Israelis and Palestinians can’t go on like this. Weep for us.

[Revoltingest]

I personally don't need to judge blame or even just to blame anyone in the world. I just used discovering, as a neutral independent observer, the well-hidden truths in any important story made for adults and approved by certain Big Heads. And I do it just for myself, so that I don't see on the mirror a naive confused person.

I guess if you are sure of what you know, you have nothing to worry about anytime you hear something not real to you.
But, truth be told, I also met some persons who see themselves the guardians of whom they believe they are not as intelligent as they are. For example, I won'r be surprised if I met someone in RF who is playing the intellectual guardian by protecting some RF members who, he thinks, are not intelligent enough to know what is real/true or not when they read other's posts.

This isn't convincing me of some nefarious
hidden plot to incite conflict for gain. The
fact that something can happen doesn't mean
that it did happen. First, one must show that
there was gain at all.

 

[Lyndon]

A much more rational commentary on the situation;

Israel's big lie: This isn't self defense — it's a war crime, aided and abetted by the U.S.

 

[KerimF]

This isn't convincing me of some nefarious
hidden plot to incite conflict for gain.

Since no one convinced me about anything I know, I, in my turn, don't try to convince anyone about anything.
So I guess you have your good reasons to see what I say as being referred to hidden plots. while I see them just natural facts; much like I see the sun shinning in daylight and the full moon at night.

For instance, you remind me a friend who cannot agree with you and I. He sees anything that he considers as evil just an illusion (not real).

By the way, do you have an idea how it was possible convincing millions of Jews to move from all around the world and be gathered in Middle East? For this, we have to start from after WW1 in the least. But this is somehow off topic here.
A hint: Did you ever watch an American movie, made between WW1 and WW2, in which we see door signs of some entries on which it was written 'No entry for dogs and Jews'?!
This worldwide anti-Jew propaganda was ended soon after WW2. But, another propaganda had to be launched; also from America (for the entire world) presenting the Jews who were exported to Palestine as a miserable people (hence, no more signs about dogs and Jews) who beg the world to save them (not from the Europeans who burned many of them but from Arabs, Christians and Muslims, with whom millions of Jewish Arabs were living in peace). Now, the third propaganda presents Jews as being the Masters of the world; including USA! Actually all three propaganda are non-sense, to me in the least, but I can't deny that they all serve one goal (for those who were behind them) which is to create instability in Middle East and North Africa for a few. Why? This leads us to many economical and political studies on how to control and get the natural resources in this part of the world. So as long these resources exist for certain beneficiaries (besides the manufactures of various weapons, warplanes and missiles), billions of dollars have to be invested yearly to let the exported Jews and their new generations be strong enough to create and maintain instability around them almost continuously (actually when they are instructed to). In other words, the side that planned and allowed the existence of the today's Israel (via its three consecutive propaganda) prevents Jews in Israel to live in peace with their neighbors (till perhaps their mission in maintaining the regional instability is no more needed). So, I personally wish the people in both sides be safe but, unfortunately, they have no choice other than to play their given role in Middle East as it was planned, supported and funded since about a century ago.

I guess you know now why I said that no side will be allowed to win fully; otherwise there will be peace which is not supposed to happen for a few decades to come, at best.

 

[Revoltingest]

Since no one convinced me about anything I know, I, in my turn, don't try to convince anyone about anything.
So I guess you have your good reasons to see what I say as being referred to hidden plots. while I see them just natural facts; much like I see the sun shinning in daylight and the full moon at night.

For instance, you remind me a friend who cannot agree with you and I. He sees anything that he considers as evil just an illusion (not real).

I prefer that facts have a basis in something more than being "natural".
Some things are illusions, eg, religion.
Others aren't, eg, violence in Israel.

