Mid East Israel declare war after Hamas attack II

[Gethelred]

Part I:

Mid East - Israel declare war after Hamas attack.

Breaking the law. 'International humanitarian law prohibits a siege of Gaza, UN human rights commissioner says From CNN's Eve Brennan Ravina Shamdasani speaks at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, on September 7, 2018. Ravina Shamdasani speaks at the Palais des Nations in...

www.bigfooty.com

Thread Rules:

Alright.

I recognise that this is a fraught topic for any number of you posting here. Some of you will have family in Israel or Palestine. Some of you will have connections to either side of the conflict. What you need to understand is that this site has rules governing posting standards and the appropriate way to talk to other posters, and you will abide by them.

How this interacts with this thread is that the following will result in your post being deleted, with a recurrence of the same behaviour resulting in (depending on severity) a threadban for a week and a day off:

• direct labelling of someone as anti-semitic or a terrorist sympathiser for posting that is merely critical of Israel's response over time. I appreciate that Israel has the right to defend themselves from violence, but that does not mean that Israel has carte blanche to attack disproportionately towards people under their care.
• deliberate goading or flippant responses, designed to get people reacting to your posting emotionally.
• abuse.
• attempts to turn this into a Left vs Right shitfight.
• If I see the word 'Nazi' in here, you had better be able to justify it in the post you're making and the comparison had better be apt. Godwin's law is in full effect for the purposes of this thread; if you refer to Nazis, you've lost whatever argument you're involved in.
• Any defense of Hamas' actions on the basis of justification. There's no justification for genocide, regardless of whether or not they have the power to do so.

Please recognise that this is a difficult time for all involved, and some level of sensitivity is absolutely required to permit discussion to flow. From time to time, mods will reach out to specific posters and do some welfare checks; we may even give posters who get a bit too involved some days off to give people some time to cool down. This is not a reflection on you as a poster, merely that this is an intense subject.

I get that this is a fairly intense topic about which opinion can diverge rather significantly. If you feel you cannot be respectful in your disagreement with another poster, it is frequently better to refuse to engage than it is to take up the call.

From this point, any poster who finds themselves directly insulting another poster will find themselves receiving a threadban and an infraction, with each subsequent reoccurance resulting in steadily more points added to your account.

If you accumulate enough points in a 12 month period you will lose privileges:

5 points - 1 week off.
10 points - 2 weeks off
15 points - 3 weeks off
20 points - Account banned.

It has also become apparent that this needs to be said: just because someone moderates a part of this forum that isn't on Int Pol or the SRP does not hold them to a different standard of posting than anyone else. All of us were posters first, and we are allowed to hold opinions on this and share them on this forum.

Treat each other with the respect each of you deserve.

Thanks all.

Play nicely, all.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

Oh, I agree. The struggle for secularism and humanism in the West has already lasted centuries and is far from over. But in the Islamic world, that struggle has scarcely begun.

 

[Number37]

You're kidding yourself.

The birth of Israel was greeted with a war against a group of armies sworn to abolish them. And ever since they've been regularly shelled. Regular wars. Multiple countries demanding their death. Suicide bombers and other attacks. It's what most Israelis have been born into. Just as most Palestinians have been born into an occupying army oppressing them.

No doubt there are religious fundamentalists who are driven by a view of supremacy - on both sides.

You are talking nonsense again.
There is a very clear and simple international law principle of the right to self determination.
That right to self determination is being denied to the Palestinians.
It is as simple as that.
Palestinians right to self determination has f-all to do with what Israelis want or need. SELF DETERMINATION. Let those words sink into your head before you write yet another apology for Israel's genocide and again try to make this about Israelis.

 

[Number37]

Oh, I agree. The struggle for secularism and humanism in the West has already lasted centuries and is far from over. But in the Islamic world, that struggle has scarcely begun.

It has F-all to do with religion.
Secularism or religion has f-all to do with govt motives for doing anything. It is all about $$$$$$

 

[sr36]

You are talking nonsense again.
There is a very clear and simple international law principle of the right to self determination.
That right to self determination is being denied to the Palestinians.
It is as simple as that.
Palestinians right to self determination has f-all to do with what Israelis want or need. SELF DETERMINATION. Let those words sink into your head before you write yet another apology for Israel's genocide and again try to make this about Israelis.

It is about Israelis and Palestinians. Unfortunately too many on either side of the wall can't see that or are choosing not to see that.

