Has the world no shame in what Israel is doing?

Gonna copy and paste what i posted elsehwhere, gonna drop a big drop of (unfortunate) knowledge for some people.

It's been a long time since i came to Off Topic.

but I thought i'd weigh in, the media has been showing a lot of dead children, which is extremely unfortunate. However they're not really giving you the whole image.

I found this interesting blog analysis, and i replicated it using Al Jazeera's information (the most 'unbiased' news source, who seem to be giving people like Hamas's Osama Hamdan on AJE the floor and Qardawi the floor on AJ Arabic.) on who is dying in Ggaza.

What i found was the same as of (now two days ago) last update:

Even AJE's reporting on is colored. This morning titled "Gaza Neighborhood devastated by Israeli bombing" . Goes from

shows neighborhood devastation, says more civilians died here in one day then in most days prior, then says Hamas fighters using the area as a base to fight. then mentions 13 IDF soldiers dying - and i'm not crying over dead soldiers, they knew what they were signing up for - but then makes no hint or mention of Hamas or Islamic Jihad or any other fighting force getting killed. Note the omission.

This is a war of propaganda pure and simple.

Hamas refused the ceasefire because it had to have something to show for its efforts, it couldn't accept settling down arms fire if it didn't get some kind of concession for it's efforts. If it had nothing after having about 211 people dead (at the time of ceasefire), infrastructure severely damaged or destroyed, and spent 1,000 rockets and only managed to injure one civilian at a gas station.

the first person to die from the rockets was ironically an Arab Israeli, I guess the anti-jew sensors malfunctioned.

Instead Hamas sent it's terms before agreeing to a ceasefire. to which people scoffed at in the Egyptian media:

1. Seaport (under international supervision)
2. International Airport (Arafat Airport in Gaza was blown up in 2001, so lets build another one then have it get blown in another 2 years when Hamas or Islamic Jihad decide they wanna pick a fight again)
3. Release of the siege and freedom of movement and goods for it's people (and i agree, it's a reasonable demand)
4. Stop Interference in Palestinian political affairs
5. increase the limitation of fishing area into the sea to 10 km (which the Israeli's did unilaterally back off on and enforced the old stricter limit)
6. Farmers be allowed to farm near the border (there is a buffer zone into gaza that limits farming)
7. Demand the people of Gaza be able to get to the Al Aqsa Mosque (correct me if i'm wrong, but am i lead to believe that this is a problem between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority or what does it have to do with Israel? )
8. Release of recently arrested prisoners
9. Rafar Crossing (into Egypt) must open and at the control of Hamas with the supervision of a friendly state of their choosing (because they don't trust Egypt)
10. the zionist airforce must not be allowed to fly over our territory

oh and about those human shields...

1

2

and even the local authorities in Gaza telling the people to ignore Israeli warnings

Note that in the first link about Al Jazeera English playing with words and omissions near the end of the short video, some families finally heeding warnings by Israel to leave the area.

the occupation must end, the settlements must be stopped and pulled back as much as possible, groups like Hamas must stop provoking military strikes in order to deal in lost civilians lives for sympathy propaganda.

A deal that both can live with but neither be happy with must be met.

The Israeli's must get it in their heads that their manifest destiny will not be accepted. but also (and probably needs to be stressed much more because of how saturated this thinking is) to the Palestinians and Arabs by extension. pre-1947 isn't coming any time soon. If I were a refugee i'd of given up my demand to return to villages that no longer exist for a life that could possibly provide for my children. life, quality of life and a pathway to a better future is more important then the land itself. Especially when hundreds of thousands have fought and died and so far almost always lost.

Nowadays 'victory' is just surviving an onslaught, being king of the rubble isn't much of a conciliation prize...

and about the death toll graphics from Gaza, note that the vast majority of the dead are men aged 18-28 being almost 45% of the accounted for dead, and almost 80% of the total male fatalities. while this most certainly does NOT mean it's mostly fighters dying as this accounts for the children and the elderly, given that Hamas isn't say how many or who is dying of their forces, and that men of the age 18-28 age range are combat age men and given the omissions by news networks like Al Jazeera. I wouldn't hold my breath that a good chunk of those men were enemy combatants and not civilians.

