What happened immediately before Nakba?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Israel commiting war crimes? Urban warfare expert weighs in
- Thread starter Harel13
- Start date
Orbit
I'm a planet
You seem to be invested in the tit-for-tat as if it's a game, and Israel needs to come out on top. It's like a sport for you, a football game where you cheer for your "team". If you want to go back to the beginning in your quest for culpability (which I think is wrongheaded), then start with the Balfour Declaration, at the beginning of the colonial project that is Israel. That is precisely where the problem starts.
The difference between us, though, is that I don't think that's the important issue right now. What is important right now is the indiscriminate bombing and murder of a civilian population, about half of whom are children, in what it a clear case of collective punishment, which is a war crime, one that you are all too ready to excuse because it's "your team".
So is the UN useful or not? I think the UN has devolved to become mostly useless.
If the UN is useful, then why didn't it remove Hamas 20 years ago?
Were they shouting about how great their god is?
None of this excuses what Hamas did on October 7th.
I'm sure your intention was not to excuse Hamas, just as I believe I don't need to tell you that Hamas is not a "legitimate resistance movement" as some are claiming -- it is an internationally recognized terrorist organization (linked with allied terrorist organizations in the Middle East) that opposes any path to peace. It is stated in their written Covenant/Charter: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." The language of this Covenant/Charter of Hamas includes a call for violence against all Jews, while within the same document stating that the only peace in which Jews and Christians may co-exist with Muslims is "under the wing of Islam" -- meaning under this extremist version of Islamic rule. Forget about living in peace, or living at all, if you happen to be LGBT. Ghastly beheading lays bare the myriad perils for LGBT Palestinians fleeing to Israel.
Additionally, the "context for terrorism in the region" started long before Israel was even a nation. In 1947, when the United Nations proposed a division of the land into a Jewish State and an Arab State, the Jews agreed to it and the Arab response was an adamant "no." The very morning after the Partition Plan had been proposed, Palestinian Arabs responded by attacking a bus and murdering five Jews. This preceded a war lasting 15 months with Jews fighting for survival not only only against local Arabs but also against the invading Arab armies from neighboring nations.
Consider the context for the measures that Israel has taken to protect its citizens, which of necessity have led to the creation of the offending walls, fences, checkpoints, and blockades. I had already posted this link: Comprehensive Listing of Terrorism Victims in Israel (September 1993 - Present). These numerous events are listed by date, and include the names and ages of victims. There had been even more such acts of terrorism (bus bombings, suicide bombings, etc.) prior to the creation of this list which begins only from the year of the Oslo Accords in 1993.
Settler violence is inexcusable, and I state that unequivocally. While Israeli authorities do arrest and detain Israeli citizens who are involved in such crimes, I believe (as do a majority of Israeli citizens, according to polls taken) that Israel's current far-right government is not doing all that should be done in regard to punishing settlers who commit criminal acts. On the other hand, there have been Palestinian leaders who provided monetary rewards to the families of "martyrs" (those who died while committing acts of violence) in a "pay for slay" scheme that used funds received from other countries as aid. Upon the discovery of this, the following countries either curtailed or entirely ceased providing aid funding directly to the Palestinian Authority: Australia, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, and the United States.
I want to add that none of what I have written above ameliorates the knowledge that there are innocent people in Gaza (even more painful that so many of these are children) who are suffering and dying in this war. I don't have the answers. I only know that, if Hamas is given a free pass, if the return of the hostages is not met, then Hamas will re-group and repeat the events that happened on October 7th. There will be more suffering as a result. And it should be clear to all sane people by now that the safety and well-being of the people of Gaza is not uppermost in the collective mind of Hamas (certainly not in the minds of those Hamas leaders residing in safety and luxury in Qatar).
Last edited:
Sadly, that is precisely the intention of far too many.
It would be painfully easy for Hamas to put near unbearable pressure on Israel forcing a cease fire: simply free the hostages.
Orbit
I'm a planet
Did I say that I thought it excused anything? No, I have repeatedly said in this thread that both Hamas and Israel have committed war crimes. I know the history of the conflict, and the thing at the root of it is the colonial project itself, but that doesn't help us now.
