Death tolls mysteriously rise in Gaza

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6
 

CM156:
So in other words, a sovereign nation without many of the rights that come with sovereignty.

There is no chance they could maintain a standing army and Israel will need complete control over the airspace. Japan were forbidden from having a standing army post-WW2 and Germany had tons of compromises to make too. That is the price of peace and a state of their own. The IRA had to disarm for a peace deal to work in NI, the Palestinians have to disarm, that is utterly non-negotiable and the first step in making peace.

CM156:
The moment they set foot on Israeli soil.

Okay, so what you're arguing about is the location of the line? You're not saying Israel are doing anything wrong defending their border, just that you define the border as being in a different place? If someone is battering down your front door intent on killing your family, do you call the police before or after the door breaks down?

I'm willing to bet that if Israel waited until they breached the border, you'd say "But they weren't near a civilian" and if they were near a civilian "But they didn't even hurt anyone" or some other excuses. If all you're arguing is that you think the line Israel uses is a few meters in the wrong place, then I don't think I can argue it at that point. It's criticising for the sake of criticising. The border is under attack, either Israel can defend itself or not and they have made abundantly clear where they draw the line. Anyone still approaching the border does so knowing the consequences.

US/Mexico isn't an ideal example because those two nations are not at war and Mexicans haven't sworn to tear the hearts out of American chests and to wipe it from the map.

CM156:
All of this dodges the issue that it's a violation of international law to move settlers into an area you militarily occupy.

It does not dodge the issue, I said it is not the reason for the conflict. Arabs have been murdering Jews for decades before settlements existed, so whatever your opinion on the settlements is moot. The Arab-Israeli conflict goes back a long way to before there were even Palestinians; Arabs were trying to genocide the Jews in 1948, again in 1967 and have been murdering them since. Further, Gaza is not rioting because of settlements, there are NO SETTLERS IN GAZA.

Does Israel deserve to be destroyed because some people built houses there? Do they deserve to be murdered? Are Jews forbidden from living in the West Bank (and if so, should muslims be expelled out of their homes in Israel as part of a future treaty)? It's a topic for a negotiating table and peace treaty and irrelevant to the conflict. The International Community can condemn it all they like, but it isn't the issue. The issue is that Gaza is ruled by a radical islamic terrorist organisation who believe in jihad, the death of all Jews and the destruction of Israel. The issue is that Mahmmoud Abbas is a useless president who has done nothing to help his people in his entire time in office and has no interest in peace either. The issue is that you condemn the only liberal democracy in the mid-east for defending itself against islamic jihad, but have a double standard and will likely condemn ISIS, Al-Shabaab or Boko Haram, but let Hamas and Hezbollah off the hook. Double. Standard.

KingsGambit:
No, not murdering, killing in war. A war the Arabs started to genocide the Jews.

Was this massacre just warfare? There are well attested incidents of Jews murdering and forcibly evicting Arabs in the 1947-8 war. Terrorist violence between Jews and Arabs was assuredly mutual pre-war going back to the 1920s as well.

No, not murdering, killing in war.

And when, precisely, were the Jews at war on the UK? Do you think this bombing was just warfare?

If you think this sort of thing is legitimate warfare, then you've no grounds to complain about pretty much any anti-Israeli Palestinian violence. That's what moral equivalence is.

That said, as far as I can see, your morality is evidently just "Jews good, Arabs bad". A propagandist's vision of the world, all sympathy and exculpation for the former, and all disgust and damnation for the latter.

To this end, you keep conflating Hamas / Palestinians or Gaza / Palestine in misleading ways. You haven't even distinguished the Palestinians from any other Arabs where appropriate[1]. You cannot usefully examine complex matters with such imprecision... but then, as above, I suspect that is the intent.

[1]

The Palestinians face hardship because they refuse to make peace. They tried to genocide the Jews in 67, lost and these are the consequences of that and every other war they've started with Israel.

KingsGambit:
There is no chance they could maintain a standing army and Israel will need complete control over the airspace. Japan were forbidden from having a standing army post-WW2 and Germany had tons of compromises to make too. That is the price of peace and a state of their own. The IRA had to disarm for a peace deal to work in NI, the Palestinians have to disarm, that is utterly non-negotiable and the first step in making peace.

