Sorry I misread.

I've talked about ethics multiple times. You just don't like my position. Did you ever respond to this point I made?

I have talked about ethics in this thread on multiple occasions. Have you recanted your point about

It just happens to be in this conflict that Israel is killing the vast majority of civilians and that is the topic of the thread.
— Baden

Israel could disassemble its bomb shelters and anti-missile infrastructure so the kill counts would be more even, would you like that? It could also stop its blockade of Gaza so more weapons could be imported. — BitconnectCarlos

:lol: — Baden

Yeah that was from the misreading. I thought you were saying the Zionist perspective is invalid and once you go there you're in heavily anti-israel territory and I was wondering where you got this idea from. I'm sure it would be told in Arab households, but if you someone got it elsewhere I'd be interested to hear.

Yes, I did respond.



I don't know where you are getting these ideas. You seem to be responding to a cartoon version of me now. Slow down a bit.

I'm sure it would be told in Arab households — BitconnectCarlos

Obviously, many Arab households would be anti-Zionist although if you look at the lack of support among Arab countries for Palestine, you might question the blanket presumption. Secondly, I'm Irish, which is one reason I brought up the IRA as an example.

Shawn, Israel has bombed civilian infrastructure, including media outlets, simply because they claim Hamas at some point, used that building. The bar is so low a dwarf wouldn't be able to limbo dance under it. They don't feel they even need the excuse of actively being attacked from there. — Baden

I believe that those building were being utilized by Hamas to launch or gather intelligence. I don't really know all the details but, they were identified as housing weapons or intelligence gathering activities towards the end goal of launching rockets against Israel.

Ok that makes sense. I can see why people draw parallels between the IRA and the Palestinians and I know the Irish have been doing this for years, but it's just not the same thing. Have you ever been to Israel? The Middle East?

I hate to say it, but I would welcome IRA style terrorism as opposed to Palestinian terrorism in Israel.

Again, you realize how low that bar is? For example, a group of Hamas operatives go into a coffee shop and do some research. Days later, Israel blows it up killing a bunch of innocent civilians. They could (at least theoretically) use that excuse word for word. +There is usually no evidence provided to back up their claims.

Again, you realize how low that bar is? For example, a group of Hamas operatives go into a coffee shop and do some research. Days later, Israel blows it up killing a bunch of innocent civilians. They could use that excuse word for word. +There is usually no evidence provided to back up their claims. — Baden

Well, the reason for decimating a news station where Al Jazeera and the AP were is not up for disclosure. Yet, these tactics have been demonstrated by Hamas in the past, so, I think that counts.

Your vague glib statements give me the impression you really don't give a fuck and are just killing time again.

I think @ssu nailed it when he said that the narratives branched out in two completely separate ways. It's always useful to remember that the average citizen spends very little time thinking about politics, even within their own country, let alone a specific, smaller nation such as Israel. There's only space for a single paragraph of understanding at best, which is why "Hamas are terorists, Israel is just defending itself" is not necessarily a willfully ignorant representation but an understandable representation if we grant that a person is being informed about Israel via biased channels, with a very low amount of time researching or considering the topic beyond that. That being said, I have agreed with you, I suspect racism, anti-Islamic views, prejudice against the poor, all play their role. I think morality works like this in general, we don't apply it equally, we make exceptions based on our feelings. Public opinion for Gaza and Hamas, is extraordinarily low, for many reasons, this plays a big role.

Many unjust systems in history have been undone by the changing tide of the narrative, especially through peaceful protest. Like most things, it's complicated, it's not just because of racism, that's just one factor. When the narrative of Israel shifts, public opinion shifts. Personally, I feel discussions about Hamas usually just end up distracting from the reality of apartheid. Defenders of Israel use Hamas to derail the focus from Israel, same for mentions of anti-semitic violence in the US, all such things, just distractions and if these distractions become the narrative then Israel is off the hook in the eyes of the public.

I pretty much agree with this.

I don't think you understand Zionism. All it is is about affirming a Jewish homeland in Israel. I — BitconnectCarlos

Which is quite something, though, isn't it? What if there was no "Jewish homeland" in Israel? That would seem to make quite a difference.

Is it ok to bomb civilian populations in which so-called terrorist operatives are embedded when these operatives present a threat (though a relatively low-level one compared to said bombings) to civilian lives on the opposing side? — Baden

Yes if you have to.

If it is, it should be OK in the case of both the IRA and HAMAS and their respective communities of origin. If it's not, it shouldn't, right? — Baden

Right? Why? Do/did the British have to?

My understanding of the IRA (subject to correction) is that they were Irish fighting for something for themselves, for the Irish, and for Ireland, for which efforts they had a good deal of Irish support. It is by no means clear to me that Hamas, or whoever actually is running Palestine these days, is a similarly sited and purposed organization.

This a defense of no one's actions. Will you in turn claim that if given to the Palestinians everything within reason that they want, that there will then be peace? If you will suppose it, then I would think it reasonable for the Israelis to give them that. And then we'll see.

Yes if you have to. — tim wood

Obviously Israel doesn't have to send warplanes in to bomb civilian tower blocks or media centres or the families of Hamas operatives. Only a complete moron would think those responses were absolutely necessary. So, I think we agree their response has been unjustified

This a defense of no one's actions. Will you in turn claim that if given to the Palestinians everything within reason that they want, that there will then be peace? If you will suppose it, then I would think it reasonable for the Israelis to give them that. And then we'll see. — tim wood

That argument isn't part of the topic of the thread and I'm not interested in having it. I've got a specific on-topic point to pursue here. Start a new thread if you want.

