Angry Israel/Palestine Ranting Thread.

For once in your life, could you strive for a more nuanced worldview? Just like, step into someone else's shoes for like, two fucking seconds?

One side has the stated goal of eliminating the other from the face of the earth, one does not. I know which side that I would support.

Your argument would be helped if that one man didn't actively call for genocide.

I'm not taking a side, (Netanyahu is obviously an awful human being and about the worst leader Israel could have in this situation) just noting that the Palestinians could help themselves out by moderating both their language and actions.

You really have to ask? the whole key to brett's world-view is a complete monovalent absence of empathy for anyone beyond himself and his experiences. If he had any sympathy for anyone he would have stopped posting and inflicting his inane bullshit on the world years ago.

The other side may not have it as a stated goal, but they sure act like it.

Greg4tw.

Again, it probably behooves the one side to stop stating that goal as they cannot accomplish it and stating it loses them the sympathy they would otherwise be entitled too.

Just sayin.

Really? I didn't know Israel used suicide bombers and all that to try and wipe out as many people as possible from the other side. Israel at least tries much of the time to not deliberately kill as many civilians as possible. Hamas wants as many Israelis as possible dead. It is a major difference between the two sides.

Okay, you say here that "Israel at least tries much of the time to not deliberately kill as many civilians as possible". I'll come back to that. Admittedly yes, no one can disagree that agents of Palestine/HAMAS/PLO have engaged in undeniable acts of terrorism against a civilian populace. As Lum and others have pointed out, their motives are understandable as the desperate acts of an oppressed group, but that by no means legitimizes or condones them. I seriously doubt even the strongest pro-Palestine advocates here would try and claim that civilian lives lost to terrorism are acceptable losses. No one is standing on that side of the fence.

By saying "at least Israel's trying to reduce civilian collateral damage" (paraphrasing), it sounds like an apologist phrase. The IDF is a professional military - they have an obligation to do better than just trying. Israel, as a rule of thumb, tends towards a policy of disproportionate retribution in order to deter its opponents. Understandable, given their history. Overreacting? It's kind of their hobby and not at all something to be lauded in an allegedly professional military.

There are a lot of rational, moderate Israelis who don't support the disproportionate retribution practiced on a regular basis by the IDF, or the racist/apartheid actions of their government - but those people aren't the ones in power. The radicals are.

There are a lot of rational, moderate Palestinians who don't support terrorism or HAMAS' goals of the eradication of the Israeli state. But those people aren't the ones in power, the radicals are.

As moronic and inane as brett is, that fact is probably irrelevant to United States internal domestic policy (which is where true pressure on Israel comes from) and with the Israeli public as long as Hamas maintains an over-the-top belligerent stance.

That's right, the level of discourse for the most important players is reduced to brett-level stupidity by the violence and threats of violence on both sides.

But Lum, Israel doesn't use suicide bombers! Don't you understand that suicide bombers are what makes one side worse than the other side?

Yes when one side uses suicide bombers to blow up buses full of innocent civilians they lose all sympathy from me. I don't find such tactics understandable in any way.

Serious question: why? Why is a suicide bomber a more morally reprehensible way of killing civilians than a military action?

I don't know if I'm spitting into the wind here, but yes, yes it does. It is idiotic, and counter-productive, and provides political and moral cover for the worst of Isreal's actions.

Because one deliberately targets civilians. Hamas makes sure that they launch their rocket attacks and have their camps in civilian areas using the civilians as basically human shields. Hamas wants civilian casualties when Israel tries to stop them from attacking. They hope it will give them some type of moral high ground.

If the Germans continued to launch rocket attacks over the border ever since WWII and attacked a couple of more times, you can be damn sure France would respond appropriately.

Well, maybe not France...but anyone else would.

Which is about as logical, rational and reasonable as your (summarized) position of buttfuck the Israelis.

Yeah, the aims of the Hamas Palestinian leadership are much more liberal. http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

That just sounds totally like someone who wants to negotiate in good faith! Feel free to take the side of the group whose spoken aim is genocide, but don't think you're standing on any moral high ground. You might want to take a long look at your glass house before throwing stones.