As those guys chanting in the streets of Gaza at the announcement of catching a POW (which hasn't been proven for sure yet as IDF didn't make the admission yet) guys in plain clothes chanting that they are the resistance.

Note the really low number of females dead though, and low number of children as well. Remember this is urban warfare, where Israel is employing a number of methods to try to minimize innocent civilian causalities, Hamas actively doing what they can to make sure civilians stay in their locations, the median age is 14 years old. If Israel really was really targeting civilians en mass, the number of female would at least approach the number of males, and the number of children killed would sky rocket.

Similar thing happens in the past, based on another link from a Wall Street Journal article " In May 2002, at the height of the so-called Al-Aqsa Intifadah, I reviewed the Israeli and Palestinian casualty figures, sticking to Palestinians sources for Palestinian numbers and Israeli sources for Israeli one. Much was then being made in the Western media of the fact that three times as many Palestinians as Israelis had been killed in the conflict - evidence, supposedly that despite the suicide bombings, lynchings, and roadside ambushes perpetrated daily against Israeli's, Palestinians were the ones who really were getting it in the neck.

But drilling down into the data, something interesting turned up. At the time of 1,296 Palestinians had been killed by Israeli's, of whom a grand total of 37 or 2.8% were female. By contrast of the 496 Israeli's killed by Palestinians (including the 138 soldiers and policemen), there were 126 female fatalities or 25%

to be female is a fairly reliable indicator of being a noncombatant. Females make also half the population. If Israel had been guilty of indiscriminate violence against the Palestinians, the ratio of male-to-female fatalities would not have been 35-1"

----

I didn't put this in my original long post because of the source, but it comes straight from the IDF's youtube page. bear in mind i wouldn't take it as complete truth of their operations, but it does give you a glimpse into their operations. they've been updating it every few hours.

Grad Rockets found near Agricultural school - I should mention this tactic of places weapons at sensitive protected locations under international law isn't an hamas exclusive one, it's been used by Assad (when Syria was under American threat of bombing he moved high value weapon systems next to universities, schools, hospitals) Saddam's Iraq (in both wars), Al Qaeda (all over the middle east) Syrian rebels, Houthi rebels (in northern Yemen).

since everyone is so keen on quoting international law I invite them to read it for themselves and ask themselves honestly of any nation or party that has gone to war that hasn't ever broken any of these rules. the 4th Geneva Convention Protocals and while were on the topic of protected buildings and the responsiblities of an occupier force get a load of this under page 187 article 53 - "Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the state, or to other public authorities, or to social or co-operative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations" I believe firing rockets or storing rockets at senstivie locations necessitates military op no?

While also under Article 3 it states that POW's and civilians should be not used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. I believe Hamas broke that several times...

but lets move on:

Hamas (or Resistance fighters) firing from homes

Attempted infiltration into Israel

Redirecting a target because the target moved to close to civilians.

Firing from civilian homes

Attempted warning (this doesn't always work and some people in Gaza are claiming they were not warned - still more then most armies ever bother to do)

IDF Aircraft calls off strike

IDF strike on weapon cache causes massive secondary explosion.

Human shields in action after IDF gives the warning shot on an alleged Hamas command

First real attempt of Hamas taking on an IDF base

Another attempt to sneak into Israel

Just a show of how big the deployment is from the Golani Brigade

Footage from Hamas's own video talking about their tunnel systems and that they store their rockets under their.

Think this, despite the source, coupled with the stats i put together and trying to follow (it is extremely depressing having to put that together) probably gives more then adequately make my point.

and yes i will be donating to the Gaza relief aid, it is the people in the end who are caught in the middle, but who I'd blame is quite obvious in this case.

Israel can exist without wiping out the entire Palestinian population. Israel is in fact Palestinian so it is not a necessity whatsoever.

@themajormayor:

I don't even know I would put Hitchens in the same place as someone like Chomsky, Chomsky is an anti Zionist as part of his general ideology of blaming the west and pandering to dictators. Hitchens was actually logical , and I wouldn't even call him anti Zionist in the way most of them are, he didn't want to tear down the Israeli state at the end of the day, nor did he pander to dictators.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FJzNvIaOLE

I actually find this lecture by Hitchens on the general topic of anti semitism , Zionism and such very good , quite reasonable.

