jurisdiction over their own territory. If a criminal flees to a different country, you don't send your army to get them, you ask that other country to apprehend them for you. You can't just impose your own laws on another country. That breaks the most fundamental rules of civilisation and respect between countries, that are essential for international relations.
   I don't care what Israel thinks of the Palestinians. It doesn't have the right to do anything that involves the Palestinians without their consent. Self determination is imperative.

3. The different answers are talking about different situations. In this answer, I'm talking about stateless terrorists, a hypothetical situation where there isn't a state to negotiate with and so there isn't any legal process that can resolve the issue.

A proportional response is not the same thing as doing to the others what they did to you. That's really the opposite of what I'm talking about. Maybe just forget the word "proportional" in this, it's probably too ambiguous or just the wrong word entirely. I'm just talking about restricting your response to things that only affect the person or persons responsible for the actions. If one person kills 15 people, the correct response is to still target just that one person that carried it out.
.

4. Innocent civilians are not part of the conflict. That's a standard rule of warfare. Wars are only between soldiers. There is nothing that could happen in the conflict that would give either side the right to attack people who are not involved in the conflict. Saying that Israel has the right to kill innocent Palestinian civilians is the same as saying that Britain had the right to kill innocent Norwegians because Germany invaded Poland in WW2. All civilians are in the same category. There is nothing that Hamas could do that could ever justify Israel killing people unconnected to the war. The same goes the other way round also, there is nothing Israel could do that would justify Hamas killing innocent Israelis. Innocent civilians are always out of bounds in wars, and just because your opponent does something bad, that doesn't give you the right to do a bad thing in response.

[thorny stone]

My only other issue is "the innocent Palestinians didn't" as the only people you can say truly didn't would be the ones who voted against Hamas.
No. We need to be very clear on this point. The Palestinian civilians who voted for Hamas also didn't choose to put their lives on the line. The lives of those Palestinians who voted for Hamas were already on the line because of the attacks from Israel. That's precisely why they voted for Hamas in the first place. They had already been put in danger by Israel, and Hamas was offering a chance of protection.

[junior delta]

1. Of course peace is better than war, but what you're arguing for is Israel to give everything back that isn't agreed upon in the arbitrary UN plan, pay for all the damages they've done in their relatively small re-conquest of their historical lands, bend over backwards to help formally establish a new nation in their own historical land, and then hope that giving into those demands stops HAMAS from continuing on their mission of eradicating the Jews. Sure that is a plan, but it's about as smart of a plan as sacrificing your queen turn 3 in chess to take a single pawn. Israel has no reason to believe that if they do such, that HAMAS will quit attacking Israel. That leaves the only logical conclusion for Israel to be: destroy the people who keep attacking you in your homeland.

2. You're talking about this as if HAMAS is not the government of Palestine. It's not criminals killing people in mass then retreating to their home region, it's government sponsored actors invading into Israel, massacring their civilians and destroying their homes, then retreating back with hundreds of hostages. What is it called when you invade a country? War. Sure you can say, well they retreated so Israel shouldn't do anything physical, but that is just ridiculous and no sane person would agree with you, especially when they keep bombing Israel after the fact.

3. This doesn't help in this conversation though, as HAMAS is directly involved in the government. You can't go to the people attacking you and say, hey please turn yourselves over to us so we can try you in our courts while you are still bombing us. That'd be delusional to expect someone to do.

Also the response to "proportional" section. Ok, we agree on that, you should try your best to limit casualties to just the people who carried out the attacks, which is the moral high ground.

[junior delta]

I agree 100%. Israel 100% can limit civilian casualties more, but they're already doing better that he majority of our modern militaries have ever done, not to mention facing a completely unique situation, with the closest probably being Fallujah, Iraq. The different between Israel and Hamas is that Israel is targeting HAMAS bases, equipment, soldiers, leaders, etc. regardless of civilian presence while HAMAS is just targeting any Israeli they can find regardless of IDF presence. I don't think Israel's lack of concern for those civilians who HAMAS put in the crossfire is good or correct, but at least they aren't going out of the way to target civilians like HAMAS is. Neither of them are justified, but I still see one side as having a higher morals.

[junior delta]

Palestinians were not being regularly killed by Israel before HAMAS was elected though. They just didn't appreciate Israel reclaiming their homeland, because the Palestinians have been living in the conquered land their entire lives, to them that is their home and Israelis are the invaders. They voted for HAMAS specifically because of HAMAS' promise to fight Israel and the Jews. Sure you can say that it still was the best option for them to vote, because they felt threatened, but that doesn't negate the fact they still voted for an increase in violence. Many people in Germany voted Hitler not fully knowing what he had planned, but I'd still say they were part of the cause of Hitler rising to power, doesn't mean they deserve to die, but it does mean they're partly to blame, granted they have a lot less blame than Palestinians as Palestinians voted directly knowing HAMAS' plan.

[thorny stone]

I think you need to take a closer look at the history. Hamas was founded in 1987, and Israel has been killing Palestinians in their thousands since at least 1948, and in smaller numbers back to the 1920s. Hamas only exists because of Israel's attacks on Gaza, that much is 100% certain. It's not hard to understand that if someone is being violent towards you, you are going to be more likely to be violent towards them.

The Palestinians didn't "feel threatened", they were being regularly and systematically murdered by Israel, and their possessions and lands and homes stolen. That's where the Palestinian hatred of Israel comes from, from the fact that Israel was attacking them.

At no point have these Palestinian civilians voted for an increase in violence. They voted for Hamas in an attempt to reduce the violence they were experiencing, because trying to achieve that through force of arms was the only option they were being allowed by Israel, which was both figuratively and literally killing any other organisations. They vote for Hamas because Hamas is the only organisation left, because it is the only one that has found a way to continue even though Israel keeps killing it's leaders.

[thorny stone]

No, that's not true at all. Israel is actually killing a substantially higher number of civilians than other modern militaries have done in recent wars.

In terms of the numbers of civilians killed directly by attacks, in Iraq the numbers were 28,000 combatants killed and 13,000 civilians, and in Afghanistan the numbers were 60,000 soldiers to 30,000 civilians. In Gaza, even the most favourable estimates show Israel killing ratios somewhere between 2:3 and 1:2 combatants to civilians, which is clearly a lot worse.
You're probably thinking about the wider death toll to civilians of other conflicts as a result of side effects like famine and destruction of medical facilities, which happen later. The number of casualties in those other conflicts do go up a lot higher when you take those into consideration. But the Gaza casualties will also go up for the same reason, once the effects of Israel starving Gaza and destroying so much of it's agriculture and infrastructure become known.

We know with 100% certainty that Israel actively targets civilians, because plenty of Israeli soldiers have admitted doing just that. The evidence is widespread enough that it appears to be institutional rather than just one or two rogue soldiers.

Israel definitely doesn't have any better moral standards than Hamas. Anything Hamas has done, Israel has done as well, before Hamas did it, and to a worse degree. Yes, that includes taking hostages, and killing or raping civilians.

[thorny stone]

1. All I'm asking really is that Israel repairs the stuff it broke and gives back what it stole. That seems perfectly fair. Anything else would be rewarding Israel for committing crimes, which we obviously don't want.

Like I said above, we know Hamas only has support because of Israel's constant attacks against the Palestinians in Gaza. Take those away, and take away the threat of any future attacks, and Hamas would be left with just a couple of guys yelling at clouds within a few years. If Israel isn't actively harming Palestinians and using their stuff they stole from them, then the Palestinians have no reason to harm Israel in return. That's what it all stems from. The anti-Jewish sentiment that exists among Arabs comes entirely from them being told by Jews that the people killing Arabs and stealing their stuff were acting on behalf of all Jews.

2. If you read my messages, you will see that in this part I'm talking about a hypothetical future situation where the governments are not at war, and the attacks are just from individuals. Israel would not have the right to invade or attack another country simply to try and track down a few individuals responsible for attacks, in the same way that the US doesn't have the right to invade somewhere like Sweden simply because someone there launched a cyber-attack on some US servers. You need to respect other countries' right to self-determination.

3. Again, I was clear that I was talking about a hypothetical situation. But the rules of war are also clear. You do not harm innocent civilians. You are allowed to harm only the specific people who are involved in harming you.

[junior delta]

No, you're just completely trying to skew the narrative. Yes, of course Palestinians were being killed, and yes, they were not "HAMAS" at that time, yes, some Jewish extremist did kill Palestinians in attempts to have more land for the Jews, but you just completely ignore the fact that Palestinians were killing Jews too. It wasn't massive battles like today where you had mass casualties constantly, it was small scale civil warfare basically between civilian extremist, which of course will lead to civilian deaths, but nothing like today. HAMAS exist because Israel was formed by the British, they are extremist, just like the various extremist Jewish groups. That is your problem here, you focus only on one side when there is a much larger picture here.

So at that point, of course Israel would seek to protect its citizens. They gave into demands that weren't what they were hoping for of allowing Palestine to exist as its own independent authority, and they even helped prepare them to be a legitimate state capable of running itself, and of course, they'd try to sway the government to have a favorable look of Israel, because who wants neighbors who hate them, and who wouldn't try to push for their national wellbeing? After Palestine is set up, we eventually get to HAMAS being elected as a response to the Palestines losing their land because Israel being formed. The extremist on both sides are always going to fight.

"At no point have these Palestinian civilians voted for an increase in violence" is either just complete delusion or you're just blatantly lying. Violence to help prevent violence is still violence. You should really start to look at both sides of the story as opposed to focusing only on one group and turning a blind eye to the other.

[junior delta]

Ok, I understand based on our previous conversations that you don't have a good understanding of how war works, but there is a giant difference between rural warfare, suburban warfare, and urban warfare. I think that should be obvious, but maybe not. Afghanistan and Iraq were not solely urban warfare where the extremist groups were only hiding in large urban cities. Any recent urban conflict has lead to almost equal numbers of casualties, but those have never been for as long of a period as this current conflict. If you chose to ignore reality, that's fine, just say so.

[junior delta]

1. I can agree that Israel should help repair damages to civilian infrastructure, I don't entierly agree that they should be required to give back any lands not agreed upon in the UN plans, because that's not how war works. Sure, if the world pressures Israel into giving back those lands, then they can go right ahead, I don't think they are required to do such though. Sure, maybe we can argue it'd be best for everyone if they did, as it'd help ease tensions and that is valid, but it's not the only thing to look at. We also have to look at the fact that both sides will always have extremist, so this conflict will never end as long as they both exist in the same location, but that'd require expelling one group or the other, which I don't agree with, unless done through war.

2. Sure, but then that has no relevance to the current situation.

3. Ok? So we agree? And once again no relevance.

[thorny stone]

Ok, let's try and be careful to use the correct names and time frames then, if you're now talking about a completely different time period.

you focus only on one side when there is a much larger picture here.
If you go back to the 1920s, then yes, we have the smaller scale riots with just a few deaths on both sides. One person pushes someone, that person pushes back harder, and things keep escalating in small steps as each side goes a bit further than the other side did previously. Absolutely both sides are responsible for the escalation. The actions of the Zionists were responsible for the increasing hostility of the Palestinians, and the actions of the Palestinians were responsible for the increasing hostility of the Zionists. 100%.

All of that had a beginning. That beginning, was Zionists declaring that Palestine rightfully belonged to the Jews and moving there to try and take it from the Arabs. That was the action that caused the first bit of hostility in the first place. So although both sides are responsible for the escalation, the responsibility for provoking the confrontation in the first place lies with the Zionists.

They gave into demands that weren't what they were hoping for of allowing Palestine to exist as its own independent authority, and they even helped prepare them to be a legitimate state capable of running itself
Which time period are you talking about now? Because nothing even remotely like that happened between the 1920s and 1940s, which was the period you just said we were talking about.
.

It sounds like you're now talking about the 1993 Oslo Accords, where the US and Israel agreed to set up a puppet organisation with Palestinians collaborators, called the Palestinian Authority, to try and administer the West Bank and Gaza under the control of the Israelis. Although this was advertised as allowing the Palestinians an independent authority, in practice that authority was under the control of the Israelis, who retained the ability to do whatever they liked in Palestinian lands. Whatever help the Israelis gave those collaborators, they expected total obedience in return.

Israel doesn't have the right to interfere in any way, with the democratic processes of any other country. It does it anyway, certainly by interfering in the UK and Palestine, but it shouldn't. That's another crime Israel is guilty of. Much lower down the list, but still a serious crime.

"Violence to help prevent violence" is violence conducted in an attempt to lessen the violence. If police shoot a guy who is in the middle of killing people with his gun, is that them trying to increase the amount of violence? Or is it them trying to reduce the amount of violence? That's what the Palestinians have voted for. Protection from mass murderers by trying to kill them first.

[thorny stone]

Ok, so which wars specifically are you talking about when you say that Israel is taking more precautions to avoid civilian casualties than is normal?

I'm just looking down the Wikipedia list of wars and soldiers to civilians casualty ratios.

