And yet your point is still inept.
Darfur.
http://unamid.unmissions.org
Sudan.
http://unmis.unmissions.org
Syria.
http://www.unocha.org/crisis/syria
Nigeria.
http://www.ng.undp.org/content/nigeria/en/home.html
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict [UN: 1,525+ Palestinian dead, mostly civilian; 66 Israeli]
- Thread starter L0st Id3ntity
- Start date
- Status
And yet your point is still inept.
Darfur.
http://unamid.unmissions.org
Sudan.
http://unmis.unmissions.org
Syria.
http://www.unocha.org/crisis/syria
Nigeria.
http://www.ng.undp.org/content/nigeria/en/home.html
Yes, it's a fucking shitty thing! What do you think I meant? That it means near to nothing to me? It does! I don't like that fact more than you do, but I also know there isn't much else to do. I know that if the IDF stays silent, our country will keep getting fired by rockets, and I still care about my own people. I care morea bout my own people, yes, and I would definitely want a better way to end this conflict, but I have seen the possible solutions and none of them can happen as long as Hamas are still ruling Gaza. Now you are satisfied?!
Here's the thing about the UN and its 'unbalanced' number of resolutions against Israel: There are few places in the world where a resolution condemning something like illegal population transfer will earn an unquestioned veto from a security council member. China will veto anything about places in its borders, but even Russia is not as defensive in the UNSC for Syria as the US is for Israel. So things get passed over and over again because they continue to be stymied by the US, even when Israel is blatantly acting against international law (as it is in its settlement activity).
And here's the last year's worth of UNSC resolutions. They seem to cover a pretty broad spectrum of world problems to me, including Syria, Sudan, Libya, North Korea and non-proliferation, etc.
So again, just to confirm, you are completely fine with the idea of defaming the United Nations and every independent observer because they do not fit your prefered narrative?
Someone doesn't understand what Ethnic Cleansing means
And on top of that look at what is happening in the west bank, outright land theft illegal under international law.
here is a better question for you, how is it not ethnic cleansing?
Really holding yourself to a high standard there. Glad to see Israel is in good company.
StopMakingSense
Member
Says the person posting Breitbart links. (Breitbart!)
I would be more inclined to call the settlements ethnic cleansing, since there's actual displacement involved, than what's happening in gaza. No one actually expects the people in Gaza to go anywhere. That's a material difference. If you actual think that Israel's grand design is to exterminate 7 million people then go ahead and try to defend that.
EDIT: To answer your last question, if it's 'ethnic cleansing', they're doing a really shitty job. 700 people is a lot of civilians dead, but relative to the 1.8 million people in gaza it's small.
You don't think media can mislead people regarding the conflict, you think media that is not theblaze.com can mislead people regarding the conflict.
Take a step back and consider that if basically every objective observer can look at this conflict and think there are serious violations and issues, and you have to go to places like theblaze.com - that maybe you aren't allowing yourself to look at this objectively.
So you are now arguing that, because the media can mislead people you would rather conform to the idea that the United Nations is the bulwark of a large international conspiracy against Israel, and that every independent observer and aid organization having similar conclusions is also a part of said conspiracy, and that you would then trust individual far less reputable sources that have an even higher likelihood of internal bias.
Hey, I never said people shouldn't have their own opinions on the matter, you can listen to whoever you choose, and I collected a few sources that are same with what I saw and heard in the time I was in the military, and via photos and other types of proof filmed by the IDF.
I presented you with my own opinions. If you think they are incorrect you can freely explain why.
I honestly have no idea what your talking about because the UN condemns those countries and crimes all the time. Israel is currently the focus because they are committing daily war crimes and killing hundreds of women and children.
No, I'm not. When you guys stop the ethnic cleansing I'm ok. Doesn't this situation reminds you of anything?
I'm not sure it's fair to consider Gaza separately in this question. I think it's more important to focus on the legal issue, which is population transfer, than the loaded term ethnic cleansing, but Israel's treatment of Gaza (in general and right now) is part of a larger pattern of abuse that enables the continued occupation and settlement activity in the West Bank.
Of course, on the other side, we're told that the ineffectiveness of the Gaza rocket launches is irrelevant to the intent. I think that's true to some extent, and I also don't think Israel is trying to wipe out Gaza(*), but this argument can't be used selectively even so.
(*) I think Israel is intent on keeping the status quo intact, which is still a very bad thing.
I understand many people see it that way, I simply talk out of my experience in the army itself, knowing it's not really immoral as many say. I understand why most would not believe me, but I still believe I am right.
I think people have done a good job explaining to you why your positions are full of issues, it would be awesome if you could acknowledge some of these efforts.
Someone showed you how your position on the UN and HRW were both incorrect (that they routinely talk about other issues around the world, not just Israel).
They talked about the lack of any evidence of Hamas's constant human shield usage.
In general, everything you have discussed has been summarily dismissed - it would be great if you continued the thread of even one of these points, so people could at least understand if you are open to your opinions being changed based on facts and solid arguments, or if we are just arguing against a wall here.
