Support NeoGAF

[Interceptor]

I think it was in reference to this:

MAybe this time, but i have seen him and other people here screaming genocide for every dead person in gaza. It´s a pitty whats happening there, but calling everything a genocide devalues the victims of a real one.

Such a fitting username for one running such interference by way of misdirection.

You are welcome.

 

[Charles Foster Kane]

nvm

 

[Chumly]

MAybe this time, but i have seen him and other people here screaming genocide for every dead person in gaza. It´s a pitty whats happening there, but calling everything a genocide devalues the victims of a real one.



You are welcome.

Can you point me to all of these posters that are calling what's happening in gaza genocide and then denying that's what's happening in Syria ISIS etc??? I haven't seen a single poster here claim that so I'm highly curious who all these people are.

 

[danwarb]

Sunday's blast hit the entrance of the school, which is sheltering thousands displaced by the conflict. Israel denies firing into the school

The Israeli military said it had targeted three militants from the Islamic Jihad group on a motorbike near the school, though the group did not report any of it members killed or injured.

Government spokesman Mark Regev said that if militants were turning the vicinities of schools into war zones they should be held accountable.

10 civilians killed at a UN-run school to shoot at some guys on a motorbike... and not even get them, if they ever existed.

 

[Kurdel]

Whitechocolatekrispies
banned

I wonder what comment exactly got him?

 

[RustyNails]

10 civilians killed at a UN-run school to shoot at some guys on a motorbike... and not even get them, if they ever existed.

If anything, US' statement on the strike is probably the strongest reaction I have ever seen by America against Israel. I think Israel will now start to slowly back away from this entire failire of an operation.

 

[Buzzman]

If anything, US' statement on the strike is probably the strongest reaction I have ever seen by America against Israel. I think Israel will now start to slowly back away from this entire failire of an operation.

Or instead they'll ratchet up their rhetoric and accuse the U.S of being Anti-Israel?

 

[alatif113]

If anything, US' statement on the strike is probably the strongest reaction I have ever seen by America against Israel. I think Israel will now start to slowly back away from this entire failire of an operation.

What did they say?

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

If anything, US' statement on the strike is probably the strongest reaction I have ever seen by America against Israel. I think Israel will now start to slowly back away from this entire failire of an operation.

As the trend is look for some other support to be going to Isreal.

 

[Zaph]

If anything, US' statement on the strike is probably the strongest reaction I have ever seen by America against Israel. I think Israel will now start to slowly back away from this entire failire of an operation.

Until next time.

That's what infuriates me about their war crimes - Israel can just stop, everything will just quiet down and there'll be no repercussions.

 

[RustyNails]

What did they say?

The United States is appalled by today's disgraceful shelling outside an UNRWA school in Rafah sheltering some 3,000 displaced persons, in which at least ten more Palestinian civilians were tragically killed. The suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians.

We once again stress that Israel must do more to meet its own standards and avoid civilian casualties

So difficult to find the text of the statement.

 

[alatif113]

So difficult to find the text of the statement.

US: But here, have some more guns.

 

[RustyNails]

US: But here, have some more guns.

Of course, that goes without saying. But I hope they realize how this is playing out in the middle east. News story breaks about US sending more weapons to Israel. Couple of days later a school is bombed.

 

[theignoramus]

So difficult to find the text of the statement.

what? The White House issuing unequivocal condemnation of an Israeli war crime? I dont think that's happened in over a decade.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Whitechocolatekrispies
banned

I wonder what comment exactly got him?

He played Devil's advocate to the point of being indistinguishable from the Devil himself.

If you have to clarify you are not in favour of genocide it's safe to say you've fucked up.

 

[linsivvi]

He played Devil's advocate to the point of being indistinguishable from the Devil himself.

If you have to clarify you are not in favour of genocide it's safe to say you've fucked up.

I'm not entirely sure he was playing devil's advocate.

 

[benjipwns]

I would like to go on the record as being opposed to genocide. For future reference.

 

[aliensandwich]

Israel just needs to take a few of these..

 

[Fox_Mulder]

Israel is worst than Palestine

 

[pgtl_10]

Has anyone seen this?

http://electronicintifada.net/content/candid-video-reveals-nyt-bureau-chief-jodi-rudorens-zionist-bubble/13685

So the NYTimes bureau chief lives in a bubble. The "civil rights" leader Abraham Foxman is sad "Arabs" owned a hotel.

