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

[africanspur]

Only in response to a huge swathe of posting that places all blame on Israel. Israel have a great deal to answer for in general but selectively ignoring everyone's role is happening all the time and predominantly favoring Hamas. Equally blind support for Israel has been less frequent in here, but we have also moderated that content more vigorously as when it occurs it is usually next level biased.



The point being that people were ludicrously trying to deny Hamas's use of tunnels and bunkers and hospitals. If they had said they didn't think bombing hospitals was justified no matter what (as I did) that would be a supportable stance. Equivocation to back conformational bias isn't imo.



What evidence did you expect? They had days to evacuate and it beggars belief that they didn't use the facilities the Israeli's left.

Again, that just isn't true. Basically nobody denied that Hamas uses tunnels. Hamas themselves don't even deny that. You've decided they definitely use the hospital and nothing will sway your opinion otherwise. I'm very open to believing that Hamas use important civilian infrastructure (and beneath it) to launch attacks but I'm going to need a bit more than it beggars belief that they wouldn't.

Especially as (even if you say you personally don't believe it does), for some it does create the legal and moral framework to justify attacks on hospitals. It's particularly funny in this context because there was such an uproar about the first attack on a hospital in Gaza and claim and counter claim, video and counter video about who was responsible. Meanwhile, I posted a few days later whoever had done it, that Israel was already laying the groundwork to attack Al-Shifa and that's exactly what they did. Suddenly all of the people who said outlets were so irresponsible for reporting that Israel were responsible and his this was different from other strikes because this would be a war crime....Ah well. Attack after attack on hospitals came by after anyway.

I don't know why I keep on having to explain the clear and obvious massive difference between the presence of tunnels and presence of command structures under hospitals, in the eyes of the people justifying attacks.

Actually, if a country is going a hospital to oblivion and completely empty it out, in going to need some evidence yep. Rather than glib comments about the obviousness of it all. All very reminiscent of 2003.

Yes thr Arab countries took in hundreds of thousands of refugees I believe in the ethnic cleansings of 67 too. There are also a lot of Palestinians around the Arab countries who live and work there as normal citizens without being 'official refugees'. There's also always a choice. Same as how much of Europe and north America turned it's back on newish refugees in WW2.

I'm not sure what the point of the last sentence is, seeing as I have never criticised the moderating of this thread. I don't think their role does get underplayed to be honest. People can have an understanding of the context in which such a scummy group arose without ignoring their role. I'd also ask you to consider the phrasing you're using and how you would react if someone used it the other way round. What would your response be if someone said ah well the Hamas response is so predictable, why does Israel continue with its injustices? Or is the point that a weaker party should never provoke a stronger one, in any context?

 

[JagUTD]

It's bizarre to watch some of these conversations play out, everyone agrees thousands of civilians are being massacred by Israel. But yeah let's make sure we get our descriptions of this massacre correct in the legal context according to some international bodies.

Hopefully those lads that are so worried about it keep an eye on the death toll as it rises and give us all a heads up when/if it's officially a genocide. Just so we can all make sure we're using the correct terms.

Throughout his thread, the use of certain words or accusations have been discussed. Why is it a problem?

 

[langster]

Palestine isn't a place. So not sure why he said it. It's Israel.

I honestly cannot understand why comments like this are allowed. It's clearly a troll post aimed at baiting arguments or insults in retort. It's not an honest post and cannot be taken at all seriously and that's before you even consider that it is factually incorrect.

In a thread where the topic is so delicate at the best of times, comments like this just don't help at all.

The line of belief or thinking behind a comment like this is the main reason we are where we are today regarding the region and its occupants. It's also the very reason a solution will not be found any time soon, or until one side gets their wish and completely eradicates the other.

 

[That_Bloke]

I honestly cannot understand why comments like this are allowed. It's clearly a troll post aimed at baiting arguments or insults in retort. It's not an honest post and cannot be taken at all seriously and that's before you even consider that it is factually incorrect.

