By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Israeli-Palestinian Crisis in mainstream media is getting exposure as ethnic cleansing

KratosLives said:

What annoys me most is the agression and lack of care from the idf/israeli government when it comes to civilians. Biden and others keep saying israel has a right to defend themselves, yeah no shit mr obvious. It's the response and retaliation. When you look at the probablity of an israeli getting killed being so low, with the iron dome covering over 90% of strikes, the housing having protective structural walls and better preparation for attack, and then look at the Palestinians and the amount of civilian deaths,

They can't come up with a better strategy of getting soldiers there to take out hamas amd limit casual rates? I bet if there were israeli civilians in those buildings, they would take the utmost care and strategy in full force to make sure no one dies., probaby send in their special forces units to get them out, But hey it's just a Palestinian woman or child, so just use brute force, sorry and move on.

Such a shame how one can devalue life and the importance, simply because they are a few miles away under a different label and citizenship .

These sorts of ignorant posts really grind my gears.  No army in the history of the world has taken more care to limit civilian casualties on the other side than Israel.  The death toll in Gaza is currently said to be around 200 when there have been at least 5 times that many airstrikes despite Hamas deliberately firing from civilian areas, using human shields, and the fact that that death toll includes dozens of people who were killed by Hamas rockets which landed in Gaza.  This means that the vast majority of Israeli strikes killed no one, because the IDF gives up its element of surprise by sending warnings whenever it is about to strike a building where it knows there are civilians.

Military leaders from across the west have stated that the restraint Israel shows is greater than the restraint their own militaries would be expected to show.  Richard Kemp, the general who commanded the British forces in Afghanistan, has been very vocal about how his forces did not show as much restraint as Israel.

The High Level Military Group, an organization of former senior military leaders from Germany, the US, Spain, France, Italy, Australia, the UK, India, and Colombia, said this about Israel's last conflict with Hamas: “We can be categorically clear that Israel’s conduct in the 2014 Gaza Conflict met and in some respects exceeded the highest standards we set for our own nations’ militaries. It is our view that Israel fought an exemplary campaign, adequately conceived with appropriately limited objectives, and displaying both a very high level of operational capability as well as a total commitment to the Law of Armed Conflict. It did this under challenging circumstances on a formidably complex urban battlefield. This is not to say that the IDF did not make mistakes, which are inevitable in the context of urban warfare against an enemy such as Hamas, that purposefully hides behind a civilian population.”

“The IDF not only met its obligations under the Law of Armed Conflict, but often exceeded them, both on the battlefield and in the humanitarian relief efforts that accompanied its operation. In many cases where the fighting was concerned, this came at significant tactical cost to the IDF. It fought under restrictive Rules of Engagement and it is obvious that instances existed throughout the conflict where the IDF did not attack lawful military objectives on account of a deliberate policy of restraint. The IDF also used a number of highly innovative tactics over and above the necessities of the precautions required by the Law of Armed Conflict. It further used its formidable intelligence capability in an effort to contain its action as closely as possible to Hamas’s assets and protect the civilian population amid which these were purposely and unlawfully embedded.”

Any statements that Israel is not showing restraint, that it is responding 'disproportionately' or deliberately killing civilians, display at best a complete ignorance of the realities and laws of warfare.  By that standard every single army which has ever engaged in a military conflict since the first army was formed is even more guilty of everything the IDF is accused of.



Around the Network
Dante9 said:

The Jews wanted a home for themselves and decided to take for themselves the land that was promised to them by their god, even if that land was held and surrounded by their enemies. Doesn't get more religious than that. Who in their right mind would do such a thing, knowing they will be caught up in eternal conflict and warfare? That's the power and ridiculousness of religion, my friend. There would not be a concept of Israel, if it wasn't based on religion.

So... if in the bible the verse that says that land was promised them by God did not exist you think they would not want to return to their historic land and none of this would happen and they would be happily living scattered around the world?



DitchPlaya said:

Finally for the first time in my life, I don't have to use kiddy gloves in explaining one of the most one-way conflicts to ever exist.

We should never have to use kid gloves to discuss any important matter by fear of offending someone or being cancelled. Yet, I only allow myself to talk about this anonymously unfortunately.