See, the thing is, your side has listed a long series of non-negotiable demands, perhaps not realizing that no Palestinian leader can accept these. As in, any who did would be thrown out of office alive or dead and the Palestinian people would not accept the deal. Germany and Japan were conquered nations ruled by a military government in an era where that was an acceptable thing to do to the losers of a war. Times change and we don't really allow indefinite occupation of land that the international community has said should belong to a future Palestinian state.

I also noted that you didn't respond to my point about Israel's secret nuclear weapon program. Are you afraid they'll do to you what they did to Mordechai Vanunu? If you say the phrase "Israel has nuclear weapons" three times into the mirror then Bibi will pop out and strangle you?

Okay, so what you're arguing about is the location of the line? You're not saying Israel are doing anything wrong defending their border, just that you define the border as being in a different place? If someone is battering down your front door intent on killing your family, do you call the police before or after the door breaks down?

If someone is battering down my door I cannot shoot through my door to kill them. I could sit on the couch and wait for a clear shot and put them down and not break any laws, but I cannot, as a matter of law, shoot through the door

I'm willing to bet that if Israel waited until they breached the border, you'd say "But they weren't near a civilian" and if they were near a civilian "But they didn't even hurt anyone" or some other excuses. If all you're arguing is that you think the line Israel uses is a few meters in the wrong place, then I don't think I can argue it at that point. It's criticising for the sake of criticising. The border is under attack, either Israel can defend itself or not and they have made abundantly clear where they draw the line. Anyone still approaching the border does so knowing the consequences.

Other people might criticism you. I wouldn't. I can't speak for them, but the moment armed people cross your border, you have my blessing to introduce them to the finer points of projectile science.

US/Mexico isn't an ideal example because those two nations are not at war and Mexicans haven't sworn to tear the hearts out of American chests and to wipe it from the map.

This is the Motte and bailey of the Israel issue. "We should be supported because we are the only western democracy in the middle east"
"Alright then, but as a western democracy, there are certain standards that you must be held to, and you're not allowed to use arguments about the wickedness of Hamas to justify your illegal acts"
"Yes but since we are in a unique situation, the traditional rules for western democracies cannot be applied here"

And around and around it goes.

It does not dodge the issue, I said it is not the reason for the conflict. Arabs have been murdering Jews for decades before settlements existed, so whatever your opinion on the settlements is moot. The Arab-Israeli conflict goes back a long way to before there were even Palestinians; Arabs were trying to genocide the Jews in 1948, again in 1967 and have been murdering them since. Further, Gaza is not rioting because of settlements, there are NO SETTLERS IN GAZA.

There's no settlers in Gaza, true. There *were* at one point but Israel did the correct thing and made them leave. I remember watching that on the news. Should have gone whole hog (or whole Gefilte fish for my Kosher/Halal readers) and pulled them out of the West Bank too. But it's not just settlements (which again, are a violation of international law, no matter how much Israel pinky swears there will totally be a land swap). It's also the blockade on Gaza. Your average person on the ground doesn't care *why* the blockade is in place, just that it is and this has negatively effected them and their family.

Does Israel deserve to be destroyed because some people built houses there? Do they deserve to be murdered?

No and no.

Are Jews forbidden from living in the West Bank (and if so, should muslims be expelled out of their homes in Israel as part of a future treaty)? It's a topic for a negotiating table and peace treaty and irrelevant to the conflict.

Depends: When did those Jews move there?

The issue is that Gaza is ruled by a radical islamic terrorist organisation who believe in jihad, the death of all Jews and the destruction of Israel. The issue is that Mahmmoud Abbas is a useless president who has done nothing to help his people in his entire time in office and has no interest in peace either.

You'll get no argument from me that Abbas is less than useless.

The issue is that you condemn the only liberal democracy in the mid-east for defending itself against islamic jihad, but have a double standard and will likely condemn ISIS, Al-Shabaab or Boko Haram, but let Hamas and Hezbollah off the hook. Double. Standard.

If you are a western liberal democracy, you're held to higher standards than non-WLDs. If you want the lower standards, stop being and presenting yourself as a WLD. If you want to remain a WLD, you have to understand that criticism of your policy whatever you choose comes along with that.

Also, you've made a lot of assumptions about what my opinions are regarding Hamas and Hezbollah. I'd appreciate if you don't do that in the future.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here