In a thread where the topic is so delicate at the best of times, comments like this just don't help at all.

The line of belief or thinking behind a comment like this is the main reason we are where we are today regarding the region and its occupants. It's also the very reason a solution will not be found any time soon, or until one side gets their wish and completely eradicates the other.

He's been one of if not the most virulent, most aggressive posters in this thread and some of his posts are the most repugnant you can find here. Now he's literally insulting posters and there's still no reaction from the mods. Slow day at the office, I guess.

 

[langster]

He's been one of if not the most, virulent, most aggressive posters in this thread and some of his posts are the most repugnant you can find here. Now he's literally insulting posters and there's still no reaction from the mods. Slow day at the office, I guess.

I know, I've taken to reading the thread every few hours or so and just not replying at all. I've seen a few posts that I've had to stop myself replying to otherwise I would probably get banned. Over the past couple of weeks there have been some shocking takes. I get people have sides for whatever reason and I can accept difference of belief or opinion, but the outright refusal to accept truth that is plain to see and backed up with absolute facts, due to ignorance or pure hate, is just something I can't deal with and think my blood pressure doesn't need raising any further than it already is.

 

[Stack]

I know, I've taken to reading the thread every few hours or so and just not replying at all. I've seen a few posts that I've had to stop myself replying to otherwise I would probably get banned. Over the past couple of weeks there have been some shocking takes. I get people have sides for whatever reason and I can accept difference of belief or opinion, but the outright refusal to accept truth that is plain to see and backed up with absolute facts, due to ignorance or pure hate, is just something I can't deal with and think my blood pressure doesn't need raising any further than it already is.

Its tough for the mods I think, but ultimately the more odious among us end up displaying to everyone just how awful they are. The vast majority are pretty decent and plenty of people with opposing views are able to get their thoughts across without being vile.
Its such a difficult topic. I tend to ignore threads when i start to get a bit twitchy reading them. I have at times been a complete dick on the caf so that function tends to work for me. It stops the red mist taking over!

 

[reelworld]

Its not just silly. Its incredibly dangerous.

Because the oldest, most dangerous antisemitic trope of them all is that Jewish people control everything. Its the one the nazis used from the early 30's to demonise the Jewish population, preparing the German civilians to justify what they eventually did.

And this stuff plays right into precisely what the david ickes and the rest are still spouting today.

I get all that,
and ironically, the Israel govt flip this trope to Hamas, by claiming Hamas was in cahoots with the UN, MSF, reporters, etc. And they do it for the same exact reason: for justifying their murders.

 

[VorZakone]

Hamas uses civilian infrastructure but...we all know Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world.

Hamas can't exactly hide in the mountains like the Afghan Mujahideen did in the 80s.

We saw this in urban warfare in Ukraine with Mariupol and Bakhmut. It's sorta inevitable that you use the existing infrastructure to your advantage.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Hamas uses civilian infrastructure but...we all know Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world.

Hamas can't exactly hide in the mountains like the Afghan Mujahideen did in the 80s.

We saw this in urban warfare in Ukraine with Mariupol and Bakhmut. It's sorta inevitable that you use the existing infrastructure to your advantage.

The fact the HQ of the IDF is in Tel Aviv/a densely populated civilian space, you can make the exact same argument as people do with Hamas.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

Why do they need a signature from Qatar? Is more red tape really required for something like this?

 

[stevoc]

Throughout his thread, the use of certain words or accusations have been discussed. Why is it a problem?

Well maybe I'm in the minority here but I just find it strange that there's a major humanitarian crisis and massive loss of human life (many of them children) playing out in front of us. Yet in the midst of people trying to discuss that we have some wanting to engage in multi page discussions arguing which is the correct term to use to describe this massacre.

It just doesn't seem like a very important thing to discuss to me personally. Again maybe I'm in the minority here.

I don't imagine if there were a thread discussing a natural disaster. There would be people determined to argue whether to describe it as a tornado or a typhoon for example.