Gaza 2023 - 1:1 is the claim
Gaza 2014 - 3:1 (EDIT: actually it looks I made a mistake and this should be 1:3)
War against Islamic state - 3:1 (Edit: should be 1:2)
US strikes on Pakistan to target militants- 5:1
Iraq War - 2:1
Afghanistan War - 2:1
Yugoslavia - 1:1
Chechnya - Nobody knows. Maybe 1:7 . It was horrific according to everyone.
Israel in Lebanon - 1:6
Vietnam - 1:2
Korean War - 1:3
World War 2 - 1:2
World War 1 - 1.7:1
Mexican Revolution - 1:1

Wars seem to be getting more focussed on killing combatants over time. As far as I can see, Israel has two of the three biggest outliers in terms of civilian casualties, only beaten by the carpet bombing of Chechnya by Russia. A 1:1 ratio for the current war in Gaza, if true, would not be a good ratio by modern standards. It would in fact be significantly worse even than Israel's previous attacks into Gaza, disproving the idea that the terrain is responsible.

[thorny stone]

Theft is theft. I don't think it's realistic to claim that armed robbery should be allowed.

I really don't know why you think war is a legitimate tool for people to use to get their way. Can you explain it?

[zenith coyote]

WW ratio was 1:4 maybe even higher if you include china according to the WW2 memorial website

What you aren’t showing from your little Wikipedia article is that in the Gaza Strip the civilian soldier ratio was 1 civilian for every 3 soldiers from 2006-2007

Later the ratio improved to 1 civilian death for every 28 soldiers after a 1:1 ratio because of where the terrorist hide

“Gordon says that all of these ratios, even if the worse were correct, are lower than the normal civilian-to-combatant wartime fatality ratio in wars elsewhere, as given by the Red Cross, and states that the comparison shows that the IDF was unusually successful at minimizing civilian casualties.[57]”

[zenith coyote]

So how did the Palestinians first come about the land?

You cannot say theft is theft and not a right to land when that’s literally how it has worked in the ancient world

Like I just don’t understand what fantasy world you live in where you thing everything happens so diplomatically and bureaucratically

Groups got their lands from war, the Arabian conquest, the Christian crusades, the Roman Empire, the early Hebrew empire thousands of years ago

You claim this moral high ground for Palestine with it being “their land” because they were the most recent inhabitants of a constantly changing land ownership, which they didn’t even own the ottoman did then the British and we all know about the UN sanction. They never had any self determination, because as we discussed before the Arab league couldn’t decide on who gets what.

Do you deny the archaeological evidence of the original Hebrew/Israelites?

Do the Jewish people have any historical claim to their homeland, I’m not asking if you think religions should have a homeland cause that’s a whole other discussion

[thorny stone]

I didn't include the Gaza Strip in the 2006-7 time period because there seemed to be no reliability in the figures. I agree, it could have been 3:1 then just like in 2014. But then that just proves even more conclusively that the Israelis can keep civilian casualties much lower if they want, and that they are deliberately killing civilians now.

[thorny stone]

Nobody knows, they've been living there at least 3000 years so if they did move to the area it was before the period we have recorded history for.

All that's changed in the meantime has been the rulers. The population has largely remained the same.

[thorny stone]

No, it's just irrelevant now in deciding who owns the land.

[thorny stone]

No, Jewish people have no claim whatsoever to the land that they left more than a thousand years ago. The very idea that you can claim ownership of anywhere your ancestors have ever lived is ridiculous.

[zenith coyote]

Why did they leave?

[zenith coyote]

What leader was there in the 1800 or the early 1900 of the Palestinian state

What government did they have

[zenith coyote]

So the only people that aren’t the same in the history of the land is the Jewish people?

3000 years ago when the Jews were kicked out the ancestry stayed the same?

[zenith coyote]

If you don’t have claim where your ancestors lived then when can you have claim over land?

There were kingdoms and Israel and Judah. This isn’t just about the religion this is about a people, there is no history of Jews mass converting people like other religions (at least that I could find of ancient history besides what is said in the Torah which idk all the details of). They haven’t been a dominant colonial power like Christianity and Islam since they lost their kingdoms and had to leave their homeland.

The western wall

2000 years

Humans have a certain bias towards religion being special and sacred because of its history, so yes having a religious claim would probably be seen as valid

And yes the Jews gained enough political power to get it done, because how else do you get the world to listen to you

What would you expect the Jewish population would be if they didn’t have Israel after WW2?

[thorny stone]

When you own it, or have been living on it for a long time in the case of land that nobody else is using.

[zenith coyote]

So a lifetimes worth?

Because when do ancestors stop mattering

And start mattering

[thorny stone]

Nobody views the claims of other religions as being valid if they conflict with any claims of theirs. Other people's religions are like a fun game. You can let people play around with it if they like, but if it starts getting in the way of anything serious then it means nothing.

[thorny stone]

They never do matter.

[zenith coyote]

So the people who have lived in Israel since its independence have a right to the land?

[thorny stone]

No.

[thorny stone]

We know who the rightful owners are of the land that was stolen, so we can give it back to them.

[zenith coyote]

You act as if the whole land was populated with people

[thorny stone]

That has nothing to do with Zionists killing Arabs and stealing their homes and land.

[zenith coyote]

There were just tribes(idk if that’s the right word) of people living under other peoples rules. They didn’t rule over the whole land

[zenith coyote]

Exactly so why isn’t their claim valid?

[thorny stone]

They're welcome to the parts of the land that they didn't steal.

[zenith coyote]

“Thus, conversion to Islam only gained real momentum in Palestine after Saladin's conquest of Jerusalem in 1187 and the expulsion of Franks.[72] “

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)

[signal bluff]

I'm not going to convince anyone as someone who takes such a long stand in this kind of discussion does not want to be convinced.
With that, let's talk about some points mentioned here.
Israel does have a claim based on UN resolution 181 (II). The ratio between Jews and Arabs west of the river was 1:2 in favor of the Arabs. The decision on how to split the territory was made by giving each side the territory they had a majority in.
When the area was ruled by the Brits, Palestina included Jorden, until 1923 when for administrative reasons it was split into 2, Palestine and Transjordan. Until then, both sides of the river been the same.

While Israel accepted the resolution, the Arabs (on both sides of the river) did not. They attacked Israel and lost. As the Arabs refused to claim the territory the gains in that war did not constitute occupation of other country territory.

The Arabs tried again in 1956, 1967, and 1973.

In the peace treaties, Jorden and Egipt refused to take the lands (Gaza and the West Bank)

My point here is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just another round in the Israeli-Arab conflict.

[zenith coyote]

You can’t talk about the Muslim population of the land without talking about the conquest

[signal bluff]

My point here is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just another round in the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Now, Let's go a bit forward, Israel signed with the Palestinians the Oslo Accords in 1995, and the Palestinians, under Arafat, did not follow the agreement (first Intifada). In 2000, in Camp David they got almost everything they asked for and refused to sign.

In 2005 Israel left the Gaza strip and in 2006 Hamas took over the strip by force.

My point here is that Israel tried to end the conflict and was willing to take big steps to do so (Rabin the Israeli PM was assassinated because of it)

Let's talk about the situation in Gaza. I'm not going to talk about October 7th as it's clear it's a war crime, but no one is expected otherwise from a terrorist organization.

According to international law, every building used for military purposes, regardless of its peacetime use, is considered a valid target. Did Israel conduct intentional war crimes? I don't know but unlikely.

There is a saying about Israel that if the Arabs will put down the guns, there will be peace, if Israel will put down the guns, there will be no Israel.

Should the war end? Yes! Return the Hostiges to Israel and it will.
Should the Palestinians have their land? I think they should.
Do they want a land? Depends on who is them. The Palestinians? Yes. Hamas? No! They want to eliminate Israel. They don't care a tiny bit about the Palestinian cause.

Now before you hammer what I said, Please provide evidence to any point you mention. Wiki page will do just fine

[zenith coyote]

By transitive property the Jews had the land in the first century so everyone took it after them, do you know any people that are trying to claim the land that were there before the Jews?

[signal bluff]

Just as a side note. I don't agree at all with the Israeli govermant and I think that some of them are criminals, regardless to the current war. But thats, not a fact, just what I think

[zenith coyote]

As you’ve brought up Arklar the record isn’t exactly squeaky clean

[signal bluff]

Got to go. Have a great evening (or morning) and enjoy the discussion. Peace in our time.

[zenith coyote]

Facts on Facts

[thorny stone]

I disagree with your version of history.

UN resolution 181(II) was never implemented. Zionists and Arabs were already attacking each other for more than two decades before the Partition Plan was formulated, so it's wrong to suggest that Arabs attacked the Zionists because they didn't like the Partition Plan. Neither side accepted the Partition Plan. For the Arabs, was legitimising the theft of their homes and lands, and for the Zionists, it was preventing them from achieving their main goal of ruling the whole region. So instead they both fought for what they wanted. The Zionists, being much better funded and armed, won that initial war and took more lands that they wanted as a result. Although technically not an invasion of another country, since there wasn't another nation there, it was still 100% them taking lands by force that did not belong to them. There's no moral difference there, what they did was murder and stealing, plain and simple.

In 1956 it was Israel attacking Egypt, not Arabs attacking Israel. It was also Israel attacking Egypt again in 1967 . In 1973 it was the Arabs who attacked first . In all cases, Israel used the opportunity to steal more land by force.
.

In 1995, the Oslo Accords were an attempt by Israel and the US to set up a puppet collaboration government in the Palestinians Territories, under the control of Israel. Of course there were a lot of Palestinians who weren't happy with that, because it meant continuing to live under the thumb of Israel. That was not in any way Israel being generous. It was Israel being devious and trying to pretend it was giving Palestinians autonomy when in fact it wasn't.

In 2000, saying the Israeli offer met "most" of the Palestinian demands is hugely misleading. It's not about the number of demands that were met, it's about how far away the offer was from one that was acceptable. And Israel's offer was a long way from being acceptable by the Palestinians. Among other things, Israel was demanding to retain sovereignty over Arab areas, to get a far better deal out of any land swaps, and to deny the right for people who had been forced out to return to their homes . There was no way that offer could be acceptable to the Palestinians. However big you think the steps Israel took to try and reach a peace settlement then were, they were nowhere near what is actually realistic for a peace process. They have never come to a negotiating table with anything approaching a willingness to reach a fair settlement. They don't offer peace so much as demand total surrender.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the trigger and main cause of the Israel-Arab conflict. The Israeli-Arab conflict didn't exist before Zionism started treating the Palestinians badly.
.

On to the current situation in Gaza then.

We've covered war crimes in this conversation a couple of times before. Here's the link to the last time it was brought up, which contains a quote of the war crimes laws.
#1238854947756310620 message
Israel is certainly guilty of at least the first 4 types of war crimes: Wilful killing of civilians, torture or inhumane treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property. The wording of the war crime regarding collateral damage is a bit vague because it depends on what you consider excessive. But as I demonstrated last night, the ratio of civilian deaths in this current conflict appears to be substantially higher than is necessary, so it looks like Israel is probably guilty of that one also.
They are guilty of others as well, but I think 5 types is more than enough to get past any lingering doubt about whether Israel acts responsibly. It doesn't come anywhere close to acting responsibly.

What would happen if the Palestinians all put down their weapons? Israel would force them all off the land by whatever means necessary and we would have an even bigger humanitarian catastrophe, along with the deaths of any Palestinians who refused to leave when their turn came around.
What would happen if Israel put down their guns? Most Palestinians would just try and re-establish a normal life, but I'm sure Hamas would kill any Jews who didn't escape.
Both sides hate each other, we know that already. What we need is a UN army to sit on them both and stop them attacking each other, and for that to continue long enough that the vast majority get used to peace and realise that's much better. We shouldn't let either group attack the other, and without foreign intervention both will attack the other any chance they get.

[signal bluff]

I'm glad you took the time to respond in detail with references.
That's how discusions like that should be conducted.
I would like to ask you not to use phrases that that paint a picture. Let's keap the discusion civilised.

I do not have a virsion of history, I have facts and arguments and you provide counter facts and arguments.

So let's begin breaking down everything you said. It will be long so please wait for me to finish (I'll say when I'm done) before providing your counter arguments, okey?

[thorny stone]

I'm not going to agree to not using phrases that paint a picture. That's the purpose of descriptive phrases.

But sure, go for it. If it's not done before I need to do other things I'll come back to it later.

Just to note as well, we're nearly 6000 messages into this discussion now and we've covered most things in a fair bit of detail already at one point or another. Brevity in messages and being succinct is appreciated where possible 🙂

[signal bluff]

I'll just say it that way, when you paint the picture you hide the facts and your arguments are loosing ground. To make your argument stronger you should strive to give them as they are, that way the reaction is to your arguments and not the flavor. But as you wish, it's your discussion.

Paragraph one:

UN resolution 181(II) was never implemented.
The UN resolution was forced on the Brits, if they liked it or not, is not related to the historical events. Once the UN voted, it is a resolution, just like 1701 in Lebanon. Did the sides liked it. Not really, was it forced on them? Yes.