 

[benjipwns]

So the NYTimes bureau chief lives in a bubble.

I'd say most of the NYT staff live in a bubble. Evidence: Most everything it's published in the last thirty years.

 

[Yagharek]

If this really is an attempt at Genocide, Israel is doing a really poor job of it.

Killing civilians != genocide. If genocide was really Israel's aim, there would be tens of thousands, maybe even hundereds of thousands of deaths by now.

I'm not going to argue over the definition of when mass murder becomes genocide, but when 1500+ civilians have been deliberately targeted in hospitals, on public beaches, in schools and residential areas, it really suggests that someone is deliberately aiming at non-combatants.

 

[soul]

I'm not going to argue over the definition of when mass murder becomes genocide, but when 1500+ civilians have been deliberately targeted in hospitals, on public beaches, in schools and residential areas, it really suggests that someone is deliberately aiming at non-combatants.

When you believe every word Hamas says online, it's obvious that out of 1800 killed 1900 are civilians. Keep living in your little Hamas bubble.

 

[Yagharek]

When you believe every word Hamas says online, it's obvious that out of 1800 killed 1900 are civilians. Keep living in your little Hamas bubble.

I havent read anything direct from Hamas, nice assumption.

Also stunning to see you hand wave away 1500+ lives as if it were nothing.

I wonder, how many innocent lives is too many for you?

 

[Chichikov]

I'm not going to argue over the definition of when mass murder becomes genocide, but when 1500+ civilians have been deliberately targeted in hospitals, on public beaches, in schools and residential areas, it really suggests that someone is deliberately aiming at non-combatants.

When you're using that terminology the only thing you achieve is giving the JIDF members (#NotAllJews) an easier point to argue.
Their main goal in these threads is to talk about anything besides the civilian death count, so spending a couple of pages arguing about semantic definitions of words fits their agenda perfectly.
Same goes to holocaust references.

And on topic, arguing about the intent of individual attacks kinda misses the point anyway, it's safe to say that Israel can kill much more civilians if it wanted, if Israel really wanted to just kill civilians it could've murdered a whole lot more, but at the same time, Israel has been doing these types of mini-wars for a while now, and they know with statistical certainty that those type of attacks would lead to hundreds of civilian casualties, but they do it anyway.

 

[jimbobb]

When you believe every word Hamas says online, it's obvious that out of 1800 killed 1900 are civilians. Keep living in your little Hamas bubble.

The man said 1500 deaths, try and keep up.
Once all the victims are pulled from the rubble, I wouldn't be surprised if we are looking at 2000 casualties, majorily civilians. I've always heard that the "IDF" are really effective, but it appears they're only good at shelling civilians. I am appalled my tax dollars go towards such massacres, Cowards.
3+ billion a year to "Israel" but my country rots away.Things need to change.

 

[Yagharek]

The man sad 1500 deaths, try and keep up.
Once all the victims are pulled from the rubble, I wouldn't be surprised if we are looking at 2000 casualties, majorily civilians. I've always heard that the "IDF" are really effective, but it appears they're only good at shelling civilians. I am appalled my tax dollars go towards such massacres, Cowards.
3+ billion a year to "Israel" but my country rots away.Things need to change.

Either Israel are
a) Deliberately firing at civilians
b) Recklessly firing indiscriminately or
c) Hamas are ninjas who flee the scene every time and replace their rocket launchers with children and families.

 

[CesspoolofHatred]

When you believe every word Hamas says online, it's obvious that out of 1800 killed 1900 are civilians. Keep living in your little Hamas bubble.

I was under the impression that those weren't just numbers put out by Hamas, but actual UN reported numbers.

Let's do some research!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/15/world/middleeast/toll-israel-gaza-conflict.html

At the bottom of the page:

Palestinian death tallies are provided by the Palestinian Health Ministry and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Because of the fluid nature of reports from the battlefield, the daily numbers of deaths and attacks may not add up to the totals. The figures shown reflect the latest data available. Targets struck by Israel may have been hit more than once. The number of Israeli deaths includes a foreign worker who was killed on July 23.

So are you saying that the Palestinian Health Ministry and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs are both making up these numbers because Hamas wants them to?