This confusion comes from a misunderstand of the term and a reluctance to modify ones usage even when it is explained to them.
All Ethnic Cleansing is not genocide (but all genocide is ethnic cleansing). The situation going on in the West Bank and Gaza meet every criteria.
When it comes to Gaza, how much more can you push them given current international realities. It is very obvious that Israel has had no intention of making them welcome, they are trapped by geography and now too densely concentrated to continue to push inward, this situation is not the same in the west bank, so land theft, intimidation, etc continues.
All Ethnic Cleansing is not genocide (but all genocide is ethnic cleansing). The situation going on in the West Bank and Gaza meet every criteria.
When it comes to Gaza, how much more can you push them given current international realities. It is very obvious that Israel has had no intention of making them welcome, they are trapped by geography and now too densely concentrated to continue to push inward, this situation is not the same in the west bank, so land theft, intimidation, etc continues.
Well, the scope of civilian casualties, and the historical context of Israel and Palestine makes this pretty clear to me.
Well, there is only so much blame you could put on Hamas before it become ridiculous. I mean, at what number of casualties do you consider that maybe the IDF is nothing doing anything it can to avoid civilian casualties? At what point does just crying "Hamas is using them!" seems to not be the whole story?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
What is this "you guys" thing? Israel as a whole?
The right wing fascists and part of the government is pushing for more occupation, but the military and many citizens have nothing to do with it. I also personall don't really see Israel's response as ethnic cleansing, since I do see IDF's intentions of warning the citizens, and of avoiding bombing ceratin buildings when they are crowded or found near children etc.
I also admit that mistakes happen, and that some of our militarymen could have killed innocents without intention, or with intention, but it is not the way of our military.
These that are guilty should, by all means, be interogated and punished if need be.
zer0blivion
Member
You can use https://hola.org to get around region restrictions/censorship.
zer0blivion
Member
In a word, it's incitement.
I don't really think that's fair. Hamas is terrible, no argument there, but they were also backed into a corner recently, with Iranian money no longer flowing and losing out on support. In response, they were forced to moderate. They formed a unity government with the peaceful/cooperative Fatah in the West Bank, and while they still hadn't officially recognized Israel's right to exist, they had been making noise about making peace along the '67 borders. Israel could have taken this as a good sign of improvement, and tried to negotiate with the new unified government. Instead, they used the deaths of 3 teenagers as an excuse to commit random acts of terror throughout the West Bank on their manhunt and provoke a reaction from Hamas. A lot of people see this as an intentional attempt to tear apart the new unity government, and the result of this military action into Gaza is only empowering Hamas and giving them back support that they had been losing recently. Nobody here criticizing Israel actually wants rockets flung into Israel or Israeli citizens to die. The problem is that all of Israel's actions leading up to and including this offensive do nothing but empower Hamas and make further rocket attacks in the future more likely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y
This statement was made by the interior minister of Gaza, Fathi hammad.
Stop baiting. You know very well who I mean. Might aswell ask me if I support terrorists.
We have another ex IDF soldier on GAF (Soul), and one thing you both have in common is a complete lack of respect for fair and balanced debate, proper sources, objective thinking etc. Both of you continually post sources from some of the most biased and discredited outlets around, and also attempt to discredit some of the world's most reputable sources or organisations in the process.
Basically anything that might put Israel in a negative light cannot possibly be credible, accurate or trustworthy, but instead has to be anti Israeli and false. It's an intellectually compromised and persecution complex fuelled irrationality. You guys honestly do yourself no favours, and paint what little real world examples we have of the IDF on GAF, in immensely negative light.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
The information/articles that come from those sources are incredibly skewed, misleading and sometimes flat out made up.
Thanks.
I 110% agree. I think neither side, politically, has an interest in peace. Everyone would BENEFIT from peace, but they won't elect leaders who will get them there.
I'm going to be stubborn about this ethnic cleansing thing though, I think it's important. How does the action in Gaza 'enable' the settlements in the west bank. Couldn't those settlements happen regardless of what's going on in Gaza? I think the action in Gaza specifically is completely political, design to extract a change in behavior from Hamas, while the west bank situation is in part actually fueled by a religious context, and sometimes even racist, I'm sure.
But what's more interesting i this: I doubt, even in the West Bank, that the Israelis want to 'remove' the Palestinians. The underlying goal is to bring the west bank under the control of the state of Israel for religious purposes, but none of the religious contexts require that anyone else necessarily leave (apart from that whole sticky 'jewish state/democracy' thing).
Specifically, I don't think Israelis are actively pursuing homogeneity as it pertains to the population (which would be required for ethnic cleansing), rather they're specifically interested in owning the land. It doesn't make the whole thing much better, but it's a important distinction that whatever happens is not necessarily being committed with ethnicity in mind.
Have you ever stopped to THINK (not believe) that you might be wrong?