Zionists and Arabs were already attacking each other for more than two decades before the Partition Plan was formulated, so it's wrong to suggest that Arabs attacked the Zionists because they didn't like the Partition Plan. Neither side accepted the Partition Plan
There is (in international law and diplomatic circles it is) a difference between skirmishes between parties and an oficial decleration of war between countries. Those 2 things are far from the same. This argument does not contredict mine

For the Arabs, was legitimising the theft of their homes and lands, and for the Zionists, it was preventing them from achieving their main goal of ruling the whole region. So instead they both fought for what they wanted
It is true, the Ezel, the militant organisation was not happy and did not want to accept the resolution, but just like the AfD in Germany, (where I'm from) would like to evict every non-German and even some Germans, they cannot because they are a minority. Same goes with the Ezel. The Hagana had the majority and accepted the resolution.
Please provide evidance for "main goal of ruling the whole region". And anyway I covered it already. the jewish accepted the resolution as is and declared the state of Israel on the land in the resolution.

The Zionists, being much better funded and armed, won that initial war and took more lands that they wanted as a result. Although technically not an invasion of another country, since there wasn't another nation there, it was still 100% them taking lands by force that did not belong to them. There's no moral difference there, what they did was murder and stealing, plain and simple.

No one talk about morality here. Morality is subjective as Hamas and Isis proved. As for the founding, this is incorrect. Please provide references for this statement. Here is mine
Yes Israel took the land by force. No argument on that. No one clamed it, so it was for everyone to grab. If you want you can still create your own state here

Paragraph two

In 1956 it was Israel attacking Egypt, not Arabs attacking Israel. It was also Israel attacking Egypt again in 1967 . In 1973 it was the Arabs who attacked first . In all cases, Israel used the opportunity to steal more land by force.
First You need to put context into the wars. In both 56 and 67, the Arab states gathered resources in preperation for attacking Israel.
In 56, the war was mainly due to Franch and British interests, and as a result they took part in it. Israel was the tool for that.
After the war israel left and gave back the area to Egypt (It's written in your reference).
Israel took the Golan hights, well because they are high and are better defensive positions. Israel then in 73 took Sinai in 73 and gladly gave it back in 77 in the peace treaty. Israel proved time after time that they are willing to give the land back for peace. It was the same case with Syria.

The rest is set of opnions you have the right to have so I cannot react to them. I'll just say that Israel made peace with Egypt and Jorden and made a lot of compermises. Same did the other parties. I would like to hear what in your opinion(!) were the compremises the Palastinians did?

I would like to ask you a differnt question. Let's imgine a case.
The war is over, Israel left Gaza and Hamas gave Israel the kidnaped civilians.
You have the power to sit on the table representing the Palastinians. What would you ask? What will be your goal? What will be your red lines?

By the way, I did not read the entire 5729 messeges. Did you mention by any chance where you from? Just curious 🙂

[thorny stone]

I'm from the UK.

You?

[signal bluff]

Germany

God save the King 😉

[zenith coyote]

Arklar are you an immigrant into the UK or did your ancesters help colonize the world?

[zenith coyote]

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the trigger and main cause of the Israel-Arab conflict. The Israeli-Arab conflict didn't exist before Zionism started treating the Palestinians badly.
Well no duh the Israeli-Arab conflict didnt start before zionism, there was no modern israel until then. Thats like saying the US didnt have a probelm with the britian until they left for the colonies and further revolter

There has been a history of Jewish Islamic conlfict for centuries though

[signal bluff]

Honestly, I enjoy this discussion. Can use a bit less salt but it's a good debate

[zenith coyote]

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

[thorny stone]

I don't think it's at all controversial to say that there are different versions of history. That's the first thing we're taught in history lessons at school, to assess sources, because every one of them is subjective. You have your opinion about what you think happened, I have mine, and everyone else has their own as well. We can have a conversation to try and reconcile the differences, but there's no point claiming any are objective.

The UN resolution was forced on the Brits,
The UN Partition Plan was passed by the UN, sure. It was then soundly ignored by everyone involved. Nobody can claim to have stuck to it, and so there's no point in complaining about anyone rejecting it. That kind of plan was pointless, as the British had already worked out a long time beforehand when they rejected a similar proposal that they came up with themselves.

There is (in international law and diplomatic circles it is) a difference between skirmishes between parties and an oficial decleration of war between countries.
I agree that the difference exists in some formal contexts. But the difference is largely about what to call it, rather than any difference on the ground. Jews and Arabs were killing each other since the 1920s, and the declaration of Israel didn't change anything about it other than the name of one side.

Please provide evidance for "main goal of ruling the whole region"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission#The_Jewish_reaction
"there could be no question...of giving up any part of the Land of Israel"
.

No one talk about morality here.
Of course we're talking about morality here. The whole conversation is about morality.

Please provide references for this statement. Here is mine
I'm using the same reference. For the 1948 Arab-Israeli war the Arabs had 26,000 soldiers, and Israel had at least 35,000 with another 50,000 in training.
"Israel's ability to cope better with the embargo situation was, by far, her greatest strategic asset."
Israel had better access to equipment and supplies.

No one clamed it, so it was for everyone to grab.
I'm sorry, but both of those claims are wildly incorrect. The Arabs who lived there claimed their lands, and nobody is just allowed to grab land that already has other people living on it without their consent. Self determination is one of the most fundamental principles of international law. Israel was in the wrong, there's absolutely no question.

In both 56 and 67, the Arab states gathered resources in preperation for attacking Israel.
Israel was making it clear they were about to declare war on Egypt, so of course Egypt was trying to prepare for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis#Motives_for_invading_Egypt
1967 - "Israel repeated declarations it had made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war"
.

After the war israel left and gave back the area to Egypt
Yes, they took the Sinai in '56, kept it for a few months, then gave it back, only to take it again later in '67 and keep it for several years before giving it back again.

Israel proved time after time that they are willing to give the land back for peace
That is simply incorrect. In '67 they also took the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, all of which they keep control of currently and have no intention of returning as they are building Jewish settlements there.
If Israel was willing to give land back for peace, we could solve the whole thing tomorrow by them giving enough land back to the Palestinians for them to form their own viable state. Israel doesn't want to do that, because they believe they have a right to the whole place.
.

You have the power to sit on the table representing the Palastinians. What would you ask? What will be your goal? What will be your red lines?
The goal is a permanent peace in the region.
These would be the Palestinian red lines for me:

1. Palestinians get their own state in Palestine, that is viable for the numbers of Palestinians who want to live there. It need water supplies, power supplies, farm land, and military defences. I think it needs to be a continuous state, because constant Palestinian transit through Israel is not a good situation for anyone. I would give the Palestinians everything south of Jerusalem because that's a quick line on a map, but I'm sure someone with better knowledge of the areas would be able to produce a better set of borders because I don't know anywhere near enough about the physical and human geography.
2. Palestinian security is assured by the UN. Israel can never send even one soldier or agent into Palestinian territory, or attack in any form for any reason, without consent from a democratic Palestinian government.
3. Israel pays for the rebuild of all homes, lands, buildings, infrastructure they have destroyed.
4. Israel pays compensation to Palestinians for all lands that Israel retains that were formerly occupied by Palestinians. There will be a complex negotiation about which lands are given back to the Palestinians and which Israel pays compensation for. There will need to be compromises on both sides to find something that works.
5. Israel releases all Palestinian prisoners.

There are other things that would be nice. A formal apology. Netanyahu and a bunch of others tried for war crimes. Formally renouncing any claim to Palestinian lands in perpetuity. But those aren't immediate red lines for me.

[turbid anvil]

So you'd drive Jewish people out of their own homes? Answer this, what do you think will happen to the jewish people withing this theoretical state of 'palestine' south of jerusalem? They all live happily ever happier.. Jewish people can't even pray at temple mount for christ sake, yet muslims are free to practice thier religion throughout Israel ... you live in a fantasy world

[zenith coyote]

Once again you are only starting the history of the conflict of the region when it’s useful to you. Ignoring the fact that there were Jews in the region that lost land to the people currently there, the Arab conquest is to blame for the conflict as well. The land is the Palestinians because they’ve always been there, after the kicked every other religion out

[junior delta]

That was the action that caused the first bit of hostility in the first place.
Yea if you want to start history at that point in time, then sure, but history existed way before that time period, especially Israel's existence in that land.

Which time period are you talking about now? Because nothing even remotely like that happened between the 1920s and 1940s, which was the period you just said we were talking about.
The only time period I ever mentioned was before HAMAS formed. You're the one that wants to focus only on very specific times of conflict rather than the entire context. History isn't one single point in time. Why doesn't a country have the right to interfere with another country? What "rights" do countries have? Who determines if something is a country? The UN - it isn't even a member state of the UN.

"Violence to help prevent violence" is violence conducted in an attempt to lessen the violence.
Thank you for agreeing with me, they voted for violence. It doesn't matter if in your eyes you're trying to remove violence, that lgoic could easily be sued to say the Nazis were right, Jews were causing violence in their country so they sought to eliminate that violence with more violence. You were the one that said violence shouldn't be met with violence, but it's ok if the Palestinians do it, just not Israel.

[junior delta]

If you had read my comment then you're either trying to be disengenuous or you need to work on reading comprehension skills a bit, I'll assume the latter as the former has no place in these type of discussion. Wars are not only urban, only suburban, or only rural. Battles most of the time aren't either, they involve mixtures. Isreal-Gaza is completely different: they're attacking a giant city that is attacking them. It's large-scale urban warfare. If I look at the casualties of an extremely rural battle vs extremely urban, there will be significantly more civilian casualties in the urban environment. So now, let's do some application of what we just learned, which of the wars that you have mentioned are solely urban, just to help you out a bit, maybe even a little bit suburban but mostly urban? I also never claimed a 1:1 death rate as very few modern wars have a 1:1 death rate.

[junior delta]

Are you going to go stop them? I don't think you are.

[zenith coyote]

As usual Arklar you are living in a fantasy world trying to pretend there is some object morality against might makes right

Humans have never lived peacefully and happily fighting with each other over stuff with just words. It’s how the Hebrew kingdom first got power, it’s how the Roman army toppled them, it’s not the Christian crusade toppled them, it’s how the Arabian conquest toppled them and most recently the Ottoman Empire and then British rule into now modern Israel

The creation of Israel is one of the greatest stories of a culture coming back after being colonized

But is that history too far away to be important?

[signal bluff]

I’ll leave the fact discussion for a moment as you use arguments and very limited perspective on each and every point and look at it out of context at best or in a manipulated context in the more common case.
I will take all of your arguments and take them to Morocco, Libya, Egypt, and the rest of the Arab world that transferred the Jewish people while taking their belongings. I’ll demand them to give them back their land and compensate them. I’ll demand them to nationalize all their descendants and on and on.
Your point of view is very one sided and does not and will not lead to a possibility for peace.
Your so call red lines are unapologetically one sided and do not take into account any of the needs of Israel so it won’t lead to anything other than another round of failed talks.
I’m not sure what they teach you at school there in the UK, but I’m sure it’s not that. You learned to think that way somewhere else.
Any way, I’ll let you continue believe that’s the way to solve the conflict and wish you all the best.
I hope in the next round we’ll see people more pragmatic than you around the table.

And thank you for calling them Jews and not Zionists. It’s much more respectful

[turbid anvil]

Believe me, this kind of leftie talk is institutionalised in Britain at this point. Were fucked.. 😂

[thorny stone]

The different terms are appropriate at different times.

[signal bluff]

Just proves how much you don’t know

[thorny stone]

Yes. Absolutely. I have no problem whatsoever with asking Jewish people to leave their homes in order to solve the conflict. Some people are going to have to leave the homes, that's inevitable. There's no reason it shouldn't include Jewish people.

[thorny stone]

Are we being respectful or not in this conversation? I'm unclear now.

Jews and Zionists are not the same thing. That is self-evident.

[thorny stone]

Why doesn't a country have the right to interfere in another country? Because of the worldwide consensus on the importance self-determination.

but it's ok if the Palestinians do it, just not Israel.
Violence isn't ok for anyone. This isn't a point about what's ok, this is a point about the Palestinians supporting Hamas not because they are bloodthirsty, but because they simply don't want to be killed.

[thorny stone]

Do you have to be disrespectful in literally every message you type to me? I really thought we'd agreed to get past the rudeness. You're not god's gift to objective fact and perfect explanation. Accept the possibility that someone can disagree with you and have perfectly valid points from their perspective, and participate in good faith or not at all.

We can cancel out all the variables very easily, by comparing the current Israeli attack on Gaza to the previous Israeli attack on Gaza. They have moved from a 3:1 soldier to civilian ratio previously, to a 1:1 ratio now. It's the same location, and the same combatants. What is different now that warrants a sudden and marked increase in civilian casualties? And what evidence do you have that this accounts for all of the increase in civilian casualties?

[thorny stone]

That's not an answer to my question.

[thorny stone]

If you don't accept that "might makes right" is insane, then you can't object to anyone's actions ever. They were able to do it and they did it. So we can't have any laws at all. That's the world you want to live in, is it?