I don't know why.
I consider possibilities.....
- Erroneous belief that keeping Palestinians weak
would keep violent resistance weak.
- Erroneous belief that Gaza would empty out,
& Israeli settlers could take it over.
- Erroneous believe that economic competition
would harm Israel's economy.
- Ensure a supply of cheap labor.
These don't make sense to me as benefitting Israel.
Have any other ideas?
Last edited:
I don't know.
Does it matter what is shouted when
one group massacres another due to
religious differences?
rosends
Well-Known Member
Here's a slightly different set of definitions:To those questions, I don't know who you
refer to regarding usage of that word.
In an earlier post, I offered much evidence
that many Jews, especially in Israel, look
down upon non-Jews, especially Muslims.
We can see that the definition of "infidel"
includes applications that fit Israel's
treatment of Muslims.
"A rose by any other name..."
- noun Often Offensive An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.
- noun One who has no religious beliefs.
- noun One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.
from The Century Dictionary.
- Without faith: unbelieving; disbelieving; especially, rejecting the distinctive doctrines of a particular religion, while perhaps an adherent of some other religion.
- Specifically Rejecting the Christian religion while accepting no other; not believing in the Bible or any divine revelation: used especially of persons belonging to Christian communities.
- Due to or manifesting unbelief.
- noun An unbeliever; a disbeliever; one who denies the distinctive tenets of a particular religion.
Definition of INFIDEL
one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity; an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion; one who acknowledges no religious belief… See the full definition
Now I'll ask a question -- if Israel gives equal rights to Muslims, protects their right to worship (even when it limits the rights of Jews) and when it protects other religions and their rights as well, do you think that they apply your concept of "infidel" to them? Are you using the broadest definition of an English word related to religion and claiming it has a particular value within Judaism as a religion (not Israel as a country)? How familiar are you with Judaism? If you think it is a concept within Judaism, why not give me its Hebrew term and maybe the Jewish sources which discuss it?
rosends
Well-Known Member
So you think that Judaism is defined by your understanding of the written biblical text. Sad.
That is certain your (quite weird) belief.
Let's discuss it!
תנ"ך בכתיב המסורה - בראשית פרק א
mechon-mamre.org
To quibble over competing definitionsHere's a slightly different set of definitions:
Definition of INFIDEL
one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity; an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion; one who acknowledges no religious belief… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
isn't useful. Meaning matters.
That's a hypothetical supposition that misses
the point of Israeli Jewish views (per surveys)
& de facto enforcement of laws.
Common definitions of "infidel" include
those outside the religion. And it has
the connotation of hostile judgement,
which applies to the evidence previously
provided....with which I am familiar.
As for what believers claim to believe, I
subordinate that to what they practice.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Yes, and according to that meaning, the term is inapplicable when it comes to the discussion of Judaism.
No, it is an actual reflection of the real world situation in Israel. Relegating to some "hypothetical" makes you think you can avoid it. If Judaism had a concept of infidel, wouldn't there be an attempt to convert people? But Judaism frowns on that. If Israel had a concept of infidel, would it allow equal right and places in society for people of all religions? These are not hypothetical because they are answered by what is actually happening in Israel.
You mean like "gentile"?
Except Judaism doesn't have that concept and you haven't shown that it does.
We will continue to disagree.
Not according to sources that aren't blind
supporters of Israel's brutality towards Muslims.
It's a hypothetical because it's erroneous.
The rest of your post well trodden ground.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And one should remember that when Israel was first resettled as 1/6 of the area formally known as "Palestine" that was under British control, the new state was attacked and only hung on by a thread. Every time they were attacked, they added new territory.
Orbit
I'm a planet
Perhaps the initial colonialism is the root of the problem, then.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Nope, just according to people who actually have lived in the region and are well versed in the relevant laws and practices.
What is erroneous about it?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It was "recolonization" largely due to heavy persecution in Europe and Asia. Many Jews never left Palestine, so there always was some presence there.
It doesn't reflect the reality
of Israel's apartheid.
Colt
Well-Known Member
Of course! Its horrific, that is the calculation of Hamas.