So what you're saying is that when Hamas uses suicide bombers they're targeting civilians, but when Israel bombs civilian neighborhoods... that's also Hamas targeting civilians?

Now see, you and I can agree. And it's shit like this which is what makes me say fuck 'em all.

This is a pretty good analogy because Germany, like Palestine, is famous for having been taken over and occupied by a foreign population seeking to establish an ethnically pure state who then systematically abused them, stripped them of rights, and established a formal tier of second-class citizenship for them.

When they use the civilians as human shields deliberately they share the blame if civilians get injured. Israel just cant let them attack with no response, no country would or should accept that.

Oh, I agree that they should respond. I just think that bombing the shit out of the area where the attackers might live and murdering countless civilians is an objectively stupid, hateful, and counterproductive response.

Yeah, that worked out so well in Gaza in 2006.

Suicide bombers are used when traditional weaponry will not work and you lack alternatives to deliver a payload, same concept behind Russian anti tank dogs in WW2. The IDF does not employ them because they have FAR better explosives delivery options available.

But from later in the thread I see we talk about Human Shields. Hamas hides in civilian areas to avoid retaliation. The IDF has actually used Human Shields, as in "held people in front of them to prevent gunfire" and "put children on their tanks to prevent anti tank fire"

Thankfully they've also been demoted (yeah, demoted, not "jailed because what the SHIT") because that's shit behavior. But let's not pretend war crimes are a one sided thing in this whole affair.

Palestine sharing the blame does not absolve Israel of blame. If the choice is "kill one terrorist and one civilian" or "kill nobody" - a civilized society chooses the latter, regardless of provocation.

Fast approaching brettian levels of stupidity I see.

How do they respond then if the rocket attacks and Hamas camps and safe houses are deliberately set up in civilian areas?

In Gaza the IDF repeatedly chooses "kill one terrorist and five civilians", when it's not choosing "shell that apartment building over there". "Kill nobody" is not on the table.

Maybe then they shoudn't be lobbing rockets and mortar shells at another country. Just maybe ya know.

Did the Israeli pullout of Gaza result in increased terror attacks and wholesale slaughter within Gaza by Hamas? Or are you that fucking ignorant?

Actually, you are that fucking ignorant.

Moral relativism aside, the facts are clear and stark - Israel is headed for the Abyss if it continues to follow current policies. It’s only sustainable now because they have the American trump card to play in every situation, but (with respect to our American friends), the US is a fading power. It’s not going to happen overnight, but the day will come when they can’t or won’t be able to provide the kind of massive support they do today. That will leave Israel as an isolated nation surrounded by hostile neighbours, struggling to maintain itself as a secular democracy as their own religious extremists gain in strength. That can only end badly.

Instead of relying on American money and firepower, they should learn from their mistakes. Look at Vietnam….all their military force was nullified by the simple fact that South Vietnam was never a viable state. The same thing is true of Afghanistan today. The Palestinian territories don’t even have a theoretical country, just a hopelessly corrupt and ineffective “government”. It’s like it was custom built to breed violence and terrorism.

This is what I would do:

1. Pull out of the West Bank completely, aside from the largest “facts on the ground” settlements along the border. All settlers have to be removed, by force if necessary.
2. Allow some kind of Palestinian presence in East Jerusalem, even if it’s mostly symbolic.
3. Dismantle the checkpoints and artificial divisions that riddle the territories today.
4. Recognize a true Palestinian state.
5. Invest in Palestinian infrastructure along with international help in order to create a functioning economy and political structure. This could be considered reparations, even though Israel would never accept that term.
6. Building from that point, sign peace treaties with neighbouring countries, hopefully including a post-Assad Syria and a Lebanon where Hezbollah is no longer the dominant player.

In return, the Palestinians would have to recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence in principle, abandon the right of return (which is a non-starter) and accept that Israel is going to retain overall control of Jerusalem. The Israelis would also have to accept that renouncing violence on a national level won’t keep individual Palestinians from continuing their own personal wars. Only time will end that.

This is too often the case. "Kill nobody" should be on the table, it should be the goal they're working for because that is the only acceptable end goal of a civilized society.