[zenith coyote]

Nope but I’m not living in a fantasy world, I’m able to see that might has historically made right. I’m not saying I agree but you cannot deny that

Also what about the civilian death rate for Israelis since the war? And even before the war

What excuse do you have for the Palestinians that suicide bomb in Israel, or the numerous stabbing

“As part of the Arab–Israeli conflict, especially during the Second Intifada from 2000 to 2005, Palestinian militant groups used children for suicide bombings. Minors were recruited to attack Israeli targets, both military and civilian. This deliberate involvement of children in armed conflict was condemned by international human rights organizations.[93]”

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

“Israeli statistics state that 3,500 Israelis have been killed as a result of Palestinian political violence since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.[26][25] Suicide bombings constituted 0.5% of Palestinian attacks against Israelis in the first two years of the Al Aqsa Intifada; though this percentage accounted for half of the Israelis killed in that period.[27] As of 2022, a majority of Palestinians, 59%, believe armed attacks against Israelis inside Israel are an effective measure to end the occupation, with 56% supporting them.[28]”

How does a country secure its boarders if not with the might of their military

[thorny stone]

Make all the accusations you like. If you can't actually argue the points then your opinions are meaningless. I've provided evidence to back up everything I've said regarding the facts of the matter, and all anyone can do to respond is attack my character. None of you are helping your case one bit by resorting to childishness.

I specifically said I was listing only the Palestinian red lines, so of course it's one-sided. That's exactly what you asked for.

In the UK I was taught to analyse sources and not automatically believe whatever racist propaganda is thrown at me. That has come in very handy when dealing with all the Israeli lies, as well as all the lies from Israel's supporters and paid agents around the world.

It's worth noting that the red line components I mentioned have all been mentioned at various peace talks over the years by the professional diplomats involved in trying to find a path to peace. Clearly they are worth considering.

[thorny stone]

In case it wasn't clear the first two or three times I answered this question, I don't support Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians.

[thorny stone]

By making friends with their neighbours, like most countries.

[zenith coyote]

Ah yes neighbors have always been peaceful to each other

[thorny stone]

Do you want to have a conversation or not?

[zenith coyote]

I want you to understand how silly you sound when you makes these outlandish claims about how everyone has always been peaceful with each other, ignoring all of humans bloody history

I want you to acknowledge the Arabian colonialism that’s taken place that has deeply impacted the history and current paradigm of the land

[thorny stone]

So that's a no then. Fine.

[signal bluff]

You provided opinions masked as facts, I told you that without removing the paint no one will listen to what you say. You did not listen and 3 different people got to the same conclusion that there is not much to talk about.
You do not discuss, you argue. And with that I choose not to interact with.
Good night and farewell

[thorny stone]

There are many more than just three people who are incapable of having a rational discussion of this subject.

[turbid anvil]

Vladimir Putin Entered the Chat

[zenith coyote]

Still choosing to ignore the history of the land before it because Muslim

[thorny stone]

Because that's still irrelevant.

[zenith coyote]

Because the Muslims were the most recent force to settle it’s their land

It’s really not though

It’s very relevant to the current political climate

[thorny stone]

How about you make a case for your point, instead of just repeating it?

[zenith coyote]

I have

And you continue to ignore it

Tl:dr

Muslims conquered the land after the Roman’s, some leaders were good for other religions others cause masses conversions of Christians and Jews and slaughtering of them. They stole their land. The land is only currently theirs because they have been the most recent power to colonize it, then Ottoman Empire got power and some more Jews migrated to the area because they were peaceful enough. Anti semetism rises, Jews need a place to live they want their historic homeland that they have gotten kicked out of. The most successful decolonization in history happens with the creation of the Jewish state of Israel

[thorny stone]

How does any of that affect whether the Zionists were allowed to expel Palestinian Arabs?

[zenith coyote]

What rights did the Arabs have to the land?

How did the get the land from other groups?

Because as ive repeatedly said other groups lived there before them

I’m trying to get you to understand the relevancy of might makes right in the history of the world and how it has affected everything

[thorny stone]

Incorrect. The Palestinian's ancestors lived in the area as far back as we can look.

[zenith coyote]

And who are their ancestors

[thorny stone]

I don't believe might makes right, and I don't believe there is any argument that indicates might makes right is a good strategy or acceptable. You would need to establish a case for that before you can base anything on it.

[thorny stone]

The people who lived in the region for the last 3500 years.

[zenith coyote]

Even thought different groups have moved in and groups have moved out?

[zenith coyote]

Also I thought ancestors don’t matter in terms of who owns land?

Why is the Palestinian Arabs case special of their ancestors mattering but not the Jews?

The Arabs took it from the Christians after the crusade

[thorny stone]

Yes. There have been a few genetic lines move in and out of the area, but generally speaking, a lot of it has remained in the same place. All the peoples of the Levant share a lot of common DNA, including the Jews. They're all descended from the same people originally, and most haven't moved very far at all.

[thorny stone]

Their ancestors also don't matter.

The only relevance ancestors have is to prove that ancestors don't matter.

[zenith coyote]

So once again I ask how do you determine right to land

[thorny stone]

How many times do I have to answer that?

[zenith coyote]

You say that living in an area nobody else is but you’re contradicting the fact you claim that ancestors don’t matter

[thorny stone]

What relevance do ancestors have to that?

[zenith coyote]

How will my kin say that they deserve the right to the land

[thorny stone]

Why do your kin need to say they deserve the right to the land?

Are you trying to make the point that "ancestors" includes parents, so Palestinians who are the children of people who were forcibly removed from their homes don't have a claim to those homes if we use my logic?

Because there's a very easy answer to that, which is that those children have a right to those homes and lands because they would be living there were it not for the Israelis. So these children have also had their homes taken away by the Israelis. They have been directly affected by ther Israelis, it has nothing to do with ancestors.

[thorny stone]

Oh, just to add to the war crimes discussion, it looks like we can reliably add a 6th war crime to Israel's list, "Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power; "
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/14/israeli-forces-in-gaza-use-civilians-as-human-shields-against-possible-booby-traps

[zenith coyote]

Quite the contrary, I fail to see your reasoning behind the Palestinian Arabs having the right to the land if their ancestors living their dont matter

When does this right of land become permanent and objective to you?

Do you believe rights to land as a human right?

Why even need to own land if everyone is so peaceful and friendly to their neighbors

[zenith coyote]

I understand your point of you blaming everything about this conflict when the Jews started coming to Israel, but it started before that as well. This conflict didn’t start with Zionism, Zionism is the decolonization of the land not the colonization

[junior delta]

Because of the worldwide consensus on the importance self-determination.
The only reason that occurs is because threats of war if it's broken. The UK, US, France, etc. didn't care as much about Austria's right to self-determination when they allowed Germany to take it. Rights are only rights if other people help uphold those rights. If no one agrees that something is a right, then it's not going to be treated as a right. Every country attempts to interfere with almost every other country. I mean, at a fundamental level that is what diplomacy is. Should we still not have the right to interfere in another country if that country is committing atrocities in their own borders, such as a situation where Germany didn't start invading Poland, Netherland, Belgium, France, etc. and instead only ran concentration camps, I guess similar to China today?

[junior delta]

Do you have to be disrespectful in literally every message you type to me?
I mean, you completely ignored the entire point of my message about type of terrain end population density influencing death rates among civilians when you responded with all those wars. So that naturally leads to the fact that either you're just purposefully ignoring the fact that higher population density leads to high civilian casualties, or you just didn't comprehend what I said. I don't see how that is disrespectful.

Accept the possibility that someone can disagree with you and have perfectly valid points from their perspective
My reply wasn't about you not having "perfectly valid point" or "disagree[ing]" with me, as I mentioned above, it was about you completely ignoring the major aspect that leads to higher casualties, and how it is inappropriate to compare most rural and suburban wars to a completely urban war.

comparing the current Israeli attack on Gaza to the previous Israeli attack on Gaza
Do you have sources for those numbers? Because the numbers I see vary drastically, where 70% civillians deaths is being reported from Gaza, 65% from the UN and 35% from israel.

[thorny stone]

Ok, let's try and give the definitive answer on rights to land.

Firstly, I would say there are two different types of ownership of land. There is ownership on a state level, as in which state controls the land, and then there is personal ownership, which means who specifically in terms of individuals has the right to use the land.

Historically, state ownership is murky. States have acquired lands from other states pretty regularly in a variety of means, some nicer than others. But in the modern day, we've simplified it a lot by using the principle of self-determination. The people who live in an area get to decide which state they are a part of.

This doesn't mean that if you forcibly remove the existing population and replace it with your own, that this is suddenly fine. Genocide and ethnic cleansing is a whole different level of problem. But as far as state ownership of a piece of land goes, self-determination means that it should generally be the people that live in the land that decide which state owns it.
This has been the principle behind most of the proposed partitions of Palestine. Jewish areas can belong to Israel, and Arab areas can belong to a Palestinian Arab state.

Israel is a totally valid state that is the legal government of those areas that were Jewish and chose to join that state. But it is not the legal government of the areas that were, or are, Arab and that did not choose to join Israel. Allowing those areas to be claimed by Israel is denying the right of those people to self-determination, forcing them to live in an hostile occupation. This is bad, and is why Israel is rightfully seen as an aggressive and imperialist state.
.

Whatever largely Jewish states might have existed in the region thousands of years ago are no longer relevant. We don't even decide on which state a piece of land belongs to by conquest any more, never mind by choosing only one specific conquest out of dozens. So there is no historic claim to a Jewish state in that region. We don't allow any historic claims to lands, because the present is more important than the past. And of course, they have always proved to be the precursors of horrible wars.

So then, onto personal claims. There are probably three different types of personal claim on a land. Legal, moral, and religious.

Religious is easy to explain, and also ignore. This is when you think that a god has told you that a piece of land is yours. Great, good for you, but nobody else will care. It will be completely useless in trying to persuade anyone else. Nobody cares that some Jews think that they have a divine right to some land.

Legal is also pretty straightforwards. There are three legal ways to get a claim to a piece of land. You either settle some vacant land, buy it from someone else who already owns it, or inherit it from someone who gives it to you. You can lose a claim on a piece of land by either choosing to not use it and leave it vacant for a long period of time, selling it, or giving it away. You can also have ownership stripped by the legal government of the state you're in. Legal governments have the legal right to do that, but not necessarily without also having moral consequences.

Legally, some Jews have bought land in Palestine, and some settled on vacant land as well, and so they have a legal claim to those parts. Any historical legal ownership though was wiped out by the legal governments that removed the Jews at the time. Those Jews thousands of years ago do have a moral case for compensation from the governments at the time, but neither those Jews nor those governments exist any more, nor is anyone affected by those events, so there is neither anyone to give compensation, nor anyone left to receive it.
.

For areas within the legal bounds of Israel, it can be argued that some of the Arabs that were forced out of their homes and off their lands were removed legally, and so don't have a legal claim to their homes any more. Their claim is now a moral one, simply due to it being unfair to take their homes without giving something in return. For areas that Israel invaded and conquered, they had no legal right to expel anyone from those places, so legally speaking I wold hold that the Arabs still own their homes there.

Morally, the situation is a lot more complex.

As I said above, there is no point trying to address the morals of any situation that happened thousands of years ago. Any moral consequence of those events has long since passed. So we can only look at the present day with this.

It was morally wrong of Israel to expel Arabs from lands given to Israel and to give that land to Jews. But now those homes have been used by other families for nearly 80 years, there are now other entire families that rely on those homes and those lands. I don't think there is a moral case to remove one innocent family to give the home to another innocent family. The only remaining moral question there, is how Israel should compensate the Arabs it stole from, because it does still owe them a moral debt.

It was also morally wrong for Israel to invade other lands. Although there is still a balance between asking one set of innocent families to leave in order to find homes for another, the additional moral weight of the land being stolen from a potential Palestinian Arab state tips the scale. Morally, that land belongs to whatever Palestinian state will be created.
.

That could temporarily create a situation where people in a region are within a country they don't want to be a part of. But that is unavoidable when we have a situation where people have been encouraged to move into places illegally already.

The TL:DR version, is that rights to land depend on who either bought it from it's legal owner, was given it by it's legal owner, or who settled it when it was vacant. The only exception to that is where the legal government has stripped ownership, which is the case with every historical claim, and any current claim by Arabs within the boundaries of the land given to Israel by the UN. That land became vacant, to be settled by someone new. Anything outside those boundaries, Israel has no legal claim to.

Morally, Israel owes a debt to all Arabs it has displaced, and ought to return the lands it took by force. That debt may or may not be best paid by returning land to it's previous owners, that is to be worked out between everyone involved.

[junior delta]

I'd like to just point out a quick fact about how Israeli citizens raided into a palestinian village, and Israel made arrest and condemened the actions of those people. It seems like the group that supports invading and taking over Palestinian land, by use of their government, also doesn't like taking over Palestinian land, is it only cause the government wasn't involved that they're upset about it?

Or maybe they just now all of a sudden decide to not want to expand through use of force?

[thorny stone]

We've learned a lot since WW2. We thought historical claims might have some validity back then. But it turns out, they are just an excuse to impose ourselves on people who are living peacefully.

