Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

Badunk said:
You don't understand what the clip is saying? I need to add "Joe Rogan, the most successful podcaster in the world, is shocked at how how one-sided the conflict is"?
Click to expand...
I do. I don‘t understand the point you’re making, however.
This is not really about you, if I’m honest. I just heavily dislike it when people post clips without any context whatsoever, any explanation whatsoever and expect everyone else to follow or understand what is being meant. I just think posting these sources without any context is lazy and counterproductive to the discussion on here. Especially since the topic is so sensible. I believe we would all be better off, if we provided a little more context to our sources.
 
HTG said:
I do. I don‘t understand the point you’re making, however.
This is not really about you, if I’m honest. I just heavily dislike it when people post clips without any context whatsoever, any explanation whatsoever and expect everyone else to follow or understand what is being meant. I just think posting these sources without any context is lazy and counterproductive to the discussion on here. Especially since the topic is so sensible. I believe we would all be better off, if we provided a little more context to our sources.
Click to expand...

I would be more bothered about anyone giving a flying feck what a meat-head like Joe Rogan thinks about anything.
 
maniak said:
Maybe I'm interpreting things wrong, but with so many ifs and buts that hardly seems to be clear law. Especially the last part where you use the expression "voluntary shields". The people being killed are being killed in their homes, in hospitals, in refugee camps, in schools. Not in front of military targets, so even following the international law you're posting, Israel is committing war crimes, not following international law.
Click to expand...

The target (infrastructure) becomes a military target if you have any hamas presence or weapons etc there. Israel do not do a proportionality test on infrastructure itself. So say a school has a hamas fighter in it, the whole school is a valid target under their doctrine because they do not recognise “excessive damage to civilian infrastructure “

They can become “voluntary shields” under the conditions I mentioned in the post if they don’t move. The IDF must then make another determination, as to whether they were able to move after warnings (voluntary) or were unable to move because they didn’t get a warning, or the hamas fighter forced them to stay etc. If the determination is that they are voluntarily staying, they become legitimate collateral damage “As direct participants in hostilities.”

Worth noting the last paragraph Though. Whilst most states and experts take this view, “The ICRC takes the position that they retain their civilian protections under LOAC.”
 
owlo said:
The target (infrastructure) becomes a military target if you have any hamas presence or weapons etc there. Israel do not do a proportionality test on infrastructure itself. So say a school has a hamas fighter in it, the whole school is a valid target under their doctrine because they do not recognise “excessive damage to civilian infrastructure “

They can become “voluntary shields” under the conditions I mentioned in the post if they don’t move. The IDF must then make another determination, as to whether they were able to move after warnings (voluntary) or were unable to move because they didn’t get a warning, or the hamas fighter forced them to stay etc. If the determination is that they are voluntarily staying, they become legitimate collateral damage “As direct participants in hostilities.”

Worth noting the last paragraph Though. Whilst most states and experts take this view, “The ICRC takes the position that they retain their civilian protections under LOAC.”
Click to expand...

Again, I must be missing something obvious because what it sounds like is that Israel's LOAC directly contradicts international law. So Israel can consider whatever they want and make all the determinations they want, but if they bomb a school killing a bunch of civilians because they say a hamas terrorist is there, they are in fact committing a war crime. I don't see how you can interpret it any other way.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I would be more bothered about anyone giving a flying feck what a meat-head like Joe Rogan thinks about anything.
Click to expand...
That’s a different issue. But obviously an issue.

Personally I just think it doesn’t do justice to the complexity and emotionality of the topic if people just keep posting tweets without any context. It’s their sources, so I think it’s their responsibility, to give some sort of context as to who is speaking, why it’s relevant and so on.
 
HTG said:
That’s a different issue. But obviously an issue.

Personally I just think it doesn’t do justice to the complexity and emotionality of the topic if people just keep posting tweets without any context. It’s their sources, so I think it’s their responsibility, to give some sort of context as to who is speaking, why it’s relevant and so on.
Click to expand...
I agree it's annoying if people post say a 10 min Youtube vid with people you don't know and not give any reason why you should sit through it.
 
HTG said:
That’s a different issue. But obviously an issue.