By the way, do you have an idea how it was possible convincing millions of Jews to move from all around the world and be gathered in Middle East? For this, we have to start from after WW1 in the least. But this is somehow off topic here.
A hint: Did you ever watch an American movie, made between WW1 and WW2, in which we see door signs of some entries on which it was written 'No entry for dogs and Jews'?!
This worldwide anti-Jew propaganda was ended soon after WW2. But, another propaganda had to be launched; also from America (for the entire world) presenting the Jews who were exported to Palestine as a miserable people (hence, no more signs about dogs and Jews) who beg the world to save them (not from the Europeans who burned many of them but from Arabs, Christians and Muslims, with whom millions of Jewish Arabs were living in peace). Now, the third propaganda presents Jews as being the Masters of the world; including USA! Actually all three propaganda are non-sense, to me in the least, but I can't deny that they all serve one goal (for those who were behind them) which is to create instability in Middle East and North Africa for a few. Why? This leads us to many economical and political studies on how to control and get the natural resources in this part of the world. So as long these resources exist for certain beneficiaries (besides the manufactures of various weapons, warplanes and missiles), billions of dollars have to be invested yearly to let the exported Jews and their new generations be strong enough to create and maintain instability around them almost continuously (actually when they are instructed to). In other words, the side that planned and allowed the existence of the today's Israel (via its three consecutive propaganda) prevents Jews in Israel to live in peace with their neighbors (till perhaps their mission in maintaining the regional instability is no more needed). So, I personally wish the people in both sides be safe but, unfortunately, they have no choice other than to play their given role in Middle East as it was planned, supported and funded since about a century ago.

I guess you know now why I said that no side will be allowed to win fully; otherwise there will be peace which is not supposed to happen for a few decades to come, at best.

I disagree that some force won't "allow" anyone to win.
This claimed force is unidentified, & has no apparent motive.

 

[Harel13]

I don't ignore it. It is a tactic.
But it appears that Israel uses it as an excuse to inflict
"collateral damage" without regard for innocents.

So according to you, whenever human shields are used, it is preferable to allow your people to die? Okay. At least I know where you stand on the subject.

Don't make this about caring about citizens or not.

I will. Because that's what it is. I'm sad to see that in a situation in which a large group of your fellow countrymen are in grave danger and the info to save them is with a POW, you'd prefer the POW remain unharmed while your fellows die, rather than the other way around. But again, at least I know where you stand on this.

Israel's main problem here is in attacking innocents.

How do you suggest handling Hamas? Should we all just leave Israel and move to Uganda?

I don't see the significance of your distinction.
The things I criticize are wrong, regardless of citizenship.

So far you've blamed Israel for seemingly mis-treating its Arab citizens, when in fact, most of things you were talking about were about things that Israel does to its non-citizen enemies, in order to protect its own people. If you believe Israel is sadistic and evil for wanting to protect its own, then I really don't know what to tell you.

It was just on the BBC today that Israel has ceased giving
warnings before bombing tunnels where non-Jews took
refuge, thereby killing many innocents.
Am I delusional for believing this news coverage? Nah.

No, not delusional.

This is not license to kill them recklessly & impunity.

Again, Hamas uses civilians as human shields. There is absolutely no other way to defeat Hamas, other than my previous suggestion, which is that we all pick ourselves up and move to Uganda. I'm sure there are quite a few people here on RF and around the world who'd be pleased with that situation.

Of course Israel can defend itself.

Oh, thank you.

But I favor doing that with more concern for innocents,
& avoiding behaving in a manner so egregious that it
inspires more conflict.

So you choose to ignore what Israel did to warn civilians in Gaza in 2014. You prefer to focus on what's happening now, where it was deemed that there would be no other way to take out the men of Hamas.

Note also that Israel discriminates against non-Jews
in granting citizenship.

We talked about this already. If you continue to push this, that means you deny Israel's right to exist, because the only reason the country was created was so that there'd be a safe place for Jews. Not a safe place for Eritreans, not a safe place for Arabs, not a safe place for Sudanese, not a safe place for Thais. Just a small country that'll be for Jews.

They're doing a poor job of defending themselves
given the result of continuing hostility.

You're right. To this day, many Israelis are angry that Operation Protective Edge in 2014 didn't last longer. Many Israelis are angry that the government pulled out of Gaza in 2005, which led to the rise to power of Hamas.

It never should've
been created out of land taken from others

It was actually originally created from land bought by Jews fairly and squarely prior to 1948. Any Arabs within that area never had any prior self-autonomous sovereignty. The land changed hands dozens of times over the millennia (oddly enough, there were multiple Jewish states in the area prior to 1948). The Arabs in the area were given two choices by the UN: Join the Jewish State or move over to the Arab State. They turned down both offers. To suggest otherwise is pure delusion.

 

[Kooky]

I was referring to Israelis in general. It seems people tend to portray this situation in Israel as a result of religious fanaticism (on Israel's part) or just hatred of Arabs/ Palestinians, while it's really a matter of survival and national security.

Don't you think a Palestinian could say the exact same thing?