 

[PieLebo87]

It is about Israelis and Palestinians. Unfortunately too many on either side of the wall can't see that or are choosing not to see that.

Sorry, this is such a weak response I hear far too common from people who actually believe they know the full picture and sit on the fence.

 

[Saint]

Are they being court martialled? What's the repercussions for these actions? If they are allowed to commit these crimes with impunity then you can assume the high command are basically giving them the go ahead

There's only an investigation if there's an Israeli victim. And even then, it doesn't seem like there will be charges against anyone.

They "censured" a General for committing a war crime (blowing up a University). And the right-wing Cabinet Ministers cracked it about that!

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Oh, whats going on here?

 

[Saint]

Oh, I agree. The struggle for secularism and humanism in the West has already lasted centuries and is far from over. But in the Islamic world, that struggle has scarcely begun.

Doesn't make a huge amount of sense if you look at history. What we're seeing is a fundamentalist reaction to secularism in Islamic countries.

Indonesia is a secular democracy. So are Malaysia and Bangladesh. There's recently (last 50 years) been an attempt by fundamentalists in Saudi and Iran to radicalise other parts of the Islamic world, but it has only succeeded in parts. Iran was very secular until the 70's.

There's a movement happening now from religious fundamentalists in Christian countries. If somewhere like the US succumbs, they'll spread that radical message faster than Saudi and Iran have. Orthodox Christianity is just as conservative, or more conservative than many Islamic countries.

Religion has a big part to play in the brutality of these wars. It's really the only way to justify killing civilians. But one is not worse than the other, they're all equally bad.

The countries who do better are the ones who shrug religious doctrine, regardless of which religion it is. That's why Israel wanted the Islamist Hamas in charge of Gaza as an opponent for the secular PA.

 

[Saint]

Oh, whats going on here?

View attachment 1938796

The UN released two reports. One said Hamas were abusing women, that was reported everywhere.
One said Israel were abusing women (and men). Nobody wanted to report it.

Now Israel is using the lack of reporting as an excuse to refute the evidence. The same evidence source (UN) they have been throwing around when it suited their own narrative.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

Bangladesh is not a genuine democracy, and neither is Malaysia (coughs in the direction of those behind UMNO).

Indonesia has just elected as President someone with some nasty Suharto-era crimes in his past.

The ex-Soviet Muslim republics are a pointed case as well. They just segued from Communist authoritarianism to... another type. Usually with the last Soviet-era leader continuing on.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

There's only an investigation if there's an Israeli victim. And even then, it doesn't seem like there will be charges against anyone.

They "censured" a General for committing a war crime (blowing up a University). And the right-wing Cabinet Ministers cracked it about that!

That's why I will never support PR for the Federal House of Reps. Weak governments that are dependent on either the left fringe (many in the Greens) or right fringe (Pauline) would not be good.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

You're kidding yourself.

The birth of Israel was greeted with a war against a group of armies sworn to abolish them. And ever since they've been regularly shelled. Regular wars. Multiple countries demanding their death. Suicide bombers and other attacks. It's what most Israelis have been born into. Just as most Palestinians have been born into an occupying army oppressing them.

No doubt there are religious fundamentalists who are driven by a view of supremacy - on both sides.

Perhaps because the "birth" of their nation came at the expense of the local populations? It's not as though it was an act of self-determination of a native people, it was colonial imposition.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

It must be noted that antisemitism, in both its religious and pseudo-scientific forms, is rife across the Muslim world – in schools and universities, in the media and popular culture, and (usually in slightly coded form) in government statements. “Mein Kampf” and the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” are widely read in Arabic translation. (The “Protocols” are cited in Article 32 of the Hamas Charter of 1988.) Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, is a Holocaust denier. Schools in the Palestinian Territories, run by UNRWA and paid for in part with your taxes, have taught antisemitism to generations of Palestinian children, including those who went on to commit the atrocities of 7 October. I’d be more impressed by condemnations of antisemitism from the “friends of Palestine” if they were more honest about the depths of antisemitism among their Palestinian friends.

So am I an Islamophobe? As an atheist, I don’t think the religious doctrines of Islam are any more or less absurd than those of any other religion. I judge all religions by the behaviour of their adherents. In that sense I am judging them by an ethical standard: does a given religion imbue its followers with ethical standards, or does it not? And of course by ethical standards I mean my ethical standards, which I would broadly describe as liberal, democratic, secular and humanist. Judged by that standard, Buddhism comes out on top, while Islam comes last by a long way. All the other religions are located somewhere between these two extremes.