Diplomacy is countries talking to each other, generally about intra-national activities, not countries trying to interfere in internal affairs within other countries. I think you're thinking of espionage, which is frowned upon to say the least.

No, we definitely don't have the right to interfere in another country if we don't like what they are doing. The only thing that would have the right to do that would be the UN, or the ICC, if we gave them the power to do that, because that would be a democratic body of rules that all countries sign up to enforced by the collective. The UN could then interfere if they broke UN rules, in the same way the police interfere if you break the national law.

[thorny stone]

I mean, you completely ignored the entire point of my message about type of terrain end population density influencing death rates among civilians

1. Even if you thought I hadn't addressed your point, accusing me of being unable to read is hardly an appropriate response. What you should have done instead is highlighted any point you thought I hadn't responded to, that you wanted me to respond to.

2. I literally responded directly to your point. You claimed every recent urban conflict has led to almost equal numbers of casualties, and I asked which specific conflicts you were referring to. I also gave you an example, Gaza in 2014, that shows that a recent conflict in a literally identical place did not have the current ratio of civilian casualties, that seems to cast doubt on your argument. So I'm asking you to back up your point. Show me examples.

Do you have sources for those numbers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
I forget exactly where I got the figure of 1:1 for the current conflict. It was an Israeli source of some kind. But I agree, most people seem to think there are substantially more civilians being killed than a 1:1 ratio.

[thorny stone]

Israel has a long tactic of trying to appear reasonable while carrying out it's slow ethnic cleansing, and the actions of those settlers make it look like a country of bloodthirsty xenophobes to the outside world. Israel doesn't need it's settlers to kill Palestinians at random, it's doing fine with it's official tactics. So they are a PR problem.

But the fact that Israel has done basically nothing to stop the settlers attacking Palestinians for 40 years, and in fact has forbidden Palestinian police from doing anything about the attacks, indicates precisely how strongly the Israeli government cares about stopping those attacks. They make a few token arrests that go nowhere, and then the settlers are free to do it all over again and again.

This is nothing new. I mean, there are a significant number of racist, violent xenophobes in Israel, who are more than happy to kill all non-Jews. But Israeli settlers have been forming terrorist organisations to attack Arabs since before Israeli even existed. Sometimes a few people in power try and halt it, but every time the far-right get elected into some kind of positions of power the violence increases again, because they know they have sufficient protection that it will result in no consequences.

[junior delta]

Would you say the UN or ICC gets to trump everyone's rights even if the person was not apart of the UN? I mean, no taxation without representation.

Also no, I meant diplomacy. Diplomacy is just nations talking. Nations trying to work together, nations trying to quell conflicts between other nations. Even friendly diplomacy is still trying to interfere with how that country sees you. I find it funny though how you get to decide who has what rights, not even who, but what groups of people get to have what rights. The UN can only enforce its beliefs if the countries let them. They have no power on their own as you mentioned, as they are just countries working together. The UN is also not democratic at all, in what democracy can one side just completely shut down legislation because they don't like it (such as the P5 being able to veto).

It seems very hypocritical if you are trying to imply that the UN gets to decide for everyone, even people not in the UN. What about people who do not sign a treaty, such as the one establishing certain rules in war, like no biological weapons? I'm sure you'd agree then that since their "right to self-determination" is theirs, the UN cannot force them to uphold that standard, as they have not agreed to it. Would that be a correct assumption?

[thorny stone]

I'll direct you to the message you replied to, where I stated:

No, we definitely don't have the right to interfere in another country if we don't like what they are doing. The only thing that would have the right to do that would be the UN, or the ICC, if we gave them the power to do that, because that would be a democratic body of rules that all countries sign up to enforced by the collective. The UN could then interfere if they broke UN rules, in the same way the police interfere if you break the national law.

The UN is certainly not perfectly democratic right now. But there are plenty of relatively democratic systems around the world that include vetoes of one kind or another, the US being an obvious example. But really, any democratic system that uses First Past The Post voting on anything allows one side a veto on those issues.

[junior delta]

Oh I see, when I said that recent urban conflicts have lead to equal casualties, you assumed I meant and equal ration of civilian to militant casualties. No, I mean casualty ratios, not in the sense of 1:1 civilian to militant deaths, but rather (don't know the actual number so this is just a made up one) 1:5 being fairly standard across the board in these conflicts that are urban in nature. Now of course, any military not using artillery will have a higher militant death, as the civilians and militants on the other side (at least a lot of them get marked as civilian despite being militant because these groups rather blend in to the population to get innocent people killed) will be at less risk, only the people openly waving arms will be at threat.

So I'm asking you to back up your point. Show me examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
That's why I was asking. Israel reports relatively low civilian deaths, HAMAS reports relatively high civilian deaths, the UN somewhere in the middle but still high (but expected for fighting in a populated urban city). It appears there were more civilian deaths than militant deaths if we trust Hamas and the UN, only Israel supports your claim of a 3:1 in 2014, which not sure of their claims for the current conflict, but I imagine is pretty similar

^Also my whole point is there aren't examples. There have never been wars as far as I know of that are recent, except maybe Cechnya idk much about that conflict though, that are completely urban. We can look at individual conflicts, but most of those aren't in populated cities either, like Fallujah, the US was more focused on preventing civilian deaths, even to the risk of their own soldiers and Marines, even there they had substantial numbers of civilian casualties, but they did take the risk to themselves as oposed to punishing the civilians for the extremeist hiding among them.

[junior delta]

So they arrest people for invading into Gaza, killing a single Palestinian (more than should have died either way, but you claim they want genocide) and they decide to arrest two Israelis, but they still promote it? Idk, it's starting to give conspiracy theory vibes. Now sure, I'll agree, there are large numbers of racist, violent, xenophobes in Israel. There are similar groups everywhere, such as China, most of middle Africa, in general a lot of rural places, especially heavily shown in the middle east though. Stating a small percentage of the entire population though and portraying that onto the entire country seems like you just have a personal vendetta against that one country. Similar to people that say "all police are bad", it like, sure there are a few bad cops (and you gotta think about it in percentage form) but its not the majority.

Also, I've never seena slow ethnic cleansing. Usually ethnic cleansing doesn't allow for them to be able to reproduce on large scales, you try to kill of the populations, not let them keep growing. If Israel does support it, they either aren't doing it or they just suck at it.

[thorny stone]

No, I assumed you meant that all urban conflicts have the same casualty ratio, not that they have an equal ratio of soldier to civilian deaths.

It looks like I copied the ratio the wrong way round for Gaza in 2014 and the war on Islamic State. It should have been 1:3 and 1:2. So then yes, that would fit better with your theory about more urban wars having a higher civilian casualty rate. But we do have a problem in that either the only urban wars I have data on are ones involving Israel, or it is just that Israel is always particularly careless about civilian casualties, because the Israel ratios are substantially different from all the others. The only conflict that comes close to Israel's ratios, that I have data for, is Chechnya, and everyone seems to agree that there was horrific disregard for civilian life in that conflict.

Can I ask again, do you have any data on civilian casualty ratios from any urban conflicts not involving Israel? Or are you just basing your idea purely on the theory of urban conflict being more deadly for civilians? It sounded like you had examples when you first mentioned it, so I'm curious where you're getting the idea from.

[thorny stone]

I don't know where you're getting your data, but there have been an average of more than 2 attacks per day for the last two years. So it's a lot more than just two Israelis doing it, and a lot more than one Palestinian killed. There have been attacks involving hundreds of settlers. Yes, it's a minority of the Israeli population. I'm not saying it's the majority. But when you have those people, combined with the others who support the attacks but don't physically go on them themselves, and the IDF, and the politicians, it ends up as a very significant minority of the country, who currently control a lot of the power in Israel, who are violently racist.

I have never claimed that they specifically want genocide. I can be very clear, I don't think they do. But they also don't object to mass killing of Arabs if that's what it takes to achieve their goals of a Jewish-only state.

These settler attacks are merely designed to drive the Arabs away, to make them afraid and want to leave, terrorism in it's purest form. This is how they are conducting their ethnic cleansing, by trying to force the Arabs to leave. Ethnic cleansing isn't always about killing, it's simply about removing those people from an area you want racial purity in.

[junior delta]

The thing is that Israel-Palestine is unique. But we can look at similar situations like Fallujah Iraq where they had similar percentages (depending on whose sources you want to trust which alters things drastically in many situations). If we look at the War in Iraq in general, they claimed to have had a 1:2 civilian-soldier ratio, when later it was posted that 77% of the casualties were civilians, similar to what Hamas has claimed in Gaza. And keep in mind, that was the entire war, not just a years long war in a single populated city. (That came from the same wikipedia article you linked to me)

Either way, it's not even purely a theory to suggest that urban warfare in a high population density area would lead to more casualties than in an unpopulated area, that's just common sense. It's something that is commonly known by militaries all across the world, and it is even more known in conflicts against embedded terrorist organizations and militia type groups where they blend into the civilian population. So yes, there are statistics to back up this idea, the same one every country and their militaries use and know.

Last thing though, the casualties don't even seem inflated to where it would look like a urban-only war, unless you look at the Hamas claims of death. When you look at the UN claimed one, it looks more similar to percentages during urban battles (keep in mind, a battle is not a war). I highly expect the UN claims to be pretty accurate, even though they come also from Hamas-affiliated people.

[junior delta]

I don't know where you're getting your data, but there have been an average of more than 2 attacks per day for the last two years.
Can you provide evidence for those claim? I'm not claiming that there aren't multiple attacks, or that there are. I'm referring to that one specific incident, because I don't keep myself updated anymore on what's going on over there, and even then I never really payed attention except to the fact that there was conflict, things like Hamas destroying water centers to transform into military caches, Israel launching missiles into other countries for either supplying or facilitating attacks again Israel, etc.

mass killing of Arabs if that's what it takes to achieve their goals of a Jewish-only state
I'm curious, why don't they go after the Christians either then, if they want a Jewish-only state? Also another question, just to clarify, you think that they don't want genocide, but they're fine with it happening?

These settler attacks are merely designed to drive the Arabs away
Yea I think we can both agree on that, but I don't see the need to blame Israel for those actions, now sure, if there was undeniable proof of people involved, and Israel said they weren't going to do anything about it (without a legitimate reason, whatever that may be) then yea, i see it fair to say they support the actions. Would you be able to provide such examples of the proof of the attacks where people are clearly identified, then a direct response from the government negating the fact it occured, saying they did nothing wrong, etc?

[urban scarab]

Just replying here to let you know that you're not alone. I've chosen to not participate in this thread for a reason. (And I won't start doing that if anyone responds to this either)

[thorny stone]

I know. But thanks. 👍

[livid burrow]

For real, same with the gender discussion. Not touching that shit with a 10 foot pole

[shell laurel]

This channel has some interesting perspectives on both sides. And also some 'shocking' ones from both sides. But it gives a gennerally good and as far as it's possible "unbiased" take on both sides letting them say what they want and translating it (tough I can't personally confirm the accuracy).

But both sides generally have good points and bad takes.. To put two recent examples here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4iGFT9Yl9o

https://youtu.be/XWDSoAblHuQ?si=D3DvoCz1r8hli8tK

Overall tough the average seems to think alike. And I'm sad to see that overall to this day I have yet to see an mayority of 'palistinians' saying that what happened oct 7 was a bad thing for EVERYONE involved..

And I have to look really hard to find examples of yews saying that they want the palistinians to leave.. (but the creator is jewish, but he has an open mindset and is also 'gay' so that's a double NONO for most muslims..

Then aside from that I have to add I also find it interesting how people are calling the jews "collonists/zionists" but we forget about the: "Arab, Persian, Ottoman, Abbasid Caliphate, Umayyad Caliphate, Rashidun Caliphate.

And of course the roman empire, macedonians, etc etc..

Because if jews are "zionist"

Than what are the Arabs/Islam (They also claim they own/deserve the land) but there is a significant lag of historical evidence to sudgest they where the first or last..

[thorny stone]

And I'm sad to see that overall to this day I have yet to see an mayority of 'palistinians' saying that what happened oct 7 was a bad thing for EVERYONE involved..
I think it's unrealistic to expect Palestinians to agree that them fighting back against Israel is a bad thing. The events on 7th October 2023 were just the latest round of attacks in a war that has been going on for many decades. They were not the start of anything, they were not an escalation, not significant better or worse than the many previous attacks by both sides. They are just an example of the nature of this war. And of course Palestinians are in general not going to criticise the people fighting on their behalf.

And I have to look really hard to find examples of yews saying that they want the palistinians to leave..
It's really not hard to find examples of that, if you don't only look at Israeli-curated sources like the channel you posted links to.

[shell laurel]

The jews where able to forgive the germans for what happened 80 years ago, why can't the arabs/islam/palistinians?

They can't be held acountable for their own actions "the nakba" THEY attacked the jews for claiming their own state. They could have claimed their own but instead they choose to "try" and take everything for themselves at the expense of the jews. (Scortched earth)

[thorny stone]

The reason we don't talk about the colonisations of any of those groups when talking about Palestine and Israel is because they are not relevant to the present day situation.

Not all Jews are Zionist.

[shell laurel]

Keep being biased I have no interst to your rants

I've looked at over 400hours of footage from various sources and I've drawn my conclusions. Did you give the opposing side even a 100 hours?

[thorny stone]

Israel is still harming the Palestinians. You can only forgive someone if they a) stop causing the harm, and b) express remorse and contrition for the harm caused. Israel does neither.

Of course Israel can be held accountable for their actions. The Arabs were resisting the efforts by the Zionists to conquer their lands by force, so of course they fought back. The majority of the lands were owned by Arabs, and the Zionists tried to take it all from them. It's as simple as that. The Zionists were an invading force, who murdered tens of thousands of innocent people and forced hundreds of thousands more to leave their homes. It is one of the largest atrocities in human history, and it is still going on.

[thorny stone]

I've explained and provided evidence for every point I've made in this conversation. Either be polite or go elsewhere.

[shell laurel]

"
Arklar — vandaag om 23:02
Israel is still harming the Palestinians. You can only forgive someone if they a) stop causing the harm, and b) express remorse and contrition for the harm caused. Israel does neither." is already ignorant

[thorny stone]

Ok. What sources have you looked at? Share them, and we can talk about them.

[shell laurel]

I can give you 10 different examples of them expressing regret, sympathy and giving WARNINGS of what they are gonna do and "Your side" can only treaten and "try" to do what they claim to do

Nah I don't talk to people with deaf ears

Good day sir/madam

[thorny stone]

"My side"? I'm not on either side.

[shell laurel]

If you can't read the "Implications/question" and assume it's a claim then I again don't talk with you. But based on the significant amount of evidence in this tread it's safe to say you have most certainly taken a side, stance and bias

[thorny stone]

You're welcome to explain why you think differently to any of the opinions I've voiced in this discussion. But so far all you've done is post an opinion and then refuse to talk about it.

[shell laurel]

Well ask your question then because at least you seem willing to talk about things but mostly seem to be atacking whoever is challenging the claim (wether or not they agree with you) From what I've seen you write in this tread your stance seems incredibly biased towards the "palistinian claim"

If you are truely willing to listen and consider different perspectives ask me any question(s)

[thorny stone]

If that is your view, please pick anything i've said in this conversation and explain, using evidence, why you think it is incorrect.

[shell laurel]

I personally thing differntly because as far as my personal expierience goes. Different cultures have different "steriotypes/behaviours/ CULTURES" aside of religions. Arabs and Islam out of all seem the least open minded to different vieuwpoints. I'd like to be corrected.

Ok bye

[thorny stone]

I think the ultra-orthadox Jews who refuse to even speak to non-Jews are a solid rival for the most extreme forms of Islam in being the least open-minded of all people.

[thorny stone]

You're acting very strangely.

[shell laurel]

Fair. No you are by showing the significant bias towards one side. Since this channel requires to show respect to anyone even if you dissagree I decide to remove meyself from the confersation instead of tearing you a new one and showing you aproximatly 25 hours of content debunking pretty much everything you said. including islam/arab/palistinian perspectives

[thorny stone]

You're more than welcome to leave this conversation if that's what you think is best.

We've had a lot of people jump into this conversation and make the same sort of claims and accusations you've made before leaving without providing any evidence. Forgive me if I don't attribute any weight whatsoever to claims made by someone refusing to back them up.

This thread is here as a place to have a conversation about the situation, not just post your view and insult anyone who disagrees.

[shell laurel]

But showing restraint to oneselve seems more common with the jews than arabs anyway. Or the two "sides"
This message took you 7 minutes to type out? alright let me reply within a minute.

I don't desire to backtrack my personal (again 400+ hours of footage in terms of video and audio) to educate someone on how to listen to both sides of the conflict without personal bias (or at least trying to)

I'm not going to reply to you from now, don't or do take it personal. I just refuse to talk to someone who's unwilling to listen like I said before

[thorny stone]

I don't know where your misunderstanding lies. But I've listened to everything you've said, and you're the one refusing to take part in the conversation, not me.

And also doing it in a very disrespectful way. It is probably for the best that you don't continue in this vein.

[livid burrow]

it doesnt at all seem like youre actually open to discussing the topic earnestly man, you just made a claim and then refuse to actually discuss it or back it up with anything

[livid burrow]

^

[shell laurel]

Alright no holds bar.
Use english translations feature on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3I5p_Zq1lM&list=PLWSdRSvNysI7WbPi8hsMrq3JK-AlGC7NT&index=49
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2sl9_nrZSk&list=PLWSdRSvNysI7WbPi8hsMrq3JK-AlGC7NT&index=17
https://youtu.be/og8J6WOOwp0?si=gtOzVxgntFZ6xOCg
https://youtu.be/OkcNAWfKTIE?si=MExAYY_BuPLzAsN0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2iwLWxeCJ4&list=PLWSdRSvNysI7WbPi8hsMrq3JK-AlGC7NT&index=36
https://youtu.be/BbVUGMipMvY?si=mF8-ZpmZ2rX-UI5s
https://youtu.be/0FDfhPMA95I?si=NZLu5C8QkzWemCF7
https://youtu.be/jiFXaMwVKJg?si=eeWRfGTaWPkvWjaE
https://youtu.be/0jgDUABX9UY?si=-c6Au95Ut82R-1El
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BYp4HEzs4I&list=PLWSdRSvNysI7WbPi8hsMrq3JK-AlGC7NT&index=161
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O18hOaC9B0&list=PLWSdRSvNysI7WbPi8hsMrq3JK-AlGC7NT&index=143
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61dVEKXMYs&list=PLWSdRSvNysI7WbPi8hsMrq3JK-AlGC7NT&index=311
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho8-2InLw1g&list=PLWSdRSvNysI7WbPi8hsMrq3JK-AlGC7NT&index=355
https://youtu.be/U-b5ZOEcLOM?si=c609A9r-pDRFrIjC
https://youtu.be/-1NFirxhXWE?si=JRwB_2OyMz8iHKx8
https://youtu.be/wpnvUIcvNUE?si=AtfINB1eJQfe1UbJ

Now you may notice there are few perspectives of the likes of "Al jazeera and such as palistine perspectives" but that's because I didn't agree with their takes or found evidence to suggest those where fake. I'm not going to spend more time than my mental can take on digging up information for people who have either: Already seen it, Are not open to see both sides, Are biased, or have alterior motives

These are some of the videos I looked briefly at to remember vaguely what they where about.

I can dig through more footage but I don't see the point if one side argues (or at least seems) to argue that it's only the 'palistinians' who are right. Such as saying that october 7th was a build up of events but ignoring the restraint on the israel side, including classified information.. and the complete recklesness of the 'palistinian' aka hamas side

[thorny stone]

What point are you trying to support with these links?

[shell laurel]

And then we can go into the "protests" of both sides. Including israel and palistinian riots/ occupations.. Most of the palistinian ones turning into agression, violation, demolition, and intollerance/riot

[shell laurel]

you've not watched them, don't pretend you even care about an opposing vieuw

[thorny stone]

I'm trying to have a conversation, and you're still refusing to have one. What do you think you're trying to achieve here?

[shell laurel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUMl58i4m0w&list=RDOUMl58i4m0w&start_radio=1

"trying to have a conversation" I told you to ask me any question and you've yet failed to do so to this point clown.
You can keep instantly (or rather slowly) reacting to any video i've send, wich indicates you are unwilling or incapable of watching the enitre thing but instead just choose to take 2 minutes or more to come up with some vague responces.

**Well ask your question then because at least you seem willing to talk about things but mostly seem to be atacking whoever is challenging the claim (wether or not they agree with you) From what I've seen you write in this tread your stance seems incredibly biased towards the "palistinian claim" **

Look at the first posts down to the last in this tread and you'll see a theme

Anyway enjoy the video, you are payed by them for sure or you just like to 60 them

[thorny stone]

Do you know what a conversation is?

[shell laurel]

Do you know what watching a video is?

[thorny stone]

It's a serious question. My understanding of what a conversation is, is that it is a back and forth dialogue where you respond to what the other person has said. That doesn't appear to be what is happening here.

[shell laurel]

Pushing an agenda is

[thorny stone]

I asked you a question, and asked you for various things, and you've done none of them.

What you did instead, was post a collection of YouTube links apparently without a purpose.

[shell laurel]

I'll ask you the same and just ignore what you said. Examples?

[thorny stone]

What relevance does a YouTube video about the Holocaust have to this conversation?

[shell laurel]

holocaust? lmao you haven't seen anything

[thorny stone]

Do you not know which videos you were linking to?

[shell laurel]

Provide example then?

Your logic

hypocrite

taking to long

where is your comeback?

ah I see you stopped tyoing

You knew exactly what video and timestep a few minutes ago what's the matter?

Provide your evidence

[thorny stone]

https://youtu.be/0FDfhPMA95I?si=NZLu5C8QkzWemCF7
I say this will all due respect. Which is none. Either be polite or go away. This is the link you posted which goes to a video discussion of the Holocaust. By not realising you posted this link, you have invalidated all of the links you have posted, because it is clear none of them were posted with any care or with any specific purpose in mind.

I don't know what you are trying to do in this thread. But what you are actually doing is being very rude for absolutely no good reason. I suggest you rethink your approach, because your actions here are not accomplishing anything except to make you look like a fool.

There's no need to try and make fun of anyone's typing speed in this conversation, nor to take a confrontational approach and attempt a constant stream of 'comebacks'.

Trying to do that only makes you look childish.

Either explain the point you are trying to make, in a way that does not require you to be abusive or disrespectful to anyone else, or don't. We don't need anything else.

[shell laurel]

And you've watched the entire thing together with the entire playlist within what is it.. 25 minutes? Lmao who is unable to read or watch the things claimed by the opposition. And because you didn't read I'll say again** : "
Now you may notice there are few perspectives of the likes of "Al jazeera and such as palistine perspectives" but that's because I didn't agree with their takes or found evidence to suggest those where fake. I'm not going to spend more time than my mental can take on digging up information for people who have either: Already seen it, Are not open to see both sides, Are biased, or have alterior motives

These are some of the videos I looked briefly at to remember vaguely what they where about."**

But of course you whereway to busy listening and watching all of those links at the same time so you could reply within minutes.. Lmao

[thorny stone]

There is now no need for me to watch the rest of those videos, because it is clear they are just a random selection of videos that are unconnected to any point being discussed here.

I've asked you to explain what relevance they have, and you have been unable to provide an answer. Therefore, they do not appear to be relevant.

Let's make it very simple. Are you capable of having a conversation about the situation in Israel and Palestine? If you are, you need to demonstrate this by explaining what point you would like to make on that subject, using evidence if it disagrees with an existing point.

[shell laurel]

I'm not making fun of your typing speed, I would be the last, that's an assumption. I'm dyslexic, I know how it feels to be "slow" or "bad" at typing and writing. But keep living in your own bubble.

Your replys to every single comment of opposing vieuw "apear" to be some way to "come back at" or "retailliate" the claim made. They show their own immaturiaty if you ask me.
The videos are not entirely unrelated but given the brief amount of time spend I'd say one such as yourself likes to draw quick assumptions..

Lastly since you're finally asking me an acutal questionI: "I've asked you to explain what relevance they have, and you have been unable to provide an answer. Therefore, they do not appear to be relevant."

They have some relevance because I was asked to provide some backup or claim or ( I don't even know what's said read it back) I tried to grab some of the videos i've seen on the subject in reletively quick notice. I've also claimed I didn't have time to fully revieuw them so I had to rely on memmory to know their rellevance..

Then as a final statment I also said that it lacked a perspective of the palistinian side because of reasons..
So if I'm the one who's not providing anything, I

d like to see some of your side.. Impress me. I tried to remove myself from being "Childish" by ending the conversation. So to me it seems you are the nagging child that wansts attention

Again, we can part ways and have a good day. Like I've wished you before. If you want to continue being ignorant and INSTANTLY rant like you are typing now.. go ahaid

[thorny stone]

What would you like me to provide evidence for? Any specific point? I'm more than happy to provide the evidence for any point I've made in this thread.

I asked you to explain why you thought that the opinions I had expressed in this thread were inaccurate or incorrect. You do realise, don't you, that you haven't done that yet?

That was what I was asking for you to provide evidence in support of.

[shell laurel]

Very start first 20 comments back and forth for example.

Or :
Arklar — 13-05-2024 02:58
Israel has rejected many peace agreements as well.

You mean I don't just automatically agree with Zionist propaganda? No, sorry, I definitely don't do that.

No. But murdering children, journalists and aid workers, and destroying homes, IS terrorism, and Israel does that daily.

1

@short rivet
The only difference is that Israel is not trying to wipe out all Arabs

Arklar — 13-05-2024 03:06
Plenty of Zionists ARE trying to wipe out the arabs in Israel. Israel has no moral high ground.

`CaveManGaming — 13-05-2024 03:06
so you admit they are in Israel

1
[03:06]
thanks
[03:07]
and Zionists are far from the Majority
1 geblokkeerd bericht — Bericht invouwen

Arklar — 13-05-2024 03:07
They're also trying to wipe out the arabs in the occupied territories. I'm just saying their desire for murder doesn't stop there.

CaveManGaming — 13-05-2024 03:08
Did you support the Afghan republic or the Taliban?`

Upon further revieuw I noticed you lacked engaging as much as in the beginning so I appolagize for confusing you with someone else, that's my mistake

"I asked you to explain why you thought that the opinions I had expressed in this thread were inaccurate or incorrect. You do realise, don't you, that you haven't done that yet?
[00:31] "
That was what I was asking for you to provide evidence in support of. I"ll take my time to respond proper, As I've just said I confused you for someone else down the line)

[thorny stone]

No problem, take your time.

[shell laurel]

Thanks, I aprieciate you at least show decency, but perhaps my vieuw was clouded by the mess of comments in this tread.
From what I did gather about your comments tough and correct me if I'm wrong is that you have a strong leaning towards the palistinian cause and refuse anything of the Isrealese.

I personally dissagree with some of your takes regarding: "Some of your earliest claims" like some other person @junior delta called out where contradicting and not provided with any evidence like you are persistantly pushing me for.

2ndly I STRONGLY dissagree with claims like these: No, let's be absolutely clear on this. Israel 100% does go out of its way to kill innocent civilians, and has done for decades. Killing innocent civilians is Israel's normal and apparently preferred method of operation. Israeli snipers regularly kill innocent people, all the time, and Israel spends most of its time just demolishing the homes of innocent people, sometimes with them still inside. (bewerkt)
[04:29]
Israel doesn't need to do any of that, and in fact doing so only makes the situation worse. It's just purely a vicious response, disproportionate revenge. (bewerkt)
@thorny stone
Geblokkeerd bericht

Especially without evvidence that backs up the claim. I'll continue to go on so you have your own time to respond to this

Arklar — 12-05-2024 14:46
This isn't rocket science. If people are treating you badly because you're treating them badly, just stop treating them badly.

We can be clear about this as well. Israel is the aggressor here, and always has been. They moved into an area that was already populated by Arabs, and tried to kick the Arabs out by harassing them, shooting them, demolishing their homes, denying them rights within Israel's borders, and generally just being the worst possible kinds of neighbours. This entire problem is caused by a bunch of xenophobic Zionists who have pushed their agenda of ethnically cleansing that area of anyone who isn't Jewish, to the point where it's standard Israeli government policy.

The proper way for Israel to respond is for them to say "Oh F&^%, we're so sorry, this is totally our fault. Here, let us give you your stuff back along with compensation for all the damage we've caused. We'll lock up or execute the war criminals responsible for our ridiculously over the top actions, and give you ways to make sure we will never do anything like this ever again."

@junior delta
Ok, so that once again just goes back to opinion on who you think deserves the land. I personally think whoever can hold the land deserves it. I think having a claim to land doesn't matter all to much, but nonetheless Jews have the oldest claim to the land in most areas.

Things like that as well are also disturbing to me. I have no ties or relations to either sides in this conflict and am not (necesarily) religious or political.
So to see that there is a claim made "generalized" about one side without a source/evidence. And then to critisize others who do the same rubs me the wrong way. But maybe there is a miscommunication or understanding between us. Wich again I don't aim to create but I tried to disengadge because I felt we weren't getting anywhere. I'm glad to see we can be open to whatever the other person is saying, even if I blocked you because of my own reason.

I personally have seen, heard and witnessed Imense restraint on the jewish side from personal witnesses, videos, audio, and written documents and lack to see any from their oppositions (Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran/Houties/ etc)

[thorny stone]

#1238854947756310620 message
This is a link to one of the messages I have posted previously in this thread, containing evidence that Israel deliberately kills civilians. Within the Guardian article there are also links to the original sources, which can be traced back to first hand report from Israeli soldiers of the IDF deliberately killing innocent civilians. Personally I think that claim is indisputable.

I can get you the link to the interviews if you can't find it via the information in that message.

[shell laurel]

I will look into this later. I do not doubt at all that within any conflict both sides do HORRENDOUS things. and will innevidebly commit warcrimes because there are ALWAYS some individuals who "DON'T care, Avoid law, Take a risk, Are oppertunistic, Vengefull or just utterly evill and corrupt.."

But I will look into this one and reply when I have time. I do not think however this represents all of the IDF/Jews similar to anything "Arab/Islam/Palistinian/Hamas" you can never group every single individual and incident and say that they are all the same/guilty.

[thorny stone]

Sorry, I'm having trouble working out which part of your messages is a quote, and which is the part you're written. Discord does have a quote function you can use, or you could use quotation marks " " if that is easier.

[shell laurel]

Guide me I'm a noob in that

found it

[thorny stone]

If you're on PC, the easiest way is to highlight the text by dragging your mouse, and then a small menu appears above the text with several options including to mark it as a quote.

cool

[shell laurel]

I think I've fixed all hope that helps

Anyway I'll reply later I'll have to leave

[thorny stone]

Also there is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
...which is the official Israeli strategy to target civilians, and this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai-database-hamas-airstrikes
...which is confirmation of official authorisation for the IDF to kill large numbers of civilians.

If you get into the accounts by the IDF soldiers, then just the sheer number of accounts, combined with the soldiers themselves explicitly backing this up, shows that the policy of happily killing civilians is institutional within the IDF.

There are also a number of videos showing the IDF targeting innocent civilians such as young children on several occasions. They are easily google-able, I just don't want to search for them again myself as they make for very unpleasant watching.

[thorny stone]

It's definitely not EVERY Israeli or IDF soldier who kills innocent Palestinians. I've never said it is. It is a minority, for sure. But unfortunately, it is a minority who currently, and historically, has a large amount of influence over the army and government of Israel. I think it is appropriate to hold the entire nation of Israel responsible for the actions of their government and army, when those actions that are problematic are systemic within those institutions.

So I think it is accurate to say things like "Israel willingly kills innocent civilians".

It would not be accurate to say that 'Jews' do that, but then nobody that I can see is making that generalisation about all Jews. It's really important to use the correct labels for the groups you are talking about, and from my point of view it is only the Israeli side who consistently uses the wrong labels, when it constantly tries to misrepresent criticism directed their way by claiming the comments are being made about a broader group than they actually are.

[shell laurel]

I aprieciate your perspective but I dissagree with it, either way here are my replies. It's a textwall so multiple parts

[shell laurel]

Dahiya doctrine
~ "should target economic interests and the centers of civilian power that support the organization"
'civilian infrastructure in order to pressure hostile governments.' ~
To me it's clear this is NOT to target civilliance at all but rather the infrastructure that the country needs to function proper. Without that your ennemy has no choice but to stop fighting or put resources into repairing/defending these structures. Wich weakens the armies strenght, morale and ability to function proper.

SCORCHED EARTH is a widely used millitary strategy that's quite similar. This is not unique to Israel's Dahiya doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth

Regarding your link to this article
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai-database-hamas-airstrikes

This is from 5 months ago and many of the numbers have been ajusted. (lesser than what was claimed and speculated) Also just because an AI system has identified 37,000 POTENTIAL targets does NOT equal them eliminating 37,000 people..
Even so the civilian to combatend loss is within a 'reasonable' margin considering the nature of warfare and the specific situation compared to other ones in the past.
Such as the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima & Nagasaki wich actually indiscriminatly eliminated innocent civilians and infrastructure just like the "Dahiya doctrine" but worse..

To take the dresden bombings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden
Specifically this part:
~ In the decades since the war, large variations in the claimed death toll have led to controversy, though the numbers themselves are no longer a major point of contention among historians.[17] City authorities at the time estimated that there were as many as 25,000 victims, a figure that subsequent investigations supported, including a 2010 study commissioned by the city council.[2][18] In March 1945, the German government ordered its press to publish a falsified casualty figure of 200,000, and death tolls as high as 500,000 have been claimed.[19][20][21] These inflated figures were disseminated in the West for decades, notably by David Irving, a Holocaust denier, who in 1966 announced that the documentation he had worked from had been forged and that the real figures supported the 25,000 number.[22] ~
This number was only clarified after YEARS, and was speculated and assumed to be much higher than 25.000 for all that time.

So I personally don't see how it's even comparible to what Israel has been doing. I'm certain there is classified information and evidence that we as the public don't have acces to.
I would seriously doubt the world would tollerate so called "Genocide" or that the Jews would ever do such a horrendoes thing especially since the term is coined after what happened in the holocaust. It's a sick tactic to make such claims.

The IDF has shown a lot of transparancy and 'evidence' about their opperations and given numerous warnings (Verbal, Readable, Visual, Audible) and in multiple languages/methods whenever they striked controversial targets. And yes there is no doubt that in the most ideal scenerio innocent lives will be lost, but to this day the vast majourity still shows support/hope for Hamas, wich doesn't really make you completly innocent but complacent.
Even if we were to say or agree that Israel has struck targets that were not okay, they follow the international protocal and geneva convention, war itself commits warcrimes regardless of intention. Especially the bigger you scale it up. If you have an army and you have rules, regulations and orders there are bound to be (Intentional or accidental) things that are not okay. You cannot blame an entire military or country for the actions of (some amount) of individuals. It's like blaming a country for having criminals, rapists, drug dealers. Do you blame the country? The parents? The system?? It doesn't make sence to me.

About the following article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war
(This too is from 5 months ago)
First of all it saddens me to see anyone wether guilty or innocent harmed. Especially if they are children. Please correct me if I'm wrong or why but I couldn't find significant evidence of: A Intentional targeting of civillians. B: Bullets instead of schrapnel. C: If they are bullets who shot the civilian and why/how.
I also do not know or think that the claims made by people involved are 'exagurated, twisted, false'due to factors like: Emotion, Motives, External pressure and influence. Or maybe a clouded judgement and accesment.

Yes we can see a child that's indured, No we do not have the context to confirm or deny it's from a sniper, shrapnel or other cause.
If they had "sniper shots to the brain" I seriously doubt how the children had any chance of still concious and allive, yes he is definatly hurt/killed and I hope (and believe) he was not an intended target by anyone. But there is actual footage of Hamas operators shooting at civilians so I wouldn't be surpriced if they were targeted intentionally by their own people as some sick propaganda statement about the IDF.

But let's give it a benefit of doubt or lack of context. Where are the bullets? Are there no exit wounds on any of them wich is surpricing for such a high calliber round. If not then where are the bullets. You'd think they would post the extracted 'evidence' if this was the case. That is absolutly worthy, justified and logical to do. If these children where harmed by snipers (especially if intentional) then they should be held acountable. But simply showing wounded children and claiming its snipers is not doing it for me. But it does definatly sadden me to see. Yet most of these children where happy to play "war simulators" in their school, or play soldier instead of soccer.

Other non specific reply and links
Please also read the descriptions of these videos as they do their best to give context:
Please keep in mind most of these are NSFW and incredibly Hard to watch as I like to think none of us enjoy watching or knowing people are getting hurt on either side for whatever reason. I've selected a few videos to comment on and for you to revieuw.
Yes the Funker team apears to stand on the side of Israel but they do also condemn, critisize and look into the bad side of things, they apear to try to be unbiased and are mostly looking at 'combat' footage rather than be a news outlet, they cover all sorts of military and police footage so keep that in mind.
We also live in a time where we have access to information from all over the world even in conflicts that back in history wasn't possible due to the sheer distance and lack of internet or newsoutlets. Given the nature of the interent it is important to always be a little skeptic on things.

Also this is not to say: Oh they did bad things so it's okay to do bad things. It's to show how one side can show regret and responsibility and provide context where the other just shouts things about a SNACKBAR and NAZIS. I have yet to see a single video from their perspective where they don't celebrate their kills, glorify deaths of their ennemys or show regret and compassion towards victems. So call me biased but I 'like' to see evedence that suggests otherwise. Actual evidence and proof.

I have tried to select footage that isn't too graphic but still
VIEUWER DISCRETION ADVISED ON MOST LINKS HERE

Some Warcrimes of Hamas/Hezbollah:
https://funker530.com/video/dashcam-records-hamas-assaulting-civilian-attacking-bomb-shelter
https://funker530.com/video/hezbollah-rocket-targets-children-on-playground
https://funker530.com/video/hamas-fighters-casually-hang-with-their-unrwa-homies
https://funker530.com/video/hamas-fighters-abuse-israeli-arab-and-fire-on-random-civilians
https://funker530.com/video/hamas-rigs-childrens-toys-as-ieds
https://funker530.com/video/palestine-red-crescent-society-prcs-evacs-armed-hamas-terrorist-100723
https://funker530.com/video/idf-troops-point-out-hamas-booby-traps-inside-of-unrwa-daycare
https://funker530.com/video/hamas-utilizes-residential-home-to-establish-murderhole-rocket-position
https://funker530.com/video/rpg-fired-from-entrance-to-al-quds-hospital-gaza
"It's only israel that's the bad guy"
https://funker530.com/video/egyptian-military-deploys-counter-measures-to-deter-refugees-at-border-wall

]

Transparancy and acountablility of IDF
https://funker530.com/video/part-2-reporters-bombed-in-southern-lebanon-by-iaf
https://funker530.com/video/helmet-cam-israeli-elite-counter-terrorism-unit-yamam-rescues-hostages-in-rafa
https://funker530.com/video/idf-commander-owns-misidentfication-that-lead-to-civilian-casualties
https://funker530.com/video/idf-finds-hidden-hamas-fighters-with-drone
https://funker530.com/video/oketz-fur-missile-intercepts-hamas-militant
https://funker530.com/video/179th-brigade-spots-and-destroys-hamas-militants-with-airstrike
https://funker530.com/video/hamas-shoots-at-fleeing-israeli-civilian-driver
https://funker530.com/video/israeli-engineers-utilize-drones-to-clear-structures
https://funker530.com/video/idf-delays-strike-on-terror-leader-until-child-clears

There is also an incident that went viral on social media that claimed the israelie police had shot innocent civilians in a car. That car in fact was fleeing from a scene and had 2 Hamas commanders and an operator inside WITH guns (that the police retrieved). They were also the ones that opened fire at the police who intercepted. But the clip that went viral was that of perforated bodies of "Innocent civilians" yet the full clip and 2 extra different camera angles of civilians recording show an entirely different scene, perspective and motive for the police engaging the car. I will look for it if you want to see that.. But it's not pretty and I can't find it at the moment.

Some hamas propos..
https://funker530.com/video/hamas-making-rockets-out-of-sewer-pipes
https://funker530.com/video/crowd-in-sydney-australia-chants-gas-the-jews

Lastly
I wish for this conflict to end as much as the next person, I however see no reasonable way to establish peace without some 'authoritarian' force to hold either side accountable, safe and such. However so far one side has shown more restraint and effort to be defensive rather than offensive oriented. And the casualtys in Israel would far outway that of the "Indiscriminate bombings in Gaza" if they didn't have an iron dome. Just because they are able to intercept missles doesn't mean they are not being indiscriminatly bombed.

I also highly recommend reading or revieuwing The art of war, by Sun Tzu
As it has many takes that are true to this day about the nature of warfare and how to resolve it.

~ "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare"
"Reduce the hostile chiefs by inflicting damage on them, make trouble for them, and keep them constantly engaged."
"Don't rely on the ennemy not comming but on your own readiness to receive them; not on the chance of them not attacking but rather on the fact of making your possition unasaillable". ~

Thanks for comming to my Ted talk.

And also this from the start of the conflict of 'some' of the footage that was proudly livestreamed by the instigator of this conflict just like they instigated the 6 day war and then call it a catastrophy for failing to eliminate Israel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-b5ZOEcLOM&t=1264s

** aprox 10:30-19:30 ** NSFW please don't watch if you don't want to see blood, corpses etc I also believe that an entire Israel state including the palistinians is far better for everyone than a two-state or full 'Palistine' as it's clear one side is okay to have neighbours, the other isn't

[shell laurel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_qOZCxvmNg
I couldn't find it before, but here is one video without audio. There is out there with audio but I feel like I've given enough context and time to it for now.

[thorny stone]

I think you need to look more closely at the Dahiya doctrine article, and read beyond the first line. It is not just about infrastructure, it is about treating civilian towns and villages as military bases, and therefore all of the occupants as enemy combatants.

This is confirmed by the accounts of IDF soldiers.https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/testimonies/videos

It is also merely the continuation of Plan Dalet, the earlier military plan from 1948 which explicitly involved targeting civilians.

Also, for the record, Scorched Earth is not really comparable as it is a defensive strategy, not an offensive one.

[shell laurel]

I've read the thing. But if you are going to lecture me about not doing my part how about you actually watch some of the videos in full before making comments?

[thorny stone]

The point of mentioning that article is not the AI targeting, although that in itself does make war crimes more likely by removing the human decision-making process. The point of that article was that it includes an Israeli intelligence source confirming that the Israeli military permitted large numbers of civilians to be killed. Every neutral observer seems to agree that the numbers of civilians being killed is disproportionate, hence the pending international arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. I went through the numbers in this thread just before you joined, Israel's attacks on Palestinians have consistently involved higher numbers of civilian casualties from direct attacks than comparable conflicts.

I agree, the indiscriminate bombing of places like Dresden, Coventry, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chechnya, and several other places is probably worse than each individual attack involved in the ethnic cleansing taking place in Palestine. But we don't get to dismiss war crimes simply because there have been other worse war crimes.

[thorny stone]

What videos? I'm not going to watch all of the random list of videos you posted last night, because they don't serve any purpose.

[shell laurel]

You continue to prove you lack the ability to actually look into anything that's provided to you and just make random claims made by left leaning organizations and newsoutlets or prechewed garbage from hamas propaganda.
The constistant fact you claim they are "random" without looking into them and assuming I haven't read the full article says enough. I'm done waisting my time. Keep living in a bubble dude

I've litterally posted them just now after compiling the videos for a few hours and you dare to say they are irrelevent without looking into any of them? you are a clown

All your sources say: "THEY CLAIM" but never show any actuall evidence. Bias much much wow

[thorny stone]

"The world" is currently "not tolerating" the actions of Israel. It is only the US which is protecting Israel from international consequences at present.

The IDF is transparent with the things it wants to show to the public, but it is very secretive about the things it doesn't want to show. Almost any military is the same, so we can't award the IDF with any extra credit for that.

The IDF ordering people to leave their homes so they can destroy their homes does not qualify as a good or responsible action. Particularly when there is nowhere for those civilians to go. It's literally just Israel persecuting civilians, only in a very slightly less harmful way than just killing them outright. In case you aren't aware, deliberately targeting civilian homes and infrastructure is itself a war crime. So I don't know why you mention the IDF giving warnings as though it indicates they are acting responsibly. They aren't going full-out to murder as many civilians as they can, we can all agree on that. But showing a small amount of restraint isn't enough to meet the necessary bar for acting responsibly.

[shell laurel]

You not only fail to watch videos but read my comments proper so yeah good stuff buddy

[thorny stone]

Ok, come back when you're capable of having a conversation.

I've already shown that I know more about the video links you posted than you do. You didn't even know what links you had posted. I'll watch them when you give me a reason to.

I was still in the middle of replying to your latest messages. I haven't got to the latest wall of links yet. But if you're just going to be rude all the time I don't see that it is worth my time to try and have a conversation with you.

[shell laurel]

If you don't have the desency to look into a single video and instead immidatly reply with something it shows a lack of willingness to see the context you asked for. You asked for examples and refuse to look into them. Instead just immidiatly type some response about claims I've never made or make a claim yourself about a video you didn't even watch and say you know more about the video then myself? That's ironic considering I spend more time looking for the vids and briefly rewatching them before posting a reply yet I see you instantly typing a reply without even having watched a single vid as you claimed yourself.

"The world" is currently "not tolerating" the actions of Israel. It is only the US which is protecting Israel from international consequences at present.

On what planet do you live on exactly?

Bias

[kind dagger]

I think in our modern world of propaganda it is very easy for two people to get two very different stories of the same event

[thorny stone]

I asked for evidence that any of what I had written in this thread was incorrect in any way. The list of YouTube links you posted was not that. It was an essentially random collection of videos posted with little thought on your part. Despite the fact that you didn't explain why you posted them, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and I went through them one by one until I encountered a video that seemed to be completely irrelevant. I asked you why you thought that video was relevant, and your reply indicated that you didn't even know you had included that video in the links. So at that point I stopped giving you the benefit of the doubt because it was clear the list was posted with no purpose other than to make it look like you were providing evidence of something without having to put in the required effort to actually do so.

You don't need to be rude in the way that you are being, to have this conversation. If you disagree with something, all you need to do is explain why.

If you can let me know that you are willing to try and remain civil in this conversation, then I will resume trying to respond to the points you have made. Otherwise, I will wait.

[zenith coyote]

I’m sorry but saying October 7th wasn’t an escalation is fucking insane. I can agree it wasn’t the start of anything, but it was significantly worse than some attacks and you may be able to find something that it was better then. Youre telling me that going into a music festival, killing hundreds and kidnapping more isn’t an escalation? So I guess Israel blowing up the pagers isn’t an escalation either?

[shell laurel]

Just look at your interaction with others in the first 50 or so posts. You fail to provide any evidence for claims like:

Arklar — 12-05-2024 02:45
Israel is also run by a bunch of terrorists, who believe they are entitled to do whatever they like because they're on a mission from their imaginary friend.

1

1
[02:46]
The difference is that the Israeli terrorists do worse things.

[thorny stone]

Hamas' attacks on 7th October 2023 were still of a smaller scale than Israel's previous attacks on Palestinians. Israel already had far more Palestinian hostages than Hamas took Israeli hostages in that attack, and had already killed far more civilians. The attacks on 7th October represented an increase for Hamas, but were not an escalation of a conflict that already contained worse attacks by the other side.

[thorny stone]

I provided evidence later in the discussion, when asked.

[shell laurel]

Both are escalations. But the pagers where something they had already set up in case they'd ever need it. It apeared that their attempt to target a few specific ones was compromised so they had to blow them all up or loose their asset.

It is astonishing they have such high surviallance, espionage and general intell to acomplish such a feat. But I don't necesarrily think it's israels fault for escalating.

On oct 8 Hesbollah attacked and made their claims public. They will not stop untill israel stops the gaza war, for whatever vallue that holds.

Hesbollah has continuelesly phyisically and verbally attacked, Israel has repeatedly stated "Hesbollah must back off or we will be forced to PUSH them off" And now that they finally did after many months the world is shocked?

Yes there is dispute by israel occupying the golan hights and the river. But so did hesbollah as well.

[shell laurel]

and you can't be bothered to link it?

[zenith coyote]

Oh yeah I think the pager incident is one of the most impressive attacks ever

[zenith coyote]

In a single time?

Show me an incident where Palestinians were having a peaceful gathering or festival and Israel came in on the ground murdered them, raped them, and kidnapped them

And then video taped it. And show me where the whole state of Israel cheered

Because I can show you when the Palestinians did that

Wait that wasn’t my point

That’s a clear escalation

[shell laurel]

Or the clip of a guy praising ALLAH when they fired rockets at israel and cried when some came flying back and he was crying inside the hospitle

[zenith coyote]

If you increase your attack In the war you are in that’s an escalation. This just isn’t up for debate

[shell laurel]

Oh yeah it's rellevent because if you actually read what I said I said:

"The jews where able to forgive what the Germans did 80 years ago, why can't the arabs?"

Not all germans where nazis or involved, yet the country and people are forgiven.
England messed up the partition plan, but the jews where happy to get any land (and actually BOUGHT a lot from the arabs in the first place..)

The arabs didn't want to give an inch unless they could sell it and steal it back by a war they started when Israel claimed it's state.

[zenith coyote]

The question you should be asking yourself, what did Hamas expect Israel to do?

[thorny stone]

Would you like me to link it? You can't be bothered to read the rest of the conversation you're quoting and are only interested in cherry picking parts to criticise out of context?
OK, here you go:
#1238854947756310620 message
#1238854947756310620 message

[zenith coyote]

Exactly what happened, they got what they wanted. They got the worlds eyes on them and they got their infrastructure destroyed because that’s what happens when you integrate terrosim and state affairs. Was it worth the escalation?

[shell laurel]

I mean I can't just dump the whole text wall thats already there. Unlike you I actually read through everything said before replying instantly. (Except for this comment) That link took long enough. I'm still waiting on other replys

[thorny stone]

Are you aware that the only reason Hezbollah exists in the first place is because Israel attacked Lebanon in order to try and kill more Palestinians who had fled there? The Israel-Hezbollah conflict was started by Israel, just like all the other current conflicts Israel has with other nations and organisations.

[thorny stone]

As I've already said, I'm not going to make any other replies to your previous comments until you indicate that you are willing to take part in this conversation without being rude. I'm still waiting for that.

[shell laurel]

You talk about actually reading the wikepedia article before trying to use them yet fail to provide one of your own and instead just type a response within 4 minutes.. So if anyone didn't read it it's you because you take about 4 minutes to write out your instant comments..

There is the typing again, predictable but not surpricing. I'm still waiting on a single piece of evidence to your claims. Actual evidence. All you've linked are some vague claims thus far and showed your own lack of care or respect in you prior interactions as mentioned in the start of this forum.

Not only that but an unwillingness and 'superiority complex' of knowing what an wikipedia article or video is about without actually spending the full time to digest it

[thorny stone]

Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
Thousands of innocent Palestinians were killed by Plan Dalet, and the attacks included rape and biological warfare. This was terrorist action authorised by the leaders of Israel.

[thorny stone]

Let me know when you can have a rational conversation. Take your time.

[shell laurel]

Let me know when you've actually done your part

[thorny stone]

I'm all good, just waiting for you.

[shell laurel]

I'm told to treat people how they want to be treated according to how they treat others. I'm just mirroring your behaviour

[thorny stone]

There's no problem, take your time. I'm in no rush.

[shell laurel]

I sence narcesism