 

[Kooky]

Again, Hamas uses civilians as human shields. There is absolutely no other way to defeat Hamas, other than my previous suggestion, which is that we all pick ourselves up and move to Uganda. I'm sure there are quite a few people here on RF and around the world who'd be pleased with that situation.

Since you consider Israel to be at war with all of Palestina, the IDF can be considered a valid military target, correct?
Would you say that the IDF uses "human shields" when they live their lives around regular civilians?

 

[Harel13]

Since you consider Israel to be at war with all of Palestina

I don't, seeing as "Palestina" doesn't exist.

Would you say that the IDF uses "human shields" when they live their lives around regular civilians?

I don't. When the enemy charges, they don't grab civilians and hide behind them, as you'll find Hamas does.

 

[Kooky]

I don't, seeing as "Palestina" doesn't exist.

I don't. When the enemy charges, they don't grab civilians and hide behind them, as you'll find Hamas does.

So if civilian deaths in Gaza shouldn't hold back the IDF, why should civilian deaths in Tel Aviv hold back Hamas' forces?
If murdering civilians is fair game in war, then that goes for both sides of the war, doesn't it?

 

[Harel13]

So if civilian deaths in Gaza shouldn't hold back the IDF

I didn't say they shouldn't hold back the IDF. I said that if there's a choice between protecting our people and protecting the Gazans, we should choose to protect our people. Mind you, in 2014 there was at least one case in which the then-Chief of Staff Benny Gantz (current Minister of Defense) endangered IDF soldiers in order to protect Gazan civilians, so obviously not everyone agrees with me on this.

why should civilian deaths in Tel Aviv hold back Hamas' forces?

Obviously they don't, seeing as they're blasting rockets at civilian areas practically as we speak.

If murdering civilians is fair game in war, then that goes for both sides of the war, doesn't it?

I never said it's fair game. However, to me the choice is clear when one must decide between the deaths of one's own people and the deaths of the people on the enemy side, innocent though they may be (and - I'm deeply saddened to say this - I'm not sure how innocent all of them are, given that they voted Hamas into power in 2006).

 

[KerimF]

I prefer that facts have a basis in something more than being "natural".
Some things are illusions, eg, religion.
Others aren't, eg, violence in Israel.

I disagree that some force won't "allow" anyone to win.
This claimed force is unidentified, & has no apparent motive.

In fact, what I called natural facts should be seen by most people around the world, mainly in the so-called Free World, as being just naive illusions or, at best, mere coincidences.

It seems that after reading all I said, you ended up having not a slight idea about the side that has real interest to let Middle East in flame for as long as possible. You give me the impression that you live in a beautiful modern castle and you watch the happenings in the world via wide video screens and hi-fi speakers. So as long any truth is not revealed on your screens, this truth has to be a mere illusion Even I, if I were in your place, my reaction would be like yours exactly. Anyway, if we both will be alive for a while, we will have the chance to witness together the outcome of this bloody conflict.

By the way, only when two or three friends meet together face to face (not on the internet or in a public place) they can share whatever they may know, based on their personal observations and analyses, about certain events that interest them. Otherwise, revealing certain facts or natural truths which the common people are not supposed to hear will likely end up as it was said "Don't cast your pearls before swine, because they will trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you". So every time I forgot this fact while talking with strangers, I deserved living this natural reaction

 

[Kooky]

I didn't say they shouldn't hold back the IDF. I said that if there's a choice between protecting our people and protecting the Gazans, we should choose to protect our people. Mind you, in 2014 there was at least one case in which the then-Chief of Staff Benny Gantz (current Minister of Defense) endangered IDF soldiers in order to protect Gazan civilians, so obviously not everyone agrees with me on this.

Obviously they don't, seeing as they're blasting rockets at civilian areas practically as we speak.

I never said it's fair game. However, to me the choice is clear when one must decide between the deaths of one's own people and the deaths of the people on the enemy side, innocent though they may be (and - I'm deeply saddened to say this - I'm not sure how innocent all of them are, given that they voted Hamas into power in 2006).

If you take this belief to its logical conclusion, then you should have no problem with the other side putting forth the same argument in support of their attacks on civilians. After all, they, too, would have to decide between the deaths of their own people, and the deaths of people on their enemy's - your - side.

If winning is the only moral measure in war, then both sides are equally moral until one of them has won - by whatever measure we deem the "winner" of a war that pits civilian victim against civilian victim, anyway.

