I'm guessing you don't live there either.
The settlers you're talking about left in 2005.
-
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 Declares War After Hamas Attacks
- Thread starter Left Coast
- Start date
I'm guessing you don't live there either.
The settlers you're talking about left in 2005.
Israel is illegally occupying and building settlements in Palestinian territories against international law, and considering that the civilian death toll from the IDF's operations is far greater than that due to Hamas' (because of Israel's having the upper hand militarily, not due to a lack of malice or hostility from Hamas), I don't think comparing the two is far-fetched at all.
The conflict will not be resolved as long as Israel remains intransigent in its violation of international law and mistreatment of Palestinians. Yes, Hamas' attacks on civilians are heinous. Yes, Israel should reform and do far better.
The IDF has killed far more civilians than Hamas has:
Civilians are an absolute red line in war, be they Israeli or Palestinian. The Israeli government and military apparatus, on the other hand, are neither innocent nor much different from any other government that repeatedly violates international law and abuses large segments of a population.
Israeli settler kills Palestinian teenager in Huwwara rampage
19-year-old reportedly shot dead by settler, hours after Israeli troops killed another Palestinian in the West Bank town.Less than 48 hrs ago
The settlers damaged homes and buildings, and confronted Palestinian locals, who gathered to fend off the attacks.
The settlers have been taking palestinian lands for decades.
The intentional targeting of civilians is a red line, DS. That's what Hamas just did. Civilians do die in war unintentionally. That happens in every war on every side. Israel has more effective weaponry and thus, yes, is much more effective at inflicting damage on Hamas. And as I understand it, Gaza is a densely populated area, which I would bet money Hamas uses to its advantage in hiding from Israeli counterstrikes. So comparing raw numbers like that, without context, doesn't allow us to falsely equivocate between a terrorist group and a democratic state.
Gaza and the West Bank are different places.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It fuels it though when they run short of medical supplies, food and
It's also imports.
You are aware the international community considers the occupation of the West Bank as illegal? That Palestinians confined to the Gaza strip live in a territory that is a bit smaller than Bakersfield yet amomg the most densely populated places on Earth?
Neither state is innocent in this.
It's not a flase equivalence to point out the leaders of those states deserve eachother.
Where the hell you get that from? Since I'm not Jewish or Muslim I wouldn't want to live in either.
And Israel hasn't been honoring the Palestinians right to exist with dignity.
Sort of like our own messed up country that indiscriminately slaughters civilians and doesn't respect the rights of autonomy or existence of states that don't cooperate. That doesn't reflect the attitudes and beliefs if most Americans, but the state itself could be charged with terrorism, as it was commented during the Nuremberg trials it would have been the Allies getting tried and hanged rather than the Axis had the Allies lost (no one was innocent in that war either).
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
They both the primary Palestinian territories and Hamas has been trying to strike stronger alliances with the West Bank. Two different places but there's enough overlap that the other is bound to get mentioned while discussing the other.
I do agree that the poor conditions in Gaza make it easier for Hamas to recruit people.
I am aware of those things. I'm also aware of the fact that the situation there is complex and there are no easy solutions. How do you deal with an area right in your own backyard that is run by literal Islamists who don't believe your country should exist? And who have demonstrated over and over that they will kill to achieve their goal of Israel's destruction?
So comparing a situation that is complicated with a situation where a terrorist group just launched a mass attack on civilians just doesn't fly. The two aren't morally equivalent.
This avoids the obvious point. Israel is a liberal democratic country. Hamas is a terroist group. The two aren't the same. They're not morally interchangeable.
Where are we indiscriminately slaughtering civilians?
Which state's existence do we not respect?
Is the US morally equivalent to Hamas in your eyes too? Jesus Christ.
He had specifically referenced Gaza settlers earlier. Thus my comment.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
They aren't the same, but there are complaints of discrimination against non Jews in Israel. Doesn't matter if it's democratic or not, I wouldn't want to live there either.
It also builds resentment and primes people to fight because what do they have to lose?
Mexico, indigenous territories and reservations, Cuba, Panama, Haiti, Nicaragua, Iran, Iraq, Homduras, Dominican Republic, Afghanistan, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, America Somoa, Mariana Islands amd the Virgin Islands are the ones I can think of.