That is not to say that Buddhists are perfect or that Muslims are evil. But it is to say that the correlations between Islam and oppressive government, between Islam and misogyny and homophobia (in the modern sense of that word), and between Islam and terrorism, are too close to be seen as coincidental. The correlation between Muslim-majority status and undemocratic government is striking. Of the (about) 50 Muslim-majority countries, fewer than ten can be described even loosely as democracies, and of the larger ones only Indonesia and Malaysia qualify. Most Muslim-majority countries continue to criminalise male homosexuality. Most Muslim-majority countries impose behavioural and occupational restrictions on women, either by law or by convention.

I don’t consider myself “phobic” about Islam or Muslims. But many people are entitled to be fearful of a religion which says that gay men and such ought to be killed, and which has shown in the countries where it holds power that it means what it says. I am entitled (in Australia at any rate) to say so without being called an Islamophobe. My anger over the past six months is directed mainly at people in countries like Australia, safe (mostly) from the actions of Islamist terrorists, who make excuses for events such as the Hamas atrocities in Israel, while falsely in many cases (though not all) accusing Israel of war crimes, and who accuse those who condemn Islamist terrorism of Islamophobia.

To be absolutely clear, nothing I have said here excuses abuse or discrimination against or violent attacks on individual Muslims. Much of what is commonly described as Islamophobia is in fact anti-Arab racism, and this is no less contemptible than any other form of racism.

Perhaps it would've helped if the west didn't foster these religious extremists as a means of destabilising democratic governments that were opposed to corporate interests? As one example where would Iran be now if Mossadegh wasn't overthrown in the 50's, the Shah and his torture prisons weren't backed to the hilt by the west? Or fundamentalist Muslim groups weren't fostered as a means of destabilising the "godless" Soviet Union?

The point is there's a reason things are the way they are and we should take a look at our own nations roles in this instead of just assuming it is a barbarism inherent in their culture.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

No it wasn't from the perspective of the vast majority of Jews. And it's very unlikely that there would have been an independent Palestine even if the Arab armies had won. Jordan and Egypt didn't create one between 1949 and 1967.

And remember, the Arab leadership (who were and are not representative of the wishes and will of their own people) went straight to war instead of even trying to negotiate and compromise. The most notable of a long line of very stupid decisions, because the payment of an all or nothing gamble is... nothing.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

No one is saying it is "inherent". What is being said is that Islam and more pointedly, Islamic religious culture, is a patriarchal system and homophobia and misogyny is rife throughout the Muslim world. I would be glad if this culture were consigned to history and like the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Tsarist Russia, i only had to view it from a distance.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

No one is saying it is "inherent". What is being said is that Islam and more pointedly, Islamic religious culture, is a patriarchal system and homophobia and misogyny is rife throughout the Muslim world. I would be glad if this culture were consigned to history and like the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Tsarist Russia, i only had to view it from a distance.

Patriarchy, homophobia, misogyny - yeah these things don't exist in enlightened western nations

It's not a question of why these principles are held amongst certain groups, it's a question of why those groups hold so much power in certain nations. It is partly due to the fact they have just been pawns on the grand chessboard and western governments/agencies/militaries have aligned themselves with them to either gain or retain power to suppress local populations and do what is in their corporate/strategic/geopolitical interests. Not just Muslim countries either it has been global, mainly, but not solely, amongst the global South.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

Patriarchy, homophobia, misogyny - yeah these things don't exist in enlightened western nations

It's not a question of why these principles are held amongst certain groups, it's a question of why those groups hold so much power in certain nations. It is partly due to the fact they have just been pawns on the grand chessboard and western governments/agencies/militaries have aligned themselves with them to either gain or retain power. Not just Muslim countries either it has been global, mainly, but not solely, amongst the global South.

But nothing is completely foolproof - look at Algeria in 1992 - an attempt at genuine democracy and the people voted for the Islamic Salvation Front. Civil war and chaos -- but allowing the ISF to take power might have been worse. Sometimes, there are NO good options, but one still has to choose.

 

[Saint]

No it wasn't from the perspective of the vast majority of Jews. And it's very unlikely that there would have been an independent Palestine even if the Arab armies had won. Jordan and Egypt didn't create one between 1949 and 1967.