EnricoPallazzo said:
Dante9 said:

The Jews wanted a home for themselves and decided to take for themselves the land that was promised to them by their god, even if that land was held and surrounded by their enemies. Doesn't get more religious than that. Who in their right mind would do such a thing, knowing they will be caught up in eternal conflict and warfare? That's the power and ridiculousness of religion, my friend. There would not be a concept of Israel, if it wasn't based on religion.

So... if in the bible the verse that says that land was promised them by God did not exist you think they would not want to return to their historic land and none of this would happen and they would be happily living scattered around the world?

If you did a little research first you'd realized that the majority of Jews live outside Israel, so they are still scattered around the world (about 8.1m vs. 6.3m).

Now take away the religious reason and the minority that would want to live in the "promised land" would be even smaller.



Barozi said:
EnricoPallazzo said:

So... if in the bible the verse that says that land was promised them by God did not exist you think they would not want to return to their historic land and none of this would happen and they would be happily living scattered around the world?

If you did a little research first you'd realized that the majority of Jews live outside Israel, so they are still scattered around the world (about 8.1m vs. 6.3m).

Now take away the religious reason and the minority that would want to live in the "promised land" would be even smaller.

I though it was clear and implied that I was referring to the Jews living in Israel as living across the world in case of no Israel, as the discussion here is about the Jews living in Israel.

But we can never lose an opportunity to try to look more intelligent and informed than others on the internet right?



Around the Network
EnricoPallazzo said:
Barozi said:

If you did a little research first you'd realized that the majority of Jews live outside Israel, so they are still scattered around the world (about 8.1m vs. 6.3m).

Now take away the religious reason and the minority that would want to live in the "promised land" would be even smaller.

I though it was clear and implied that I was referring to the Jews living in Israel as living across the world in case of no Israel, as the discussion here is about the Jews living in Israel.

But we can never lose an opportunity to try to look more intelligent and informed than others on the internet right?

I'm not feeling bad because I've done my research.

But good job attacking me while ignoring my second sentence which was about Jews living in Israel.

Religion IS a big motivation for the state of Israel existing in that very location. Remove religion from the equation and the people currently living in Israel would be fine with living somewhere else. Not necessarily scattered around the world (though a lot wouldn't mind) but maybe in a state of their own... elsewhere. There's enough land where no one lives after all. Of course that land belongs to some other country but taking it away from them wouldn't be nearly as bad as taking it from a place where plenty of people have been living for a long time.

Ignoring religion, you really think they would have been against forming their own state outside of Israel's territory if they were given the opportunity?



Barozi said:
EnricoPallazzo said:

I though it was clear and implied that I was referring to the Jews living in Israel as living across the world in case of no Israel, as the discussion here is about the Jews living in Israel.

But we can never lose an opportunity to try to look more intelligent and informed than others on the internet right?

I'm not feeling bad because I've done my research.

But good job attacking me while ignoring my second sentence which was about Jews living in Israel.

Religion IS a big motivation for the state of Israel existing in that very location. Remove religion from the equation and the people currently living in Israel would be fine with living somewhere else. Not necessarily scattered around the world (though a lot wouldn't mind) but maybe in a state of their own... elsewhere. There's enough land where no one lives after all. Of course that land belongs to some other country but taking it away from them wouldn't be nearly as bad as taking it from a place where plenty of people have been living for a long time.

Ignoring religion, you really think they would have been against forming their own state outside of Israel's territory if they were given the opportunity?

You definitely does not fell bad, you probably get off on it, I'm certain it makes you feel good to point the finger at someone saying something wrong even after I pointed out I was talking about the people living in Israel.

As for your second point I see no reason to rebuke it, I already stated my opinion. If you think stripping out religion the Jews would accept creating their nation/country in a place totally detached from their place of origin then good for you.



h2ohno said:
KratosLives said:

What annoys me most is the agression and lack of care from the idf/israeli government when it comes to civilians. Biden and others keep saying israel has a right to defend themselves, yeah no shit mr obvious. It's the response and retaliation. When you look at the probablity of an israeli getting killed being so low, with the iron dome covering over 90% of strikes, the housing having protective structural walls and better preparation for attack, and then look at the Palestinians and the amount of civilian deaths,

They can't come up with a better strategy of getting soldiers there to take out hamas amd limit casual rates? I bet if there were israeli civilians in those buildings, they would take the utmost care and strategy in full force to make sure no one dies., probaby send in their special forces units to get them out, But hey it's just a Palestinian woman or child, so just use brute force, sorry and move on.