He describes himself as anti-Zionist. But I guess you're right. Maybe he is then somewhat of a non-Zionist or something.

you're a ****

and the term **** i'm, of course, using in my own way as a way to describe people who define a political term in a manner strongly conflicting with prevalent consensual defintions, especially when also going against the terminology adopted by people who fall under that terminology- all because it suits their political beliefs better

Ok, but are we going to continue using the german nazi term even if it's innacurate? The fact is that people who complain about Israel's actions are not all anti-semitic there are many sensible people, jews included that think that what Israel is doing is despicable. So labelling all Israel critics as anti-semitic is pretty simplistic and unrealistic.

Using people sho have studied the conflict in a broad way and that are respected for it to defend my ideas is a valid point. So are we supposed to ignore all literature on the subject just because you don't like their views. Norman Finkelstein particularly is considered probably the person most academically prepared with regards to the conflict at hand. He considers what the Israel government is doing a crime and a genicide and yeah, he's not anti-semitic considering a large part of his familay died in concentration camps during Nazi Germany. There's a very big different into using a small number of random people to support your point and using academic knowledgeable people who are prepared, have studied the conflict and are jewish themselves to assess what is happening. I'm not jewish but I try to get info from several sources including other jewish people who live the conflict more closely. Have you yourself read any Palestinian scholars? So have you done your studies too?

You can't be serious.

About what?? of course I'm serious.

I don't know how the German Nazi term is relevant at all to this discussion. Can you name any person who has labeled all Israel's critics as anti-Semitic?

Considered by who? He is clearly not very academically prepared if he thinks that what Israel's government is doing genocide as it is simply factually incorrect. That parts of your family has died in concentration camps doesn't mean that you can't hold antisemitic views. And Finkelstein certainly has some serious issues with his identity that's for sure. What kind of sources from Jewish people are you talking about?

lol , ok , apparently the dictionary is wrong and you are right.

I don't think Ive ever said all anti Zionists hate Jews, certainly thats not true , but at the same time , the lines are often very blurry, and frankly I think alot of anti Zionists are indeed motivated by hatred of Jews.

Norman Finkelstein is considered a fool by most Jews, you consider him knowledgeable because you approve his views, so you're really no different. Nor am I aware that having a large part of your family die in the Holocaust gives you some sort of legitimacy (a big chunk of my family is in mass graves because of the Holocaust, doesn't say much about me). What you are doing is picking and choosing your supposed intellectual champion , no more.

And yes using the "Im right because this guy says so" argument is dumb. You are not a zombie, you have a head and can think for yourself, so try it. Doesn't mean you can't sometimes refer to a supposed higher authority, but so far I haven't seen any real articulation of ideas come from you, no real arguement. your points can basically be summed up as

1) There are Jews who are anti Zionist so Anti Zionism is not hatred of Jews (with you moving the goal posts to refer specifically to 2 individuals you like because they preach to the choir)

2)Zionism has racial supremacist ideals and feels its entitles to a land , the first idea is false, the 2nd is both hypocritical unless you're willing to apply that rule to any other people, which you wont.

Its even dumber when you specifically try and look for Jews to justify your views because again , it shows total insecurity on your part in terms of a lack of legitimacy for your argument, a fig leaf for an otherwise nonsensical series of statements.

and yes I always read various sources even from people who are not supportive of my views, and in some cases want to remove my head from my neck . On the other hand , I very much doubt you read anything regarding Jews, because so far most of what I'm hearing is nonsense.

Well Finkelstein is acdemically prepared like it or not. He's considered to be one of the most knowledgeable scholars on the conflict. He considers Israel's actions of killing civilians and occupying their land despicable. He's a humanist not anti-semitic.

Apparently not. Someone who doesn't know either what a genocide is or what Israel is doing can clearly not be very academically prepared. And definitely one of the most knowledgeable "scholars". Ok. Seems like the other way around.

Back on topic. It is never right to kill children, whether it is Hamas deliberately killing Israeli children or the IDF killing Palestinian children as collateral damage. They are equally dead and the effect on the families is the same. Therein lies the problem for Israel: they create as many or more new terrorists through the grief of relatives of the dead.

As for Hamas, any reasonable person should see that the Palestinian people are never going to be in a better position by murdering Israelis or bombing this or that. But Hamas is not made of reasonable people; rather, it is mostly angry young men fuelled in part by dead relatives and friends.