You can't ignore the historical context of the Nakba, the Six Days War - Palestinian being driven out of their homes, villages cleansed to "jewdify" areas, the idea that the apartheid military regime in the West Bank. You can't separate that from what's happening in Gaza. That's why people are calling it "ethnic cleansing".
A well put argument.
I actually think that IDF's actions in Gaza make the Palestinian hate Hamas even more for getting them mixed in with this fucked up conflict, but I do agree that a different solution to this, not by means of war, should be achieved.
The problem is, I honestly don't know how.
I have seen suggestions from people here on Gaf, but I don't think they hold up. They require certain things that our government will simply not agree to, like opening the borders to Palestinians to go inside Israel, or allowing ships to enter Gaza without supervision.
The main concern here is the transfer of weapons and artillery to the Gaza strip, allowing more terrorist acts. it's basically a cycle, that I think cannot be undone.
ricardokenshin
Member
doesn't that sound like propaganda?
NullPointer
Member
/cosigned
I find it all but impossible to look at this latest round of conflict as Israel acting in self-defense. It was a war plan looking for pretext.
Everything about it is farce.
Miles Quaritch
Member
It's a pretty short video about how left wing anti war Israelis are treated by more right leaning Israelis.
Fellow Israelis houting they were whores of the Arabs, hoping their homes are hit by rockets and that a Holocaust is carried out against them.
Shouts of traitor and killers from someone who was at the protest too.
It's a side that I've never really seen or heard about before.
The six days war involved many arab countries, including some that operated from within the west bank to attack Israel. From what I remember, the arabs living in these areas fled when they saw Israel's forces coming and winning the war. They were afraid Israel would massacre them and so they left willingly, many of the places to be conquered by Israel in the process.
It's not as simple as you think.
I wrote about it a couple of pages back. My friend got hit in his face with a chair.
I think you can also sort of see me in the background of that video.
I know what the Six Days war was. I was more referring to its consequence. The word didn't come to me at the time, but I meant to say "Nakhsa"ץ
This is my point. Intention matters. Intended outcomes matter. I am using the same wiki definition you are (in fact I looked it up before I wrote the first mention of it, but thanks for being smug).
It requires an intent to create homogeneity among the population. I do not believe that is Israel's intent. It's not a defense of what's happening, but an important distinction, because language is important.
Nope, if anything the Palestinians are standing behind Hamas even stronger now. Their houses are being attacked and destroyed and you think they will oppose the party that is fighting against te invader?
What do you think the fathers that have lost all their kids will do or think now? Or the 20 year old that lost his parents and is alone now? I can assure you he will not point the finger at Hamas.
If Israel refuses to open up gaza then they need to provide food, medical, shelter at their expense and rebuild gaza (also give them full citizen rights). Anything else is apartheid which should cause Israel to be treated exactly like South Africa.
The opposite will happen. Hamas, as shitty as they are, are seen as the only thing between civilians and the IDF.
Fenderputty
Banned
This would be a response to the accusation of murder. NOT ethnic cleansing.
Yes, I did.
Am I wrong? I sure as hell hope not. I tend to criticize my country, and in fact, I don't like my country, and I pretty much hated serving in the military, but I can still see from my viewpoint how the army treats its enemies. Not in the same relentless merciless way that Hamas does.
Does our army has extremists? Sure, but they don't dictate the procedure of operations and the way the army should treat the citizens and innocents of Gaza.
i think what you meant to say is that israel isn't only destroying muslim cultural sites or mosques in gaza.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
You can read Haggai Matar's article about it here: http://972mag.com/the-night-it-became-dangerous-to-demonstrate-in-tel-aviv/93524/
(And in Hebrew: http://mekomit.co.il/הלילה-הפשיסטים-התקיפו/)
I will say it's not that easy - The counter-protesters usually come from the lower Israeli social classes, and are usually Mizrahi or Russian. These are the people getting the almost shortest end of the sticks (that very last part is reserved for arabs). The situation here is very very complicated
You will have a heck of a time making that argument.
zer0blivion
Member
Last count I heard was 57 mosques hit.
On the subject of how Gaza enables it, in the face of a more pacified West Bank (where settlement activity has always been greater for pretty practical reasons), a perceived existential threat from Gaza gives Israel a continued pretext for not pursuing a workable peace that would absolutely have to include some dismantling of the West Bank settlements and some solution to the Jerusalem issue. This is an extremely cynical perspective in terms of the Israeli government's motives, but it's honestly pretty hard to fit other, less cynical, theories to the facts imo. And it's no less cynical a view than I take to American or Russian activities.
Re. ethnic cleansing, the settlements, as well as roads connecting them to each other and to Israel proper, are off-limits to Palestinians, who also don't have the benefit of access to civil law (while settlers usually do). I'm not sure how that doesn't constitute removal of Palestinians from their land in favour of another ethnic group. Even if you assumed that land was previously completely unoccupied (which is, afaik, provably untrue) it was still intended to be part of a Palestinian state. And Jews and Arabs are de facto separated from each other by security walls.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked