metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Nope, as the above is not logical. See my last post above.
-
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!
Israel’s war crimes in Gaza are by design, not default
- Thread starter Sakeenah
- Start date
Nope, as the above is not logical. See my last post above.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Okay, so you are literally just going to defend war crimes?
"How can we fight Hamas without doing war crimes?? Why won't people just let Israel do war crimes?? We have no choice!"
I literally even said that Israel can respond, even militarily, to Hamas. It's not my job to delineate between committing to legitimate military action and committing war crimes - that's Israel's job, and one it has very obviously failed in. And here you are, excusing them.
What a load of drivel.I came across this article, think it explains why Israel's war crime are by design and not default very well.
Israel’s war crimes in Gaza are by design, not default
For Israel, violence is not incidental, accidental or coincidental. It is part and parcel of its colonial DNA.www.aljazeera.com
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
It is perfectly logical to say that it is within Israel's power to respond to Hamas, even with force, without committing war crimes.
Do you agree?
Sakeenah
Well-Known Member
Well it seems like the Israeli government did not do enough to keep their citizens safe. I think some of the hatred towards the Gazans is a bit misplaced don't you think. Israeli officials obtained Hamas’s battle plan for the Oct. 7 terrorist attack more than a year before it happened, documents, emails and interviews show. But Israeli military and intelligence officials dismissed the plan as aspirational, considering it too difficult for Hamas to carry out.
Here is a NY times article
Israel Knew Hamas’s Attack Plan More Than a Year Ago
A blueprint reviewed by The Times laid out the attack in detail. Israeli officials dismissed it as aspirational and ignored specific warnings.
Sakeenah
Well-Known Member
Glad you enjoyed reading the article.
There's a "here & now" that immediately preceded
that attack, ie, Israel killed more Palestinians in that
year than any in the previous decade.
Why treat that as insignificant?
Why ignore 70+ years of brutal apartheid, land theft,
torture, collective punishment, murder, etc, etc?
You justify genocide by calling it "war" or "self defense",
when clearly this is no longer a war on Hamas, it's an
assault on all Palestinians in Gaza with the now stated
intent to eliminate them by sending them to Africa.
Sakeenah
Well-Known Member
I found the article to be one-sided and shallow. It's an opinion published by Al-Jazeerah. Al-Jazeerah is the Qatari national media. Qatar is a supporter of Hamas. That means, this is not really an article. It's a story. It's story-telling. See below, in a spoiler to save screen-space.
That said, let's look at the "article". It begins:
"The gruesome scenes of death and destruction in Gaza are a reminder that for Israel, violence is not incidental, accidental or coincidental. It is part and parcel of its colonial DNA."
Colonial DNA? Not True. In 1936, this is the official Zionist position. The intention was ( and is ) peaceful co-existence in spite of repeated unjustified attacks against Jewish people who had legally purchased land from the Arabs of Palestine."The [Zionist] Congress reaffirms on this occasion the declarations of previous Congresses expressing the readiness of the Jewish people to reach a peaceful settlement with the Arabs of Palestine, based on the free development of both peoples and the mutual recognition of their respective rights." - LINK"Like the French in Algeria, the Dutch in Indonesia and South Africa, the Belgians in the Congo, the Spaniards in South America and the Europeans in North America, the Zionists have also dehumanised the natives of the land as a precursor to or justification for guilt-free repression and violence."
This is an attempt at re-writing history. The French, the Dutch, and the Belgians did not purchase land legally. They were all military expansions. ( The Dutch was commercial supported by the navy ). The Jewish people purchased land legally and lived peacefully on their purchased property. Worshipping at the western wall was exaggerated into fear that the jewish people were coming to take their mosque, Al-Aqsa. Arab attacks on the jewish people for almost 50 years and a declaration of war by the Arabs produced the 1948 war. Anti-israeli propagandists ignore all of that history."But colonialism must not be conflated with Judaism. If anything, the Jews have historically been the victims of racism for centuries, rendering many of them anti-colonialists."
Well. There you go. We, the Jews, are in the majority anti-colonialists. The land was purchased in the spirit of free development and mutual recognition of each others rights.Anti-israel propagandists often cherry pick Zionist leaders', specifically the founder's, words in order to "flip-the-script" and demonize. Here's what Theodore Hertzl wrote in his diary. The part in red is what the propagandists quote. The part following in blue is what they omit. - SOURCEThe middle section between the two boxes is also important. It shows that the Zionist plan is to purchase the land far above market value. And that is precisely what they did. This is still happening today. Land in East Jerusalem is being purchased, legally, by israeli Jews. It's true that Zionism includes a desire for the land, but, it's not dehumanizing colonialism."In 1948, Israel was established on the ruins of another people, the Palestinians. It was made into a Jewish majority state through the deliberate ethnic cleansing of the land’s 750,000 Palestinian inhabitants. Since then, Israel has maintained security through state repression, military occupation, bloody wars and countless massacres against civilians."
There are two important details omitted here. First, the Palestinian's ethnically cleansed... themselves. They spread misinformation ( propaganda ) intended to incite the Arab's to rise up and fight against the israeli Jews, but, it back-fired. This is documented by BBC. The Palestinian journalist confessed to spreading the false reports. These are things that are not taught to Palestinians because it is humiliating. The Palestinians are in denial of what occured because the majority of their people fled not fought during the Nakba.
Deir Yassin massacre - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
The second point is, the majority of land which was dispossessed, ethnically cleansed, was the result of a peace treaty. The Palestinians surrendered their land in order to end the war. The anti-israel propagandists will never admit this. The Arabs surrendered. They attacked first; they lost; they surrendered in order to end the war."Nazareth, the city of my birth, was one of the few to be spared from ethnic cleansing but only because a military commander named Benjamin Dunkelman, a Canadian Jew who led the 7th Brigade of the Israeli army, refused to carry out his superiors’ evacuation order for this Christian majority city, as he later wrote, mainly out of fear of the international repercussions."
That's not true. That's the story they were told. The truth is humiliating, and, shows that the Muslims lost and potentially were in violation of what is written in the Quran. Here's what the propgandist didn't include in their story-telling:"The surrender of Nazareth was formalized in a written agreement, whereby the town's leaders agreed to cease hostilities in return for promises from the Israeli officers, including brigade commander Ben Dunkelman (the leader of the operation), that no harm would come to the civilians of the town. Soon after the signing of the agreement, Dunkelman received an order from the Israeli General Chaim Laskov to forcibly evacuate the city's Arabs. He refused, remarking that he was 'shocked and horrified' that he would be commanded to renege on the agreement he, and also Chaim Laskov, had just signed. Twelve hours after defying his superior, he was relieved of his post, but not before obtaining assurances that the security of Nazareth's population would be guaranteed. David Ben-Gurion backed his judgement up, fearing that expelling Christian Arabs might provoke an outcry throughout the Christian world. By the end of the war, Nazareth's population saw a large influx of refugees from major urban centers and rural villages in the Galilee."
Nazareth - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Further, the word "wrote" in the Al-Jazeerah story is a link intended to corroborate what they have written. It goes to amazon.com. The author of this story does not *actually* quote the book. This is a form of a paywall-deception. The writer does not think readers will have access to their source. They do not expect anyone to spend the money to purchase the book in order to see what it *actually* says. This is often and recently employed by the Oct. 7th deniers quoting Ha'aretz and NewYorkTimes online news articles which are behind a paywall. This permits the writer to distort the contents of the article, or in this case the autobiography. Here's what was omitted:
The Arabs of Nazareth surrendered. Then the Arabs attacked anyway. In the following chapter the author continues discussing this ongoing pattern of Arabs breaking their truces, but the anti-israel propagandist intentionally omits these details. That's the end of the story in the book cited by the Al-Jazeerah "journalist". There is nothing here about ANY attempted dispossession. That's fictional.The truth is, Nazareth was not included in the 1949 Armistice Agreements. It was not dispossessed because it was included in its own written peace treaty and israel held to its agreement. There was no attempted disspossession of Nazareth by israel. That's just the story , a revision of history, that is told to the Palestinians to avoid the shame of surrendering, breaking the truce, and losing the war. As it's written in the Quran:الَّذِينَ عَاهَدتَّ مِنْهُمْ ثُمَّ يَنقُضُونَ عَهْدَهُمْ فِي كُلِّ مَرَّةٍ وَهُمْ لَا يَتَّقُونَفَإِمَّا تَثْقَفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْحَرْبِ فَشَرِّدْ بِهِم مَّنْ خَلْفَهُمْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَذَّكَّرُونَوَإِمَّا تَخَافَنَّ مِن قَوْمٍ خِيَانَةً فَنبِذْ إِلَيْهِمْ عَلَىٰ سَوَاءٍ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْخَائِنِينَ
8:56 Those who - you made a covenant with them then they break their covenant every time, and they (do) not fear (Allah).8:57 So if you gain dominance over them in the war, disperse by them (those) who (are) behind them, so that they may take heed.8:58 And if you fear from a people betrayal throw back to them on equal (terms). Indeed, Allah (does) not love the betrayers.ذَٰلِكَ لِيَعْلَمَ أَنِّى لَمْ أَخُنْهُ بِٱلْغَيْبِ وَأَنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِى كَيْدَ ٱلْخَآئِنِينَ12:52 That he may know that I not betray him in secret, and that Allah (does) not guide (the) plan (of) the betrayers.مَن يَهْدِ اللَّهُ فَهُوَ الْمُهْتَدِي ۖ وَمَن يُضْلِلْ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْخَاسِرُونَ
7:178 Whoever guides [by] Allah then he (is) the guided one while whoever He lets go astray then those [they] (are) the losersThe Arabs consistently have been the aggressors in this conflict and they consistently break their preace treaties. They consistently have been the "losers" as it is written in the Quran.That's enough for now. I'll continue with the analysis of the Al-Jazeerah story you posted later.
Thank you,
Al Jazeera is not the only one that has reported on Israeli war crimes during this was and before. But because you dislike Al Jazeera so much, I'll send you a link by Amnesty International.
Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza
Amnesty International has documented damning evidence of war crimes.
www.amnesty.org
The BBC has also reported extensivelyAl Jazeera is not the only one that has reported on Israeli war crimes during this was and before. But because you dislike Al Jazeera so much, I'll send you a link by Amnesty International.
Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza
Amnesty International has documented damning evidence of war crimes.
on Israel's misdeeds, war crimes, etc.
Zionists impugn the sources because
they dare not face the reality of what
they perpetrate.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It was Israeli police who did all that. From the article:
2023 Al-Aqsa clashes - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Slight correction: Nobody is killed nor is the IDF involved in the Al Aqsa clashes of 2023. There are "50 casualties" meaning 50 people are injured, not any deaths.
Summary: 400 people barricade themselves inside the mosque, and the police are afraid its the beginning of an attack. The 400 people are afraid of rumors that Israelis want to make a ritual sacrifice inside the mosque. Police (not IDF) go in, and there is a big fight: police use batons and shields, and the men in the mosque throw stones and shoot fireworks at the police. And that's the 2023 Al-Aqsa clashes. Nobody sacrifices anything inside the mosque, and nobody is killed either.
So, Israel can protect itself but.not the Palestinians?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Yup. It's really bad what Israel is doing.
At least half of Gaza's buildings damaged or destroyed, new analysis shows
Satellite data reveals at least 144,000 hit since Israeli strikes began, and how south is now bearing the brunt.
Sakeenah
Well-Known Member
A question..if you say that the IDF is going after Hamas and that's why they have killed so many people in Gaza. How do you explain the innocent killings, imprisonment of thousands in the last couple of months in the West Bank and Jerusalem by IDF soldiers, and the land stealing by settlers. There's no Hamas and no war..so?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Firstly, where is my lack of logic? You are the one responding to allegations of war crimes by alleging Israel "has no choice".
Secondly, how dare you accuse me of bigotry when you have absolutely ZERO basis for saying that whatsoever. It is vile that you would presume to silence criticism (which is not even that aggressive) of Israel with this accusation of bigotry when I have been extremely, extremely clear in my position. There is not a single rational, sensible person who would find bigotry evident in a single thing that I have said.
Meanwhile, your stated position can only really lead to one conclusion: war crimes against Israel are bad, war crimes committed by Israel are necessary. The lives of innocent Israelis must be defended by blood if necessary. The lives of innocent Gazans are forfeit, because who cares about them if we can take out a couple militants with them in the firing line.
It's pretty obvious whose bigotry is showing.
The BBC....one of the most hated sources.Yup. It's really bad what Israel is doing.
At least half of Gaza's buildings damaged or destroyed, new analysis shows
Satellite data reveals at least 144,000 hit since Israeli strikes began, and how south is now bearing the brunt.www.bbc.com
Ironic, given that their government is largely
responsible for Israel's creation.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Al Jazeera is not the only one that has reported on Israeli war crimes during this was and before. But because you dislike Al Jazeera so much, I'll send you a link by Amnesty International.
Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza
Amnesty International has documented damning evidence of war crimes.
I'm aware that others report it. But, on examination, those reports often turn out to be false or extremely weak.
Let's see what the amnesty link has in it... ... ...
OK. They're claiming to have damning evidence, but, I do not see any damning evidence in the report. I need to read it more carefully. Perhaps I will prioritize this for tomorrow then return to the rebuttal of the opinion you brought in the OP, later.
Amensty can be a credible source, but, not always. In this specific case, they have "reports" from Gazans but nothing else. Amnesty writes that they, Amnesty, cannot find any military justification for the attacks. But that does not equate to "damning" evidence. It's an argument from ignorance.
None the less, thank you for providing the additional potential resource.
Colt
Well-Known Member
There are thousands of attacks on Israelis each year. Some which they thwart, some get past. I blame the people who killed over 1000 Jews. But now they will be safer with less Hamas.Well it seems like the Israeli government did not do enough to keep their citizens safe. I think some of the hatred towards the Gazans is a bit misplaced don't you think. Israeli officials obtained Hamas’s battle plan for the Oct. 7 terrorist attack more than a year before it happened, documents, emails and interviews show. But Israeli military and intelligence officials dismissed the plan as aspirational, considering it too difficult for Hamas to carry out.
Here is a NY times article
Israel Knew Hamas’s Attack Plan More Than a Year Ago
A blueprint reviewed by The Times laid out the attack in detail. Israeli officials dismissed it as aspirational and ignored specific warnings.www.nytimes.com
What do you think of the thousands of attacks on Palestinians by Israelis?
Sakeenah
Well-Known Member
Please explain how killing an innocent civilian carrying a white flag , who simply wanted to go back to help evacuate his mother, brother and family is a logical thing to do? There is an international law of war and yes even Israel should abide by it..
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The IDF doesn't just go into the WB for no reason.
As for the WB settlements, I do agree that they shouldn't have been built even though Israel's excuse was that the Palestinians were causing the trouble to begin with.
BTW, I've traveled and walked through areas of the WB back in 1991.