 

[Giggsy PO]

The issue here is that the same standard isn't applied on both sides. You have Amy Schumer running her mouth, equating calls for a ceasefire with endorsing rapists and terror to little repercussion, likewise for a number of pro-Israeli celebrities, yet those on the other side are met with swift action, often resulting to a termination from their employers, or at best face ridiculously disproportionate scrutiny over their comments, no matter how tame they may be. Its that asymmetry and double standard which I equate to an essential silencing of one side, even if its less visceral and violent than what we'd expect in a despotic regime.

Or maybe the opposite. The application of standards works exactly as it should. Just because there is a numerical asymmetry it doesn't automatically means double standard is applied (causality vs. correlation). We can judge each case of what was actually said and apply the standard. Based on the example of Amy Schumer, one can see the point of being disturbed by the idea of ceasefire with perpetrators of rape and terror.

No I don't agree with the ADL definition. At face value I think its ridiculous to draw links between accusations of genocide and anti-semitism, and stinks of bad-faith shielding from the ADL to defend Israel from any condemnation, legitimate or otherwise.

And I don't take the ADL itself seriously nor think they're genuine in their goal of tackling bigotry. This is the same ADL who would spy on Noam Chomsky, who'd they derisively call 'the Arab apologist', and have a CEO who commends Elon Musk on his censorship of terms like 'decolonisation' from Pro Palestinian tweets, while remaining seemingly ignorant of the fact Musk was retweeting far-right anti-semitic tropes.

I have no problem with your view of ADL. I guess there is no point in trying to explain Elon Musk or how ADL CEO reacted. Thank you for pointing that out, I was not aware of that. I found this article to be pretty informative https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4321955-adl-chief-defends-praise-musk/.

At face value I think the definition is absolutely spot on. The link between accusations of genocide or ethnic cleansing and anti-semitism is clear. The reality is that Jews (around 850 000 people) were ethnically cleansed from all Arab countries after 1948 (not to mention the destruction of Jewish settlements in 1920s and 1930s). That is the fact. I think there is no need to post graphs or pictures how many Jews curently live in Arab countries. While the population of Palestinians is steadily growing.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

 

[the_cliff]

Uhmm no - would definitely have blinked an eye. That’s a litany of war crimes - 3k, journalists , a hospital, school and un building !? This isn’t a game of sims

Take out the guys in Qatar , the Hamas leads in Gaza via Mossad which is supposed to be one of the best spy agencies. Why go after civilians ? This was just spiteful and pure sadism - it wasn’t about the hostages as we clearly know by now

Land, it always was about land and will continue to be about land.

 

[nickm]

It's bizarre to watch some of these conversations play out, everyone agrees thousands of civilians are being massacred by Israel. But yeah let's make sure we get our descriptions of this massacre correct in the legal context according to some international bodies.

Hopefully those lads that are so worried about it keep an eye on the death toll as it rises and give us all a heads up when/if it's officially a genocide. Just so we can all make sure we're using the correct terms.

Well, when you are accusing Israel of trying to wipe out the Palestinian race, which is what genocide means, then we are entitled to ask if that is really the goal. It is a serious accusation, maybe the most serious accusation there is. So while it might not matter to the dead, it does matter.

 

[That_Bloke]

Well, when you are accusing Israel of trying to wipe out the Palestinian race, which is what genocide means, then we are entitled to ask if that is really the goal. It is a serious accusation, maybe the most serious accusation there is. So while it might not matter to the dead, it does matter.

One more time, there is no Palestinian race.

 

[Kaos]

Or maybe the opposite. The application of standards works exactly as it should. Just because there is a numerical asymmetry it doesn't automatically means double standard is applied (causality vs. correlation). We can judge each case of what was actually said and apply the standard. Based on the example of Amy Schumer, one can see the point of being disturbed by the idea of ceasefire with perpetrators of rape and terror.