And remember, the Arab leadership (who were and are not representative of the wishes and will of their own people) went straight to war instead of even trying to negotiate and compromise. The most notable of a long line of very stupid decisions, because the payment of an all or nothing gamble is... nothing.

So they should have negotiated with the British, who had a series of broken promises to Arab leaders going back 50 years?

They didn't go "straight" to war. They had been fighting for their own state since the British promised them that if they helped them in WW1, they would have independence. Instead, they gave the best parts to a new nation of people who weren't even from there.

The war, and nation of Israel, come as a notable long line of decisions imposed on the region by those outside the region.

Who is to say that Israel would have stopped with what they already had. They've proven since then that all they want is more of the land. There's zero reason to think that Israel wouldn't have started a territorial and genocidal war as soon as they had the ability. It's exactly what they've done.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

So they should have negotiated with the British, who had a series of broken promises to Arab leaders going back 50 years?

They didn't go "straight" to war. They had been fighting for their own state since the British promised them that if they helped them in WW1, they would have independence. Instead, they gave the best parts to a new nation of people who weren't even from there.

Even if they thought the UN PP was "unfair", in retrospect, it was still the best deal they were ever going to get. Negotiating with Jewish leaders is what i meant. The Arab League described their intervention as "a war of extermination". Pulling this kinf of crap only three years after the Red Army reached Auschwitz? As i said upthread, so many stupid decisions and acts for no gain.

 

[Saint]

Even if they thought the UN PP was "unfair", in retrospect, it was still the best deal they were ever going to get. Negotiating with Jewish leaders is what i meant. The Arab League described their intervention as "a war of extermination". Pulling this kinf of crap only three years after the Red Army reached Auschwitz? As i said upthread, so many stupid decisions and acts for no gain.

Well the arab leaders were right. The Israeli colonisers weren't going to be happy with the partition either and have spent the last 100 years trying to take more of the land. Even against UN resolutions and in spite of legal rulings against them.

And don't argue it's for safety. There's no safety reason to build settler outposts in the West Bank. That's just a straight out war crime.

The only thing the Arab leaders got wrong was siding with the wrong backers. They should have fostered more US backing.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Well the arab leaders were right. The Israeli colonisers weren't going to be happy with the partition either and have spent the last 100 years trying to take more of the land. Even against UN resolutions and in spite of legal rulings against them.

And don't argue it's for safety. There's no safety reason to build settler outposts in the West Bank. That's just a straight out war crime.

The only thing the Arab leaders got wrong was siding with the wrong backers. They should have fostered more US backing.

Yeah, there seems to be a bit of a disconnect on this safety thing with Israel youth being the second most happy out of all the countries surveyed.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

The Jews were around long before Islam and the Arabs ancestors conquered the place in the seventh century - which makes the Arabs look like the Tellmarines in Narnia, pretty much.

Wordplay and omission of fact does not help either side. It's just viler to me coming from those gangsters in Ramallah or the theocrats of Hamas because they discredit the Palestinian cause as a whole.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

Let's not leave out that "Nakba" originally referred to the military "catastrophe" (from the Arab POV). The reinterpretation to focus on the humanitarian side only occurred later - I assume after 1973 proved to the Arab states that a military victory over Israel was wishful thinking at best.

I mean, for the Arabs who we now refer to the Palestinians, it probably referred to both from the get-go (they experienced both the military and non-military meanings of the word, after all), but in the West, yes. It was introduced into the Anglosphere and Francosphere as a word referring to a humanitarian disaster, which is a somewhat... dishonest way of presenting a term coined to describe a military defeat.

 

[owen87]

Even if they thought the UN PP was "unfair", in retrospect, it was still the best deal they were ever going to get.

In hindsight perhaps.

At the time when someone else was portioning off the land they lived on out of guilt for the persecution of European Jews it's pretty easy to understand why they thought it was a s**t deal.

 

[owen87]

The Jews were around long before Islam and the Arabs ancestors conquered the place in the seventh century - which makes the Arabs look like the Tellmarines in Narnia, pretty much.

Wordplay and omission of fact does not help either side. It's just viler to me coming from those gangsters in Ramallah or the theocrats of Hamas because they discredit the Palestinian cause as a whole.

And there were people there long before Judaism was a religion. We should return the land to them right?