This is why force will never solve this conflict.

He can be considered a fool by most of jews or not, I really don't know but the fact is that he is academically prepared. What do you do when there is someone more prepared to understand a subject than you do? well you use him as a source. The same will happen with any subject be it biology, political conflicts or physics, you use the most reliable, prepared sources and CNN is not reliable and prepared in my book while Finkelstein is. In this debate I have Finkelstein, Chomsky and even Hitchens on one side and then I have you a couple of guys here which I don't know anything about your academic preparation. So of course I'm going to believe the most prepared side and that's not you buddy.

Likewise if I had to believe Stephen Hawking or you in a subject such as physics, no matter if you had read a brief history of time up and down 20 times I will tend to believe Hawkings more because he has prepared himself his entire life on the suject unlike you.

Also your criticism towards me can also be applied to you. You being jewish doesn't mean you know more about the subject than me or Finkelstein, that's a fallacy. And that you prefer the sources that suit your views doesn't mean that they are right.

So some stuff that I remember:

Jews hate Christians and Jesus.

Jews are responsible for multiculturalism.

The Rothschilds own the central banks in every country in the world except North Korea.

There was much bad stuff about blacks as well. Don't remember as clearly but it was about the "reverse racism" conspiracy in Amerca.

Basically a conspiracy nut and white supremacist light.

He clearly knows alot more than you do lol.

In any case, Norman Finkelstein is a source of opinions not facts.

That's an opinion itself, not a fact. Specially considering how many studies he has made, his PhD, his work on several top universities around the world, etc. I don't think he could have made all that based on opinions.

and yet Ive never claimed to hold an absolute truth nor did I really base anything like that on me being a Jew , the reason I know more than you is that I know more about my own people, and I know Hebrew as a native speaker, you don't. Your idea of academically prepared is really someone who suits your views and preaches to the choir, not necessarily a sin , but given the fact

I wish my university dissertation was that easy, not argue anything, not know any facts, just claim some guy as a source with supposed facts I won't understand. If only it was that easy. Fact is I'm actually still waiting for some sort of justification or argument for your statements.

so show me your ability to think for yourself and actually explain your ideas.

I never claimed to hold the absolute truth either but you accused me the same.

"the reason I know more than you is that I know more about my own people, and I know Hebrew as a native speaker, you don't."

That's a fallacy, you're trying to give validity to your argument using things unrelated to the argument. What if a Palestinian supports Hamas? is he right or closer to the turth than you just because he is Palestinian and he speaks arabic?

The arguments has to rely on facts and credible and supported information be it from news sources or scholarly research which are a couple of the more well-known. I'm using the second mainly to support my point but if I had more time I could use others.

what conspiracy are you talking about lol? do you want me to post the videos where it comes from their own mouths?

He's not a historian. He gives his opinion on matters.

But it is an informed opinion considering how much studies he has made on the subject that's the point. You can give an opinion but the level of information you use to give it counts too.

@sibu_xgamer: Zi·on·ismˈzīəˌnizəm/nounnoun: Zionism - a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.

you seem to misunderstand what zionism is. just google "zionism definition". and i see nothing wrong with jews living in israel.

and proof unrwa found rockets inside a school in gaza --> http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-strongly-condemns-placement-rockets-school

I understand but terms have to be interpreted contextually not only from a dictionary definition. Zionism is also used to describe this:

Critics of Zionism see it as a colonialist^[8] or racist^[9] ideology that led to the denial of rights, dispossession and expulsion of the "indigenous population of Palestine".^{[10][11][12][13]}

From Wikipedia. I was using that term in that context.

I don't understand what anyone is trying to defend. The government's on both sides are utterly despicable; its horrible that we consider these people human beings. Hamas thinks it can continue to attack a country with its missiles and get away with it, Israel thinks it can just shell anything it wants. Neither side is going to win, and generations upon generations of Palestinians will be born with an ingrained hatred of the State of Israel. It's not rocket science, there will be no end to the conflict unless one people is simply wiped off the face of the Earth - honestly I don't care who. You can argue that Israel is illegitimate (as I personally do), but the fact of the matter is they exist and we as a society need to accept the facts and move on. This, I imagine, is hard to do when everything you owned and cared for was bulldozed, but PEACE DOESNT HAPPEN IN ONE DAY. This will take generations to fix, to the point where Israeli and Palestinian children can go to the same schools and laugh and play with each other. The only monsters here are the filthy scumbags in power who have no sense of moral decency. For their puny stone age minds it is a free for all where the winner will thrive and the loser will die.