What exactly is the defined standard for what constitutes an accepted statement, or something that warrants a huge backlash leading to losing your job? Because it feels like there's no objective benchmark for what is or isn't ok to say. Do you think if the shoe was on the other foot and Amy Schumer had instead equated support for this war as an endorsement for genocide and child-killing that she'd be as easily off the hook? Because some of her peers in the industry have faced repercussions for saying a lot less.

I have no problem with your view of ADL. I guess there is no point in trying to explain Elon Musk or how ADL CEO reacted. Thank you for pointing that out, I was not aware of that. I found this article to be pretty informative https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4321955-adl-chief-defends-praise-musk/.

At face value I think the definition is absolutely spot on. The link between accusations of genocide or ethnic cleansing and anti-semitism is clear. The reality is that Jews (around 850 000 people) were ethnically cleansed from all Arab countries after 1948 (not to mention the destruction of Jewish settlements in 1920s and 1930s). That is the fact. I think there is no need to post graphs or pictures how many Jews curently live in Arab countries. While the population of Palestinians is steadily growing.

Don't you think it sets a dangerous precedence by giving a country essential immunity from condemnation of crimes they may well have committed on the grounds that it risks some historical insensitivity? All it does is set the threshold much higher for what we'd constitute as an unacceptable exercise of war crimes. And yes Israel does have precedence in this, its called the Nakba where they ethnically cleansed 750,000 Palestinians in 1948, condemning them to be refugees and not allowing them to return to their homes.

 

[That_Bloke]

Don't you think it sets a dangerous precedence by giving a country essential immunity from condemnation of crimes they may well have committed on the grounds that it risks some historical insensitivity? All it does is set the threshold much higher for what we'd constitute as an unacceptable exercise of war crimes. And yes Israel does have precedence in this, its called the Nakba where they ethnically cleansed 750,000 Palestinians in 1948, condemning them to be refugees and not allowing them to return to their homes.

You can add to that number the 248,000-300,000 Palestinians who had to flee after the 1967 War and of course weren't allowed to return. The event is known as the "Naksa".

 

[nickm]

One more time, there is no Palestinian race.

People, then. Point stands.

 

[That_Bloke]

People, then. Point stands.

Agreed.

Massacre, collective punishment, blatant disregard for palestinian lives, civil or medical infrastructures, war crimes, and pogroms (in the West bank), are a more appropriate base for discussion. Depending on what's goint to happen in the next weeks, ethnic cleansing might even become a thing.

However genocide is a bridge too far at the moment.

 

[Raoul]

 

[Donaldo]

Agreed.

Massacre, collective punishment, blatant disregard for palestinian lives, civil or medical infrastructures, war crimes, and pogroms (in the West bank), are a more appropriate base for discussion. Depending on what's goint to happen in the next weeks, ethnic cleansing might even become a thing.

However genocide is a bridge too far at the moment.

Please get a clue.

 

[stevoc]

Well, when you are accusing Israel of trying to wipe out the Palestinian race, which is what genocide means, then we are entitled to ask if that is really the goal. It is a serious accusation, maybe the most serious accusation there is. So while it might not matter to the dead, it does matter.

No doubt in the inevitable war crimes tribunal posts from the Redcafe internet football forum will be held up as evidence. And used to decide whether or not this was a Genocide, ethnic cleansing or just a good old fashioned massacre.

And on a serious not while I have not claimed this is a Genocide personally. As myself and no one else on here is qualified to determine that.

Many experts in the field consider it to already be one at this stage or very close to being full blown Genocide. Including some Israeli professors. So it's hardly an outrageous claim.

 

[RedC]

Well, when you are accusing Israel of trying to wipe out the Palestinian race, which is what genocide means, then we are entitled to ask if that is really the goal. It is a serious accusation, maybe the most serious accusation there is. So while it might not matter to the dead, it does matter.

It's hard to know what their(Israeli government and military) intentions are, I mean it's not like they are crazy enough to explicitly state it on TV and through their social media accounts, post videos of children's choirs singing it, etc. etc. ...

 

[adexkola]

Well maybe I'm in the minority here but I just find it strange that there's a major humanitarian crisis and massive loss of human life (many of them children) playing out in front of us. Yet in the midst of people trying to discuss that we have some wanting to engage in multi page discussions arguing which is the correct term to use to describe this massacre.

It just doesn't seem like a very important thing to discuss to me personally. Again maybe I'm in the minority here.

I don't imagine if there were a thread discussing a natural disaster. There would be people determined to argue whether to describe it as a tornado or a typhoon for example.

It's them trying to state that what they're doing isn't that bad. (They're wrong of course, but that won't stop them)

If you're defending a state by saying that their actions don't quite fit the definition of genocide then right off the bat you're in a very dark place.

And it's a privilege that's not extended to other bad actors like Russia/Hamas (and rightly so).

 

[4bars]

Well, when you are accusing Israel of trying to wipe out the Palestinian race, which is what genocide means, then we are entitled to ask if that is really the goal. It is a serious accusation, maybe the most serious accusation there is. So while it might not matter to the dead, it does matter.

Israelis endemic in the area and palestinians endemic in the area are the same race. They are both semitic. that is why is stupid call anti semitic if you support palestines in this massacre

And yes, this is a genocide. Srebrenica massacre of 8k deaths and 25-30k is considered officially a genocide. When you target a group as a whole for the mere reason to be a group (race, religion, nationality, etc) and you are looking to kill them indiscriminately and displace them, this is genocide and is what is happening right now. Numbers are even bigger

 

[langster]

It's hard to know what their(Israeli government and military) intentions are, I mean it's not like they are crazy enough to explicitly state it on TV and through their social media accounts, post videos of children's choirs singing it, etc. etc. ...

I know. I can't believe it's being ignored. Or are they just joking? Or using hyperbole? Since October 7th I must have seen two dozen instances of high ranking Istaeli political and military figures openly say they want to wipe Gaza off the face of the earth and kill all Palestinians as none are innocent. I mean, it's not like their actions are showing any different either.

 

[stevoc]

It's them trying to state that what they're doing isn't that bad. (They're wrong of course, but that won't stop them)

If you're defending a state by saying that their actions don't quite fit the definition of genocide then right off the bat you're in a very dark place.

And it's a privilege that's not extended to other bad actors like Russia/Hamas (and rightly so).

Yeah aside from not being very important to the topic which is obviously a very serious one. I also find the attempt to try and downplay/argue the severity of what we're seeing happen in Palestine pretty distasteful if I'm being honest. I could be wrong but it just comes across as a not very well disguised attempt to obfuscate the discussion and bog it down in pedantry and semantics.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[The Corinthian]

Could you please stop posting this kind of videos? It brings nothing to the discussion. Nothing.

Of course it does. Because when we debate the semantics of whether genocide is correct, if there’s enough evidence of a hospital being used as a military base, if this if that etc, we overlook the human effect and tragedy of this horrific campaign being waged by the Israelis. People are dying by their thousands, kids are dying by their thousands, this is the result of a systemic campaign of subjugation and dehumanisation.

This is what the last few weeks boil down to - not what a man in a suit is saying on a tv channel.

You’re either wilfully ignorant, or in denial (or both), if you don’t think it’s relevant to the ‘discussion’.

 

[That_Bloke]

I'm posting on behalf of a newbie.

I noticed that all the Muslims in the thread somehow missed my question, so I would appreciate it if you could ask them those two questions.

1) Does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish state?
2)In the future, when the demographics in Europe will allow it and the Muslims will have enough power, is it acceptable they will change the country's law to Sharia law? Or should Sharia law must be forbidden across Europe forever?

 

[VorZakone]

Israel estimates 5k killed on Hamas side out of 25k fighters.

 

[That_Bloke]

Of course it does. Because when we debate the semantics of whether genocide is correct, if there’s enough evidence of a hospital being used as a military base, if this if that etc, we overlook the human effect and tragedy of this horrific campaign being waged by the Israelis. People are dying by their thousands, kids are dying by their thousands, this is the result of a systemic campaign of subjugation and dehumanisation.

This is what the last few weeks boil down to - not what a man in a suit is saying on a tv channel.

You’re either wilfully ignorant, or in denial (or both), if you don’t think it’s relevant to the ‘discussion’.

You're a few light-years off the mark.

And no it's not. Those who know don't need it and you won't change the opinion of those who don't want to be convinced.

 

[JagUTD]

Well maybe I'm in the minority here but I just find it strange that there's a major humanitarian crisis and massive loss of human life (many of them children) playing out in front of us. Yet in the midst of people trying to discuss that we have some wanting to engage in multi page discussions arguing which is the correct term to use to describe this massacre.

It just doesn't seem like a very important thing to discuss to me personally. Again maybe I'm in the minority here.

I don't imagine if there were a thread discussing a natural disaster. There would be people determined to argue whether to describe it as a tornado or a typhoon for example.

This matters though. Maybe not on here but then what exactly can we do from a forum? Are the endless dodgy tweets helping anyone? No, probably causing more problems if anything (less of them now though, more discussion as requested by the mods).

It matters when it comes to Israel and Palestine finding peace. The point of no return has not been reached and genocide is that point. There's no coming back from it, no possibility of peace after that. So if you think we have reached that point, then it's over as far as there ever being coexistence. Thankfully the people who will ultimately make that distinction don't think we have crossed the line so there's still hope.

There's also the fact that misusing a word dilutes it's meaning. There's a reason genocide isn't something levied at groups very often, why until 1944 it wasn't even a word despite there having been many historical examples of mass slaughter.

Anyway, I'll leave it there.

 

[RedC]

I'm posting on behalf of a newbie.

Why are you being a proxy for what appears to be thinly veiled bigotry from an Israeli newbie(I'm guessing this is the same guy PMing the other poster)?

 

[Frosty]

Why are you being a proxy for what appears to be thinly veiled bigotry from an Israeli newbie(I'm guessing this is the same guy PMing the other poster)?

No need to assume that the poster is Israeli, or Jewish.

Those questions could easily have been asked by Geert Wilders or Marine Le Pen.

 

[Frosty]

Of course it does. Because when we debate the semantics of whether genocide is correct, if there’s enough evidence of a hospital being used as a military base, if this if that etc, we overlook the human effect and tragedy of this horrific campaign being waged by the Israelis. People are dying by their thousands, kids are dying by their thousands, this is the result of a systemic campaign of subjugation and dehumanisation.

This is what the last few weeks boil down to - not what a man in a suit is saying on a tv channel.

You’re either wilfully ignorant, or in denial (or both), if you don’t think it’s relevant to the ‘discussion’.

All I would say is if the video or picture involves a dead body, could you spoiler it? It may be triggering for some (in the sense of triggering trauma, rather than triggering reflection).

 

[JagUTD]

Israel estimates 5k killed on Hamas side out of 25k fighters.

Obviously we would need to wait for confirmation, if it ever comes, but are these 5000 part of the overall death tolls reported by Hamas?

If true and part of the reported deaths it does slightly change the perception, though before anyone jumps, does not in anyway reduce the pain and suffering of innocent Palestinians whatsoever. Just in terms of optics and the "aims" of Israel.

But how do you even know if someone is Hamas. Besides them hiding amongst civilians, they basically are civilians. They're not in camo, half the time they'll be with family, with groups of the public blending in.

Also, do Hamas actually announce Hamas deaths? As in separate to not combative deaths?

 

[RedC]

No need to assume that the poster is Israeli, or Jewish.

Those questions could easily have been asked by Geert Wilders or Marine Le Pen.

I am not assuming out of the blue, there was a newbie PMing @Dirty Schwein asking for his posts to be put in this thread who is Israeli, the post I responded to read very similarly to one of his. Anyway, this whole posting newbies messages is unnecessary.