Earlier you asked for a source here it is:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/comprehensive-listing-of-terrorism-victims-in-israel#1993

Over 1362 killed since 2000 and this list is not updated for 2021 with only 1 dead.

Around 3000 killed by Palestinian terror attacks since Israel became a state. I'd be so happy if the Palestinian terrorists started picking out mostly legitimate targets like the IRA. If the IRA was dropped into Gaza it would the moderate voice that is loved by Israel.

Biased sources are not acceptable in any serious debate. I wouldn't present a Palestinian website as evidence of Palestinian casualties, for example, and I doubt you'd accept it. Having said that, the extra numbers wouldn't make any significant difference in terms of our discussion anyway.

If the IRA was dropped into Gaza it would the moderate voice that is loved by Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

I very much doubt it. The IRA were always 100% behind the Palestinians.

I very much doubt it. The IRA were always 100% behind the Palestinians. — Baden

Sure they'd have been behind the Palestinans but Israel would have made peace with them in a second and simply withdrew. It's not that easy with Hamas. You don't get it, it's not just about withdrawal from Gaza and the WB. We have no bases or troops or settlements in Gaza to begin with.

Only a complete moron would think those responses were absolutely necessary. — Baden

Sorry, I'm only a seventh degree black-belt moron; not quite there yet. Does that mean the bombings are in fact in some way - in any way - necessary? And you've hijacked "necessary." The original proposition/question was if something was ok. Ok, not ok: not much to do with necessity or absolute necessity.

I suspect all of it has to do with achieving ends. But by now I have no idea what those ends are, on either side. If both sides just wanted a fair peace, my guess is they could have it in under a week.

Tim, you are babbling. The argument is not whether Israel "had to" kill civilians or target civilian buildings in the way that they did. They chose to. For example, they did not "have to" bomb the media building housing the Associated Press. It was part of a strategic response. If you're going to argue that they are not justified in doing that because they didn't have to, you cannot justify any strategic response. So, you move up a level and discuss what of their choices (none of which they "have to" take by definition) are jusified and what are not and why. My approach has been to try to short circuit the intuitive support for Israel's actions based on an analogy that tends to evoke a different intuitive response but, in substance, is similar. If we take away the words "Israel", "the IRA", "Hamas", "the Irish", "The Palestinians" etc, we maybe meet in the middle and at least agree that you need more than "party A once used a building for some unspecified military purpose" to justify party B bombing and killing innocent civilians in party A's community who happen to be in that building. Can we get that much common ground?

"party A once used a building for some unspecified military purpose" to justify party B bombing and killing innocent civilians in party A's community who happen to be in that building. Can we get that much common ground — Baden

Not following the discussion except sporadically, and just quote-grabbing this one sentence in case I'm missing some context. But didn't the Israelis give sufficient warning for everyone to get out of that building first so that no live would be lost? And wasn't the building used for CURRENT and not just past Hamas terrorist activities? And what kind of news gather organization is AP if they don't know they're sharing a building with a terrorist organization? And finally, didn't AP say last year that reporters shouldn't get worked up over property damage? They said that when BLM and Antifa were burning down small businesses. Guess it all depends on whose building is destroyed.

Thanks, feel free to heap abuse.

Yes, Israel sometimes sends paper saying your house is going to be destroyed.

Very humanitarian. :roll:

Yes, see, before making families homeless and destroying all their worldly posessions, Israeli terrorists let them know that that's what's about to happen before hand. So it's all good.

Also, its good that Israel destroyed these bookstores, because it's not like it's of a peice with Israel's effort to descimate things like educational infrastructure (or literally any other social support infrastructure for that matter) in Gaza more broadly or anything:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-bookshop-bombed-israel-palestine-b1851330.html

A small peice in the larger exercise of genocide and dehumanization.

Yes, see, before making families homeless and destroying all their worldly posessions, Israeli terrorists let them know that that's what's about to happen before hand. So it's all good. — StreetlightX

What, you wouldn't want to know if your house was going to be destroyed? At least you get to live.

That's honorable. . .

I'll apply your "logic", BC ...

Around 3000 killed by Palestinian terror attacks since Israel became a state. — BitconnectCarlos

What slackers. If Palestinians would only up their game and kill as many Israelis as Israelis have killed them – 1 for 1 – maybe the Israelis would then have the incentives they need to end the occupation, apartheid & ethnic cleasing oppression of Palestinian families & communities. :chin:

Anti-DBS law struck down in Georgia for being unconstitutional.

Georgia doing some good lately.

Yes, see, before making families homeless and destroying all their worldly posessions, Israeli terrorists let them know that that's what's about to happen before hand. So it's all good. — StreetlightX

Same modus operandus as the IRA, in fact. Though the IRA were much more consistent in giving warnings and killed far less civilians than Israel has.

So, you would be happy for ANTIFA to burn down your house as long as you're given a warning. Off-topic. But, ok, check.

Aren't the KKK underdogs? Shouldn't you be rooting for them? They're not the powerful force they use to be. Something something David's slingshot.

White folks are still in control of everything in the US which matters to the welfare of people & communities of color. The "KKK" (et al) are agents, functionaries, of that supremacist hegemony and are not, therefore, "underdogs", you ignorant @#$*.