 

[Yagharek]

When you're using that terminology the only thing you achieve is giving the JIDF members (#NotAllJews) an easier point to argue.
Their main goal in these threads is to talk about anything besides the civilian death count, so spending a couple of pages arguing about semantic definitions of words fits their agenda perfectly.
Same goes to holocaust references.

And on topic, arguing about the intent of individual attacks kinda misses the point anyway, it's safe to say that Israel can kill much more civilians if it wanted, if Israel really wanted to just kill civilians it could've murdered a whole lot more, but at the same time, Israel has been doing these types of mini-wars for a while now, and they know with statistical certainty that those type of attacks would lead to hundreds of civilian casualties, but they do it anyway.

I missed this reply first time, sorry.

I think the troubling thing is that every time a JIDF (sorry, I'm genuinely not sure if thats a real group or a facetious label) person dismisses civilian deaths as trivial it begs the question as to how many deaths is enough to start caring? That concerns me because it shows how deeply their hatred has become ingrained.

I don't want to see any civilian deaths, Israeli or Palestinian, but when apologists for the biggest killers seem not to care it becomes very disheartening to see the extent to which their enemy has been dehumanised and are now seen as lesser people.

 

[RustyNails]

I missed this reply first time, sorry.

I think the troubling thing is that every time a JIDF (sorry, I'm genuinely not sure if thats a real group or a facetious label)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force

 

[Chichikov]

I missed this reply first time, sorry.

I think the troubling thing is that every time a JIDF (sorry, I'm genuinely not sure if thats a real group or a facetious label) person dismisses civilian deaths as trivial it begs the question as to how many deaths is enough to start caring? That concerns me because it shows how deeply their hatred has become ingrained.

I don't want to see any civilian deaths, Israeli or Palestinian, but when apologists for the biggest killers seem not to care it becomes very disheartening to see the extent to which their enemy has been dehumanised and are now seen as lesser people.

It's a real group, not sure how big they are, they just have a funny website.
Online propaganda is a big deal in Israel though, a lot of people just volunteer to do that, there was a recent article about how some boy scouts are doing HASBARA duties in shifts on social media and news sites etc. There's a some government funded programs for that as well.
Regarding GAF's Israeli brigade, even though they mostly spew the talking point de-jour like parrots, I'm pretty sure they're not getting compensation for that, they're waaaaay too shitty in this to be pros.

And you're spot on in regards to dehumanization, there is this whole crazy newspeak like language that the conflict is discussed about in Israel, that shit runs deep, and most people don't even notice that,

 

[Angry Fork]

I'm kind of surprised by the US statement, has there been a statement this strong before? I don't know enough about the israeli/palestinian stuff. I'd like to hope this is the beginning of the end of our unconditional support of them, but if Israel backs off now I'm assuming the US would go back to total fealty.

 

[Enron]

I'm not going to argue over the definition of when mass murder becomes genocide, but when 1500+ civilians have been deliberately targeted in hospitals, on public beaches, in schools and residential areas, it really suggests that someone is deliberately aiming at non-combatants.

Deliberately aiming at non-combatants, no.

Not really caring about civilian deaths when aiming for military or gov't targets though, yes.

I don't want to hand-wave off 1500 deaths but if the aim was inflicting maximum damage on civilians in Gaza, with all of Israel's technology and might there would be way more deaths than this.

 

[Aaron]

Deliberately aiming at non-combatants, no.

Not really caring about civilian deaths when aiming for military or gov't targets though, yes.

I don't want to hand-wave off 1500 deaths but if the aim was inflicting maximum damage on civilians in Gaza, with all of Israel's technology and might there would be way more deaths than this.

I think this is as many civilian deaths as Israel thought they could reasonably get away with. They greatly underestimated their blind support and general apathy of the world at large. At this point, they might as well stick to what works, and bomb more UN shelters, than risk raising a fuss.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

And on topic, arguing about the intent of individual attacks kinda misses the point anyway, it's safe to say that Israel can kill much more civilians if it wanted, if Israel really wanted to just kill civilians it could've murdered a whole lot more, but at the same time, Israel has been doing these types of mini-wars for a while now, and they know with statistical certainty that those type of attacks would lead to hundreds of civilian casualties, but they do it anyway.

Chomsky likes to say "professions of having noble intent" are predictable, and therefore carry no information.

Arendt's "banality" also comes to mind. No one chooses to be evil, thus the horror.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

Deliberately aiming at non-combatants, no.

Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
http://electronicintifada.net/content/israels-dahiya-doctrine-comes-gaza/8006

Collective punishment is the policy.
And even if it wasn't "official policy", at best it's reckless endangerment of the civilian population, in violation of its obligations under international law. Yes, even with rockets being fired "in the vicinity".

I don't want to hand-wave off 1500 deaths but if the aim was inflicting maximum damage on civilians in Gaza, with all of Israel's technology and might there would be way more deaths than this.

"Inflicting maximum damage" is meaningless in this context. What delimits the violence isn't the capacity to kill, but the acceptance of its prosecution. All the energy spent on "public relations" isn't for shits and giggles, or even contingency. It's the primary component of state violence. The damage is always at a "maximum" of what can be sold and categorized as 'humanitarian'. As I argue earlier in the thread, Israel serves the role of brinksmanship in a larger game of hegemony in the region.

 

[RustyNails]

I'm kind of surprised by the US statement, has there been a statement this strong before? I don't know enough about the israeli/palestinian stuff. I'd like to hope this is the beginning of the end of our unconditional support of them, but if Israel backs off now I'm assuming the US would go back to total fealty.

Its never going to happen. Bill Clinton once said this about Benjamin Netanyahu after he lectured Clinton:

Who the fuck does he think he is? Who's the fucking superpower here?

Despite that quote from Clinton 15 years ago, we still have not seen any shift in policy. So forget about a strongly worded statement. Israel is far too entrenched in the US Congress.

 

[Yagharek]

Deliberately aiming at non-combatants, no.

Not really caring about civilian deaths when aiming for military or gov't targets though, yes.

I don't want to hand-wave off 1500 deaths but if the aim was inflicting maximum damage on civilians in Gaza, with all of Israel's technology and might there would be way more deaths than this.

Calculated 'acceptable death tolls' or simply not doing proper research on target validity and casualties are also morally despicable, and I'm reasonably sure the latter is a warcrime.

With all Israel's alleged technology and accuracy, either they are deliberately targeting civilians or they dont care if they hit them. Neither possibility is acceptable.

 

[neurosisxeno]

How are people still seriously responding to Soul? He has made his bias quite clear over the past few months...

 

[Enron]

Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
http://electronicintifada.net/content/israels-dahiya-doctrine-comes-gaza/8006

Collective punishment is the policy.
And even if it wasn't "official policy", at best it's reckless endangerment of the civilian population, in violation of its obligations under international law. Yes, even with rockets being fired "in the vicinity".

Aiming at infrastructure is akin to (and many times the same) as a government target.

And I don't believe I disagreed that it isn't "reckless endangerment" (cleary it is when you don't give a fuck that you are going to kill civilians as collateral damage), but disagreed that Israel was deliberately aiming to kill as many civilians as possible or that it was genocide.

"Inflicting maximum damage" is meaningless in this context.

Except that it isn't meaningless when the discussions I responded to were "Israel is committing genocide" and "Israel is deliberately aiming at/trying to kill as many civilians as it can". Both of those are pretty much "Inflicting max damage" scenarios.

 

[CesspoolofHatred]

How are people still seriously responding to Soul? He has made his bias quite clear over the past few months...

I'm personally more inclined to just ask soul to back up his statements with hard, credible sources. Dismissing him or reacting angrily won't do much.

If soul can't do something as simple as back up his words and assertions with recent, solid evidence and sources, then that's far more damaging to his credibility than the wall of his previous statements that will inevitably be posted here.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

Aiming at infrastructure is akin to (and many times the same) as a government target.

"akin to, many times." How many times? How many not times?

And I don't believe I disagreed that it isn't "reckless endangerment" (cleary it is when you don't give a fuck that you are going to kill civilians as collateral damage), but disagreed that Israel was deliberately aiming to kill as many civilians as possible or that it was genocide.

Yeah, I know you disagree with that. My point of contention is what you mean by "as possible".

Israel is in deliberate violation of its obligations under international law. That means the state of Israel is doing exactly what it can. You're implying there's a moral calculus preventing further violation of the law ("it could be even more barbaric!"), when in reality it's just cold hard game theory in service of dominion. I repeat myself, but "maximum damage" isn't a meaningful metric. We have an "optimal amount" of dead children. Very efficient. That's all you need to say.