Of course we do, its 10 threads down on the list.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/livestream-out-of-syria.348338/
Plenty of discussion on the Assad regime in here.
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Of course we do, its 10 threads down on the list.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/livestream-out-of-syria.348338/
Plenty of discussion on the Assad regime in here.
Hehe...in a nutshell
And furthermore, the Syria thread has the additional credibility of having been started by LABOB.
Well I for one, like most of the international community, is in total condemnation of Assad and many other waring groups in Syria. The human suffering there is unbearable. However, the international sanctions are such that basically you cannot do anything with the Assad regime or supporters. There currently are no sanctions against Israel.
I'm sorry, but what has Syria go to do with the Israeli offensive in Gaza? Or are you trying cut me down for having an opinion about the offensive in Gaza? An opinion with is shared by the vast majority of the international community.
I've said it before. I'm not going to apologize for Iron Dome. We got the same proportionality crap when dozens of Israelis were killed from Hizballah rocket fire because we dared to retaliate to their attack.
You suggested charging Israelis for war crimes in Gaza. I'll help getting them on the plane when you're done with prosecuting US, UK, UN and NATO personnel for atrocities in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
I suppose the broader point here is that a good number of people who choose to make Palestine their vanity cause of the moment, are oddly silent on a variety of other conflicts around the world, where death tolls are often significantly higher. A strange phenomenon that may warrant a more rational explanation than the usual "Israel is different because its a so called Democracy", etc.
Three fecking years and you couldn't find the thread. Compassion.
If you want to hear my opnions on Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan then we'll discuss it in another thread. But none has anything to do with the offensive in Gaza.
Oh, so it's now about me is it?
Basically you've run out of arguments to defend the current offensive by Israel in Gaza so you've now resorted to trying to make me look bad. Am I right or am I right?
His aim was to raise awareness to Palestinian suffering and to make Israelis understand the other side. Not only has he not succeeded to do that, he is also experiencing what he perceives to be increasing resentments against the Arab minority in Israel. That's why he is leaving. Unfortunately, you ignored that part of the article. Instead you get all defensive, focus on what you perceive as blaming everything on Israel and then ironically you do the same thing the other way around and blame everything on the "Palestinian leadership in 1947".
I understand that basically living under constant threat is traumatic. Still, there are other people who are suffering, too. It would help a lot if people would make more of an effort to understand and acknowledge the other side's suffering.
This thread has already covered all of the Israel-Hamas angles, however the continued avoidance of recognizing the destructive nature of other conflicts is a legitimate sub-strand to this debate.
I don't think we should go back there, but I would be interested to know why IDF and Israeli officials should be tried based on international law whereas those I mentioned in the previous post should not. How does any interpretation of that law addresses only the former?
It's been going on longer than pretty much any current conflict, and in my opinion at least it's somewhat unique from civil wars which have much higher numbers of casualties because of how, through the blockade Gaza has been made into what is essentially a massive prison. Most of all though, the rights and wrongs of it are much more debatable. There are a few posters who are very pro-Israel who have over 1500 posts between them, of course there is going to be debate from people with a different viewpoint.
He specifically mentioned the Nakba, hence the 1947 comment.
Other people suffering is something that he hasn't mentioned, but we're walking in circles here.
I think it has something to do with western nations being involved. Arabs murdering Arabs isn't a sexy cause to get behind, but when the US or Israel are involved, its easier to visit the CE forum get all critical.
The Syria thread isn't exactly short of posts though and it's not been around as long as this thread.
Did the same with me because I mentioned Facebook (I just stated that pro Israel friends of mine posted articles justifying the attack whereas pro-Palestine friends wanted this to end). He's deluded. No point wasting your time arguing with this brainwashed kid.
The debate is about whether the force used by Israel in the offensive in Gaza is proportionate.
Well i suppose that might make sense if you just joined in January of 2014, but there have been hundreds of threads between 1999-2010 and beyond that discussed similar topics, where a good number of the suddenly compassionate never bothered to chime in.
Its about Israel-Palestine, and all sub debates thereof.
You're probably right. Not sure why you use the word "sexy" though. This place has mainly western posters, so the tacit involvement of the US in war crimes is bound to generate more debate than an exclusively eastern conflict.
That and the points Shamwow made. Sub-dividing a country with massive frigging walls is a fairly unique abuse of power. Plus these other conflicts come and go. This has been going on for half a century. People are much more likely to have strong opinions about this than other flare-ups that come and go in the region, where it can be much more difficult to pick a side.
Do you not think there is more potential for debate with this conflict though?
There's not the same level of debate about anything else. No one here thought Assad was justified when he gassed people.
Believe it or not there are a few who aren't convinced he did. But that's for the other thread.
Because they have purposely and knowingly attacked a civilian target, which is a war crime by international law. And by 'official' I mean the military commander who gave the order to do so.
Its really sexy apparently, so that helps.
I agree that western posters are generally only interested in western narratives, often to the detriment of other conflicts where far more people are affected. So its not surprising that people are a bit uncomfortable addressing the double standard.
The sex appeal is staggering. Anyone wanting to belong to an important debate can simply attach themselves to the outrage on Palestine.
When this issue has gone on for as long as it has, you should expect that.
Last edited:
Doesn't change the irony that you blame him for attributing everything on Israel and then do the same thing the other way around.
Yes, because he is telling one part of the story. What is so hard to understand about that? He is a Palestinian living in Israel and wants to give Israelis a different point of view. Thus, he is telling things from the perspective of a Palestinian to make Jewish Israelis understand how Palestinians feel. You could have chosen to listen to him. That does not mean you have to agree, but to make an effort to understand and to imagine to be in other people's shoes. Instead you cultivate your bunker mentality. The second quote is a good example of it. "Palestinians are suffering or have suffered? Other people are suffering, too, so I don't have to listen to that". This thing does not have to go in circles if people could take a step back and reflect on things instead of focusing on the score board in the blame game.
I think its more of a social media groupthink phenomenon of a well marketed conflict.
It's not just western posters it's media and politicians, see Rwanda. That the said Brits are largely responsible for initiating an Israeli state and it's a near 100-year-old unresolved issue, which has more prominence now that other injustices such as apartheid and British rule in NI have been addressed to a greater or lesser degree.
That's actually the most solid reason I've heard yet Pete. The residual legacy of Imperialism.
That's the what the frustration is about though. Surely there's room for a mutual acknowledgement of, let's say, a shared suffering. "Let's forgive each other", for example, instead of "I hope we can forgive you!" Why is that so difficult to express?
so you are doing exactly the same?
Instead of acknowledging, that a person leaves Israel after decades, because he experienced deep rooted racism and discrimination, you just blame him for being one-sided. Classic vicious circle if both sides think that way. Thats exactly why I posted this article. Making the first step is no sign of weakness. Its quite the opposite.
The Israelis are getting reamed by the UN Deputy SecGen on CNN right now - they gave the IDF something like 15 warnings that there were civilians in the building.
From a personal point of view Israel has been of interest since I was a kid growing up in London with Jewish kids. My initial understanding was that Israel was created as a homeland and haven from Nazi and other pogroms in largely uninhabited territory. Only later did I become aware of the post-colonial agenda and the iniquity of the Palestinians' treatment - amplified by the case of a close friend's father (an anglophile who couldn't believe how the Brits behaved) having been expelled in 1948.
I'm merely pointing out that if you're looking for true reconciliation then we both need to make that step. I will recognize your plight and acknowledge the injustice done to you but it's only fair if you do the same and we both forgive each other and fecking move on.