Such a shame how one can devalue life and the importance, simply because they are a few miles away under a different label and citizenship .

These sorts of ignorant posts really grind my gears.  No army in the history of the world has taken more care to limit civilian casualties on the other side than Israel.  The death toll in Gaza is currently said to be around 200 when there have been at least 5 times that many airstrikes despite Hamas deliberately firing from civilian areas, using human shields, and the fact that that death toll includes dozens of people who were killed by Hamas rockets which landed in Gaza.  This means that the vast majority of Israeli strikes killed no one, because the IDF gives up its element of surprise by sending warnings whenever it is about to strike a building where it knows there are civilians.

Military leaders from across the west have stated that the restraint Israel shows is greater than the restraint their own militaries would be expected to show.  Richard Kemp, the general who commanded the British forces in Afghanistan, has been very vocal about how his forces did not show as much restraint as Israel.

The High Level Military Group, an organization of former senior military leaders from Germany, the US, Spain, France, Italy, Australia, the UK, India, and Colombia, said this about Israel's last conflict with Hamas: “We can be categorically clear that Israel’s conduct in the 2014 Gaza Conflict met and in some respects exceeded the highest standards we set for our own nations’ militaries. It is our view that Israel fought an exemplary campaign, adequately conceived with appropriately limited objectives, and displaying both a very high level of operational capability as well as a total commitment to the Law of Armed Conflict. It did this under challenging circumstances on a formidably complex urban battlefield. This is not to say that the IDF did not make mistakes, which are inevitable in the context of urban warfare against an enemy such as Hamas, that purposefully hides behind a civilian population.”

“The IDF not only met its obligations under the Law of Armed Conflict, but often exceeded them, both on the battlefield and in the humanitarian relief efforts that accompanied its operation. In many cases where the fighting was concerned, this came at significant tactical cost to the IDF. It fought under restrictive Rules of Engagement and it is obvious that instances existed throughout the conflict where the IDF did not attack lawful military objectives on account of a deliberate policy of restraint. The IDF also used a number of highly innovative tactics over and above the necessities of the precautions required by the Law of Armed Conflict. It further used its formidable intelligence capability in an effort to contain its action as closely as possible to Hamas’s assets and protect the civilian population amid which these were purposely and unlawfully embedded.”

Any statements that Israel is not showing restraint, that it is responding 'disproportionately' or deliberately killing civilians, display at best a complete ignorance of the realities and laws of warfare.  By that standard every single army which has ever engaged in a military conflict since the first army was formed is even more guilty of everything the IDF is accused of.

I'm sorry I can't take this seriously. It's a bs statement with no basis in reality. And the stupid human shields propaganda is just tired and too played out and it doesn't reflect the ground realities that Israel just bombs buildings it wants without any care for if Hamas is there or not and without any care for how many civilians die. As the guy above said, a better way exists and other occupying forces would have used that. Sending ground troops. 

And that last paragraph is just bollocks. Israel is committing war crimes. Saying that's not disproportionate or that it's not deliberately killing palestenians is just not based in the reality that Israel is doing just that. Israel destroyed a building full of Media HQs, the only covid testing site in Gaza and the way to the main hospital in Gaza. There is no proof anyone from Hamas lived in the buildings or was even harmed. Plus you Israel defenders forget that hamas members are palestenians and might be living in flats as well. What Israel is doing is giving justification to attack a residential building if a soldier lives there. And many Israeli military compounds are close to civilian areas. Israel is giving full justification to target those areas. 

And the thing about using disproportionate force isn't even an observation, it's in the IDF rulebook. Sorry but MOST armies on Earth would take care more care that civilians are not harmed, even Russia, China and US. The UN and most countries on Earth agree with this reality. 

These weird talking points about Israel showing restraint is just an attempt to gaslight people and to make them confused about the oppression they see clearly with their own eyes.