 

[Harel13]

If you take this belief to its logical conclusion, then you should have no problem with the other side putting forth the same argument in support of their attacks on civilians. After all, they, too, would have to decide between the deaths of their own people, and the deaths of people on their enemy's - your - side.

If winning is the only moral measure in war, then both sides are equally moral until one of them has won - by whatever measure we deem the "winner" of a war that pits civilian victim against civilian victim, anyway.

But you've now completely moved the goalposts from what do when human shields are used to whether firing first at civilians as a way to start a war is okay. Please decide what the subject here is.

 

[Kooky]

But you've now completely moved the goalposts from what do when human shields are used to whether firing first at civilians as a way to start a war is okay. Please decide what the subject here is.

Not really, we've already established that it is morally okay to fire at civilians after all, the only thing that counts is "winning".

 

[Harel13]

Not really, we've already established that it is morally okay to fire at civilians after all, the only thing that counts is "winning".

Who's "we"? Seriously, stop claiming things I haven't said.

 

[Kooky]

Who's "we"? Seriously, stop claiming things I haven't said.

"If there's a choice between protecting our people and protecting the Gazans, we should choose to protect our people."

In the pursuit of war, it is therefore fundamentally justified to endager the civilians of the enemy side, so long as one's own military objectives are being accomplished (the multitude of military-political goals compressed into the abstract shorthand of "protecting our people"). It is acceptable to sacrifice civilians for a greater military goal, so long as killing civilians is not the sole objective.

That's the military principle you were espousing earlier in a nutshell, is it not?

If we accept this premise, then, since Hamas are pursueing a military-political goal with their military strikes, they are justified in sacrificing Israeli citizens to the same degree that the IDF is justified in sacrificing the civilian population of Gaza for the sake of its own military-political goals.

 

[Revoltingest]

So according to you, whenever human shields are used, it is preferable to allow your people to die? Okay. At least I know where you stand on the subject.

I'm taking a break from this because
it's become much unproductive work
dealing with mischaracterizations.

 

[Revoltingest]

In fact, what I called natural facts should be seen by most people around the world, mainly in the so-called Free World, as being just naive illusions or, at best, mere coincidences.

It seems that after reading all I said, you ended up having not a slight idea about the side that has real interest to let Middle East in flame for as long as possible. You give me the impression that you live in a beautiful modern castle and you watch the happenings in the world via wide video screens and hi-fi speakers. So as long any truth is not revealed on your screens, this truth has to be a mere illusion Even I, if I were in your place, my reaction would be like yours exactly. Anyway, if we both will be alive for a while, we will have the chance to witness together the outcome of this bloody conflict.

By the way, only when two or three friends meet together face to face (not on the internet or in a public place) they can share whatever they may know, based on their personal observations and analyses, about certain events that interest them. Otherwise, revealing certain facts or natural truths which the common people are not supposed to hear will likely end up as it was said "Don't cast your pearls before swine, because they will trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you". So every time I forgot this fact while talking with strangers, I deserved living this natural reaction

I'm lost on your meanings, but I'll say....
My shack is indeed on verdant grounds.

 

[Harel13]

"If there's a choice between protecting our people and protecting the Gazans, we should choose to protect our people."

"If there's a choice between protecting our people and protecting the Gazans, we should choose to protect our people." =/= we've already established that it is morally okay to fire at civilians after all, the only thing that counts is "winning".

You insinuate that I believe that Israel should fire at civilians willy-nilly. I do not. The now-ceased debate between @Revoltingest and I was what must be done when one has to make a choice between protecting one's own people and own's enemies. I have clearly not understood his position, but so far it seemed to me that according to him, one may never fire upon civilians. However, in my view, and this is also the view currently held by the government of Israel, were we to never fire upon areas with civilians, we would never be able to stop Hamas, being that they shrewdly and despicably always surround themselves with civilians. Being that that is the case, it is preferable to protects Israelis rather than Gazans. If we are able to minimize their deaths - that's wonderful, and you can bet the media will never talk about that. If we can't - well, believe me, it saddens me greatly, but nonetheless I prefer that my people live rather than Hamas.

 

[Harel13]

I'm taking a break from this because
it's become much unproductive work
dealing with mischaracterizations.

I'm sorry I misunderstood your argument. But I don't mind quitting the debate. I respect your ability to back out of such things.