There are hateful people within every group, I'm sure you can find videos of some nut saying something crazy. But it's not necessary. You can hear it from a mouth here in OT, I like Jesus and Christians. So apparently Jews like Jesus and Christians.

Not necessarily. And clearly not in this case. I expect even not so informed people to know what a genocide is.

and I'm still waiting for you to prove to me or show me why you are correct on what you stated.

and actually to an extent , yes, the average Arab probably knows more than me on Arabs, its not crazy , regardless of his political opinion and whether I agree with him

of course you yourself push the Jewish aspect of the people you champion , which has nothing to do with your argument, youre guilty as well.

@sibu_xgamer:

but any1 can edit wikipedia, thats why it is not trustworthy, pick up a miriam webster dictionary and show me what you say about zionism and how it is different.

.

But that definition of Wikipedia has several sources. Wikipedia is alright as long as it uses credible sources. The sources use the definition in context but, of course, from a critical stance.

There are several ways to analyze a situation or event. Two of those ways is, first, to analyze the phenomenon from within, that's like intrspection. When a person has a problem he can assess the problem using his own resources. The second way is from without because a phenomenon normally can't be assessed entirely from within. That's why people with psychological issues rely on an external point of view to deal with their problems like, for example, a psychiatrist. I think the same happens with social/political conflicts. Indeed you, being jewish, have access to lots of information that I don't since you can see the conflict from within the jewish contextbut, likewise, looking at the conflict from within doesn't paint the whole picture and a external point of view can reveal stuff that an internal one doesn't have. That's why it is fallacious to say that your condition makes you automatically more knowledgeable. And you haven't done a lot of effort either to support your point from within.

@sibu_xgamer:

but it can still be biased or false until it is corrected. what you are seeing now might not be the truth, that is why wikipedia doesnt have much credibility.

fact is that the majority of dictionaries and even a simple google search all turn to be the same, just because wikipedia says otherwise doesnt mean it is true.

you should look for more sources before arriving at a conclusion.

and what do you have to say about the rockets in the schools? is that a right thing to do?

@sibu_xgamer:

I see your are still avoiding the question , rather cowardly I have to say, so far it seems this external view of yours is not very clear.

Not very reliable sources first of all. Second of all, Zionism has an established and accepted definition. The judgement of what this definition implies does not affect the definition itself. In that case Zionism would be racist, non-racist, colonist, non-colonist and so on. And if you decide to use their judgement then explain how it makes sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXZEzbT0H1s&list=UUawNWlihdgaycQpO3zi-jYg

Hamas Spokesperson Encourages Use of Human Shield

They aren't purposefully killing children.

This is no different from any other country that inflicts collateral damage.

As long as they are reasonably doing what they can to prevent those deaths, they are well within the Geneva Convention.

You guys need to edit these post chains. It's making threads 3x as long as they need to be.

I feel physically sick hearing "collateral damage". That is so disrespectful

It's a reality of military operations. Why beat around the bush?

It's a disgusting euphemism in my book.

A dictionary or encyclopedia can also be corrected in the future. The difference is that Wikipedia is more dynamic and has more sources. It's a better source IMO, if you know how to use it.

Nah it pretty much sums it up. It's reality....as is people not getting along.

Okay? I'm sorry, you're mistaking me for someone who cares what you think about the term.

That's just me explaining why that's not beating around the bush in my book and in many other people's books. Not everyone will just accept the term collateral damage and be fine with it. This is a public forum afterall.

Of course not. But I won't use that to justify dropping bombs on civilian populations and pretend that the dead innocent people somehow had it coming.

So you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Good to know you can't take a consistent stand.

This. 1000x this.

Unfortunately when wars break out civilians will be killed. Israel doesn't try to kill civilians, but that happens when Hamas puts their rockets in civilian areas.

It should be pointed out: Egypt offered a cease-fire proposal, Israel accepted the proposal but Hamas rejected it. When the UN called for a temporary 5 hour cease-fire, to allow for international organizations to bring food and medical supplies into Palestine, Israel accepted but Hamas rejected.