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

h2ohno said:
KratosLives said:

What annoys me most is the agression and lack of care from the idf/israeli government when it comes to civilians. Biden and others keep saying israel has a right to defend themselves, yeah no shit mr obvious. It's the response and retaliation. When you look at the probablity of an israeli getting killed being so low, with the iron dome covering over 90% of strikes, the housing having protective structural walls and better preparation for attack, and then look at the Palestinians and the amount of civilian deaths,

They can't come up with a better strategy of getting soldiers there to take out hamas amd limit casual rates? I bet if there were israeli civilians in those buildings, they would take the utmost care and strategy in full force to make sure no one dies., probaby send in their special forces units to get them out, But hey it's just a Palestinian woman or child, so just use brute force, sorry and move on.

Such a shame how one can devalue life and the importance, simply because they are a few miles away under a different label and citizenship .

These sorts of ignorant posts really grind my gears.  No army in the history of the world has taken more care to limit civilian casualties on the other side than Israel.  The death toll in Gaza is currently said to be around 200 when there have been at least 5 times that many airstrikes despite Hamas deliberately firing from civilian areas, using human shields, and the fact that that death toll includes dozens of people who were killed by Hamas rockets which landed in Gaza.  This means that the vast majority of Israeli strikes killed no one, because the IDF gives up its element of surprise by sending warnings whenever it is about to strike a building where it knows there are civilians.

Military leaders from across the west have stated that the restraint Israel shows is greater than the restraint their own militaries would be expected to show.  Richard Kemp, the general who commanded the British forces in Afghanistan, has been very vocal about how his forces did not show as much restraint as Israel.

The High Level Military Group, an organization of former senior military leaders from Germany, the US, Spain, France, Italy, Australia, the UK, India, and Colombia, said this about Israel's last conflict with Hamas: “We can be categorically clear that Israel’s conduct in the 2014 Gaza Conflict met and in some respects exceeded the highest standards we set for our own nations’ militaries. It is our view that Israel fought an exemplary campaign, adequately conceived with appropriately limited objectives, and displaying both a very high level of operational capability as well as a total commitment to the Law of Armed Conflict. It did this under challenging circumstances on a formidably complex urban battlefield. This is not to say that the IDF did not make mistakes, which are inevitable in the context of urban warfare against an enemy such as Hamas, that purposefully hides behind a civilian population.”

“The IDF not only met its obligations under the Law of Armed Conflict, but often exceeded them, both on the battlefield and in the humanitarian relief efforts that accompanied its operation. In many cases where the fighting was concerned, this came at significant tactical cost to the IDF. It fought under restrictive Rules of Engagement and it is obvious that instances existed throughout the conflict where the IDF did not attack lawful military objectives on account of a deliberate policy of restraint. The IDF also used a number of highly innovative tactics over and above the necessities of the precautions required by the Law of Armed Conflict. It further used its formidable intelligence capability in an effort to contain its action as closely as possible to Hamas’s assets and protect the civilian population amid which these were purposely and unlawfully embedded.”

Any statements that Israel is not showing restraint, that it is responding 'disproportionately' or deliberately killing civilians, display at best a complete ignorance of the realities and laws of warfare.  By that standard every single army which has ever engaged in a military conflict since the first army was formed is even more guilty of everything the IDF is accused of.

How many israeli civiliians have been killed from hamas air strikes?? how many have been interceped from the dome?  You obviously haven't heard the many statements that came out of netanyahu's mouth regarding the damage and destruction he will show to hamas, the unrelenting, brute force to make them cower in fear and think twice, and so on. You can;t say al lthose things and expect to go in trying to save as much civillians in the best way possible. You have to be mad to think much care and thought went into saving palestinian civiliians. 

Since 2005/6 in lebanon, to the conflicts in palestine to now, Netanyahu has repeated the cycle, clearly he has learned nothing and hasn't stopped any change, and how many civillian lives were lost , for what?  And let's not forget the latest war crime, blowing up the media centre to lessen the coverage of even more civillian death. Is israel goint to be held accountable for that and prove that centre was harbouring hamas? 

My point still stands, The israeli governement do not care for palestinian civillians anywhere near that of their own citizens. 



Pemalite said:
Eagle367 said:

You guys can talk about religion all you want but this issue is not one religion. It's not judaism or Islam. It's a simple case of settler occupiers and the occupied. The natives suffering and the settlers living it large in the land of the natives

It is entirely based around religion.

Israel believes it is "entitled" to the land because it was given to them by "God" as per the Bible.

dark_gh0st_b0y said:

again, this kind of approach is simply wrong

as I said before, the world's deadliest humanitarian tragedies of all time have been carried out by atheist - 'free thinking' regimes, namely Nazism and Communism, with ~100m deaths each

Let's start with Nazism shall we? That was a war based around religion.
On one side the Nazi's were engaged in antisemitism to wipe out the Jewish religion.

The Nazi's also leveraged religion in order to undermine Judaism.. Hitler was also propped up as a "New Messiah".

Religion was a very big part of that war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Religion

Communism is an economical doctrine... And one could argue full communism hasn't been achieved by any country yet, not even China which has Capitalistic aspects underpinning it's market based economy.


dark_gh0st_b0y said:


...and some of the world's greatest humanitarian efforts have been carried out by religious organizations, e.g. the Catholic church being the world's largest non-governmental provider of education and medical services

the world needs to get rid of extremism


Yes the Catholic Church gives allot, no one denies that.
They essentially have a "Store" in every single town/city/suburb, in every single state, in almost every single country on Earth... And you have people donating regularly... In return they offer various services that aids in indoctrination to keep the donation cycle going, it's a a lucrative business.

But Religion isn't a requirement to help others. - I'm not religious, neither is anyone in my Brigade, my job revolves around saving lives daily.

The Catholic Church can help so many people because they have a large revenue stream from it's paying customers, Governments also give them a free pass on things like Tax (Which I think Church's should pay for) so they have the resources to do it... And often Governments will "Donate" hoards of cash to assist various populations.

But don't kid yourself, there is some abuse that goes on in the Church. - They will often spend up big on campaigns (I.E. Same Sex Marriage) in order to try and turn voters to their agenda, they are very much entwined in American Politics... Heck even Australian politics but to a far lesser degree thankfully.

For example during last years catastrophic bushfire season here, Australians handed over hundreds of millions of dollars to various organisations, many of which were religious in order to assist us Firefighters with basic needs like Food and Sanitation... But also to assist those who needed to rebuild/recover from the fires as well.
Instead the religious organizations "Held back" (And continue to hold) hundreds of millions of dollars arguing "They will spend it later". - As you can imagine, it did result in a shit storm and deservedly so.

There are also plenty of non-religious organizations which help more than any singular church... The United Nations supported World Food Program is one such example and is the largest humanitarian program in existence.

You also have the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation as well.

Point is, religion isn't the requirement to help others, nor is it a requirement in humanitarian efforts either.

a war based around religion!? no way, the persecution of Jews was based on them having huge wealth and influence in Germany while being a minority, in short, nationalism

no, that is half the story - referring to like 1920... Hilter pretended to support Chirstianity in his very early years in order to get to power (he was smart), Goebbels wrote in April 1941 that though Hitler was "a fierce opponent" of the Vatican and Christianity, "he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons."

Although he was prepared to delay conflicts for political reasons, some historians note his intention to eventually eliminate Christianity from Germany, or at least reform it to suit a Nazi outlook. (again making sense, his nationalism was not exactly compatible with love and compassion)

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


yes there is some abuse in the church, but you don't judge the church based on the 2% and ignore the 98%, do you? not to mention abuse in the general public is estimated to be as high as 10%

as depressing as it may be, abuse and evil in general will always exist, anything that holds power draws in people with bad intentions, and this holds for religions as much as it does for governments


of course in 2021 religion is not a requirement for charity, I never argued it was

then again, 2021 people tend to be VERY ungrateful... Jesus Christ, where does the charity mentality come from? Love your neighboor as yourself? Who is the most influential man of all time? What is the most read book of all time?

try to imagine he never existed, and see how the world would be different for the worse

https://wealthygorilla.com/most-influential-people/

I could write a book on why the Christian faith is good, from a personal level to a global level

then again, we are getting off-topic  :P



don't mind my username, that was more than 10 years ago, I'm a different person now, amazing how people change ^_^