Personally I just think it doesn’t do justice to the complexity and emotionality of the topic if people just keep posting tweets without any context. It’s their sources, so I think it’s their responsibility, to give some sort of context as to who is speaking, why it’s relevant and so on.
Click to expand...
This bothers me as well. The thread title even specifically states "Less tweets, more discussion", so the very least people can do is post a short comment along with the tweet, either giving their own opinion or clarifying why they believe the tweet to be credible or relevant. Surely that wouldn't cost the poster much.
 
Jippy said:
I agree it's annoying if people post say a 10 min Youtube vid with people you don't know and not give any reason why you should sit through it.
Click to expand...
To me it often feels as if people just try to post as much as possible in order to „win“.
 
It says "Joe Rogan on Palestine - Israel" in the title. It's barely over a minute long. I'd understand if it was a 20 minute video with no sort of explanation.

Half a dozen posts about whether I should have added something to what is self-evident.
 
HTG said:
To me it often feels as if people just try to post as much as possible in order to „win“.
Click to expand...
A mixture of that, the well-meaning and those wanting to look first with the news.
I'm the king of posting inane links, but not in very serious threads concerning deaths etc...
 
maniak said:
Again, I must be missing something obvious because what it sounds like is that Israel's LOAC directly contradicts international law. So Israel can consider whatever they want and make all the determinations they want, but if they bomb a school killing a bunch of civilians because they say a hamas terrorist is there, they are in fact committing a war crime. I don't see how you can interpret it any other way.
Click to expand...

LOAC just means the laws of armed conflict. These are the rules of international law for armed conflict . If Israel is determining targets correctly via these rules, it’s legal as it’s very permissive for state actors. Under the conditions I mentioned above, it’s legal under LOAC (international law). We can’t make an analysis of whether that strike is legal until after the war though.

The determination of whether a) a Hamas fighter/weapons was actually there/the intel was solid b) civilians were voluntarily there or had no means to leave c) they were sufficiently warned, or a blanket warning was sufficient d) possibly whether that infrastructure destruction was excessive (probably a non starter but worth mentioning for completeness) - all these things will determine if a strike was legitimate or not, and experts will comb over them. They could very well amount to war crimes in several strikes.

My opinion/prediction (as a random guy who did 2 semesters in ocs and is far from an expert) is that the more egregious lawbreaking will be the ethnic cleansing and the siege and these will more likely be prosecuted or at least chased. I also think you could extend the West Bank terrorism (from settlers) as an extension of this and under LOAC, which would/should be prosecuted too. My gut instinct is these strikes will be considered borderline legal and they’ll get away with it as they are how most western countries operate (each country has a manual and Israel is middle of the road)
 
BREAKING

Sunak: UK intelligence says hospital blast caused by missile launched from Gaza
Rishi Sunak says in his statement to the Commons that on the basis of analysis by British intelligence, "the UK government judges that the explosion [at al-Ahli hospital] was likely caused by a missile or part of one that was launched from within Gaza towards Israel".
 
jasT1981 said:
Calling for Jihad is not hate speech apparently as there are multiple meanings.

Gee, I wonder what context the call for Jihad is here?

Click to expand...


A bit confused about what you think this link shows, considering this poster's initial claim that the main demonstration was filled with aspiring Jihadis?

This was the hizb-ut-Tahrir protest. Separate from the main one. Tiny in comparison. An organisation banned by most Muslim countries. One organiser chanting Jihad, a chant not subsequently taken up by basically anyone in their (still tiny) group.

So what's your point? Does anyone on here support this group or claim that Jihad is good or the answer?
 
Gehrman said:
Actually going back a few pages to my last replies some were.
Click to expand...

Were they? I've just gone back to have a look and they were replying to a point about the killing of all Jews being in the Hamas charter and saying that the updated charter doesn't say that.

Now of course no longer writing you want to kill all Jews is an incredibly low bar and isn't the only marker of anti-semitism.
 
africanspur said:
A bit confused about what you think this link shows, considering this poster's initial claim that the main demonstration was filled with aspiring Jihadis?

This was the hizb-ut-Tahrir protest. Separate from the main one. Tiny in comparison. An organisation banned by most Muslim countries. One organiser chanting Jihad, a chant not subsequently taken up by basically anyone in their (still tiny) group.

So what's your point? Does anyone on here support this group or claim that Jihad is good or the answer?
Click to expand...

More the point the Met police seem well out of their depth on this issue
 
africanspur said:
Were they? I've just gone back to have a look and they were replying to a point about the killing of all Jews being in the Hamas charter and saying that the updated charter doesn't say that.

Now of course no longer writing you want to kill all Jews is an incredibly low bar and isn't the only marker of anti-semitism.
Click to expand...

But taking into account their largest terrorist attack in history, do you honestly believe that people who have their security at stake believes this bullshit?

Its like with the Taliban being more modernised and stuff but of course they are not.
 
VorZakone said:
Netanyahu still hesitant?

Click to expand...


Barak Ravid, who has senior sources within the Israeli government, as already reported the delay has been due to the US asking the Israelis to wait until the US can evacuate its non-essential embassy staffs in the region and get adequate troops into the region to protect US bases.
 
Gehrman said:
But taking into account their largest terrorist attack in history, do you honestly believe that people who have their security at stake believes this bullshit?

Its like with the Taliban being more modernised and stuff but of course they are not.
Click to expand...

That isn't the point though. You initially sarcastically wrote that their new charter isn't super anti semitic, as if people on here have said that. They haven't. All they've said is that it no longer explicitly calls for killing of all Jews. Now as I said that's not exactly a high bar but none of the initial conversation mentioned anti senitisim, nor did anyone deny it's presence in their charter in other ways.

You've now changed the goalposts and are asking whether anyone should trust Hamas. This is completely different from what you were initially saying. And no I don't believe anyone really believes that.
 
jasT1981 said:
More the point the Met police seem well out of their depth on this issue
Click to expand...

Because they didn't immediately arrest one man in a tiny demonstration? And that otherwise multiple demos have happened across both sides in the past few weeks in a huge, incredibly multi cultural city, with very little incident of note?

Not to mention that, as I said, the poster you were replying to had been insinuating many people in the main protest had jihadi sentiment.
 
africanspur said:
That isn't the point though. You initially sarcastically wrote that their new charter isn't super anti semitic, as if people on here have said that. They haven't. All they've said is that it no longer explicitly calls for killing of all Jews. Now as I said that's not exactly a high bar but none of the initial conversation mentioned anti senitisim, nor did anyone deny it's presence in their charter in other ways.

You've now changed the goalposts and are asking whether anyone should trust Hamas. This is completely different from what you were initially saying. And no I don't believe anyone really believes that.
Click to expand...

Okay, yes you are correct their updated charter doesnt call for war on all jews but their actions negate their updated charter for obvious reasons. Hence its utterly irrelevant. Its a smokescreen to draw international support.
 
Last edited:
The Corinthian said:


It’s crazy seeing the disconnect between world leaders and the people they govern. Israelis in Israel against Bibi and the War. Palestinians protesting against Abbas’ leadership. Egyptians fighting against Sisi. There’s another protest tomorrow in London (there’s actually 2) and similarly we’ve seen the French defy Macron and the Germans defy their fascist-lite laws. There’s also a sit in of US based Jews in DC against the US position (as well as the poll above).
Click to expand...


This is exactly what the various Arab despots like Sisi will be most scared of from this conflict I think.

The optics of gunning down/ rounding up protestors for Palestine in these countries would be awful.....yet these protests if allowed to hold may evolve into more serious questions about the record of these various leaders domestically...
 
Gehrman said:
Okay, yes you are correct their updated charter doesnt call for war on all jews but their actions negate their foundational charter for obvious reasons. Hence its utterly irrelevant. Its a smokescreen to draw international support.
Click to expand...
Same for Israel's statements about targeting militants and not civilians. Actions speak louder than words, no?
 
Badunk said:
Same for Israel's statements about targeting militants and not civilians. Actions speak louder than words, no?
Click to expand...

I agree. I made a gaffe in the post you replied. I meant their actions negates any idea that their 2017 charter can be considered different than their 1988 charter.
 
Gehrman said:
Okay, yes you are correct their updated charter doesnt call for war on all jews but their actions negate their updated charter for obvious reasons. Hence its utterly irrelevant. Its a smokescreen to draw international support.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I haven't even said that, I'm just assuming that what others are saying is correct. I haven't looked at their new charter.

I'm just taking issue with your attempt to paint some of the posters on here as claiming a lack of anti semtisim in their charter, which is just not true (at least in terms of what they've written).

There are, as far as I can tell, no posters on here that support Hamas or its actions. Some will say that Hamas does not exist in a vacuum, which I know is uncomfortable for some as they'd rather let the basis of their analysis be that they're Arab / Muslim savages, always have been and always will be and leave it at that.
 
As I've been doing my research, I never knew that Gaza has actually been under Egyptian rule for 15 of the years since the original two-state borders.

We're definitely stuck now imo. The US/Western powers trying to curb Netanyahu, who despite not having popular support in Israel, is very happy to plunge ahead with his buddies who has appointed to the cabinet. In my view he's now acting as a rogue agent, rather than the leader of Israel. I wish there was some way for the parliament or something to stop him, and that people would be pushing this.
 
Gehrman said:
And when i responded do "Do you think anyone with something to lose believes that?". All i got was a reply about Israel's own wrongdoings etc.
Click to expand...
You arguing in bad faith and I don't want you falsely quoting me.

You butted in the conversation at the time without reading what I previously wrote about it. I explicitely replied to you and said exactly what I thought about the Hamas and its charter. People were citing the Hamas Charter from 1987 which is factually outdated. All the claims about the destuction of Israel have been removed in 2017. Now wether you believe it or not is up to you (I don't). But if you want to discuss something, do it at least on the correct basis (the 2017 Charter).

Afain, here's what I wrote to you and before that to @VorZakone

"Hamas actually amended its Charter in 2017 where it settles for a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

While implicitely acknowledging that another entity will govern the rest, it still doesn't recognize Israel as a state. It also laid off the racist wording describing the Jews as "pigs" and states that it's not a religous war against the Jews but against the "Zionist Project". Whether it was a first step to acknowledge the other or a smokescreen, is everyone's guess. Make out of it what you will and it doesn't matter anymore.

The Fatah is by far the better choice and more reasonable dialogue partner but it's exactly the one that Israel chose to marginalize while propping up and indirectly financing the other. The Fatah also didn't cover itself in glory in the last two decades and Abbas, who's now 88 years old and largely rejected by the palestinian population, is still in power. It's in dire need of renewal, but its political platform is something everyone can work with and on."

Here's what I wrote to @Raoul who reacted to the post you're quoting.

"Oh, I agree with the watering down, just for the sake of accuracy. I personally don't see them as trustworthy, in any way. At the same time, I have zero trust in an Israeli government that has members who share the very same ideas about the Palestinians."


One more shit move like this, you're reported and on ignore.
 
Last edited:
That_Bloke said:
You arguing in bad faith and I don't want you falsely quoting me.

You butted in the conversation at the time without reading what I previously wrote about it. I explicitely replied to you and said exactly what I thought about the Hamas and its charter. People were citing the Hamas Charter from 1987 which is factually outdated. All the claims about the destuction of Israel have been removed in 2017. Now wether you believe it or not is up to you (I don't). But if you want to discuss something, do it at least on the correct basis (the 2017 Charter).

Afain, here's what I wrote to you and before that to @VorZakone

"Hamas actually amended its Charter in 2017 where it settles for a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

While implicitely acknowledging that another entity will govern the rest, it still doesn't recognize Israel as a state. It also laid off the racist wording describing the Jews as "pigs" and states that it's not a religous war against the Jews but against the "Zionist Project". Whether it was a first step to acknowledge the other or a smokescreen, is everyone's guess. Make out of it what you will and it doesn't matter anymore.

The Fatah is by far the better choice and more reasonable dialogue partner but it's exactly the one that Israel chose to marginalize while propping up and indirectly financing the other. The Fatah also didn't cover itself in glory in the last two decades and Abbas, who's now 88 years old and largely rejected by the palestinian population, is still in power. It's in dire need of renewal, but its political platform is something everyone can work with and on."

Here's what I wrote to @Raoul who reacted to the post you're quoting.

"Oh, I agree with the watering down, just for the sake of accuracy. I personally don't see them as trustworthy, in any way. At the same time, I have zero trust in an Israeli government that has members who share the very same ideas about the Palestinians."


One more shit move like this, you're reported and on ignore.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But just put me on ignore.
 
Badunk said:


Any Romanians in the thread? :lol:
Click to expand...




"They are really close to us now. It looks like they stopped. Certainly there is also Israel infantry who intercepts these bombs. We will stay down for a bit because you never know when the bombardment stops. It's quiet now, we will try to get up. "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.