We can also add Japan as an honorable mention given the atomic bombs were dropped after they reached out for peace negotiations--with Nagasaki getting hit just to test the bomb--and offered horrible terms of surrender.
Uncle Sam has killed far more civilians than they have. It's why a lot of Middle Easterners don't like America, because Uncle Sam bombed their communities and killed their families who had nothing to do with terrorism. It's also set up amd established brutal dictatorships amd extremist regimes around the world. And often imes it has been for commercialism, economic pursuits and corporate interest.
The case can be made it's worse than Hamas.
There are cases of discrimination everywhere. You think you'd encounter no less discrimination in Israel than under rule by Hamas, who would probably throw you in prison or execute you? C'mon now. Be serious.
Are you talking about now or in the past?
Yes, 75 years ago. Okay, so you're talking about the past.
See my post above to DS above re: civilian deaths. You're also conflating actions of the US decades ago with today. You're also completely ignoring the moral relevance of intent. The fact that a homicidal person fails to ever kill despite intending and trying doesn't make him morally equivalent, much less morally better than, a soldier who unintentionally killed civilians in war. The two aren't the same. You're a bright person. I don't need to explain this to you.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
I see this as a likely proxy war by Iran that uses Palestinians as disposable sacrificial pawns. Iran does not like the recent rapprochement between Israel and Arab governments like Saudi Arabia in the Middle East. This attack was well-planned in advance and relied on large numbers of rockets and other war materiel smuggled into Gaza (possibly with the connivance of pro-Iranian Syria and Russia). It will serve the purpose not only of scuttling Israel's efforts to reach agreements with Arab governments in the region, but also use the inevitable Israeli revenge attacks, deaths, and suffering in Gaza to radicalize more recruits for terrorist attacks in the future. I wonder how complicit in these attacks the Hamas leadership was, because they are the ones likely to be decapitated by Israel in the aftermath. The planners may not have kept them informed of what was going to happen, but that is pure speculation on my part. Israel's massive retaliation after a sneak attack of this magnitude was perfectly predictable, and that would be something that the perpetrators planned for and welcomed. Those Palestinians on the ground carrying out the attacks were carrying out their own fantasies of revenge for more recent suffering caused by Israeli attacks on Hamas and Gaza. The cycle of violence continues. 
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It's an old habit of America that it never gave up.
You're the one who spit out a bit suggesting I woukd have no preference as to which one I lived. I wouldn't want to live in either.
No, you assume that and seem to not be considering the present, like bombings in Syria that happened this year.
America is very guilty of that, even recently, and on a much larger scale than what Hamas could ever do.
If you wouldn't want to live in either, that's no preference lol. You're evading the point. You know this. I know this.
What about them?
And that's part of war. If we've killed more civilians unintentionally than they've killed intentionally, that doesn't tell us anything except how large in scale our military conflicts have been. We're a global superpower that provides military aid to our allies around the world fighting groups like ISIS and Russia, they're a local terrorist group.
Again, none of this justifies moral equivalence. It's absurd.
Kinda like Ukrainians are disposable sacrificial pawns in the proxy war by USA.
I agree.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
You're still on about that nonsense?
Further professional analysis of the situation:
www.foreignaffairs.com
Why Hamas Attacked—and Why Israel Was Taken by Surprise
A conversation with Martin Indyk.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
My preference woukd be taking my chances on a swim to Greece.If you wouldn't want to live in either, that's no preference lol. You're evading the point. You know this. I know this.
It wasn't unintentional. It was intentional, lack of care and planning, trigger happy troops and bombs dropped where civilain casualties were garaunteed.
Amd then there is the fact America has engaged in torture. The surrendering Iraqis burried alive during Desert Storm. Obama loved his drones and Trump got crazy with the bombs.
Baffling.
When was it intentional? You're conflating things together.
Hamas doesn't believe Israel should exist. They want to erect an Islamist shariah state. They are literally willing to kill themselves and anyone else to achieve that goal.
If you seriously believe that's morally equivalent to the aims of recent US foreign policy, we have no way of contuining this conversation in seriousness. It's laughable. It's absurd. Has the US killed civilians in war? Yes. Have we been sloppy and are some soldiers "trigger happy?" I'm sure. None of that morally equates to Hamas. You don't think US military forces in 2023 take intentional steps, and have regulations, to avoid civilian casualties in combat zones? You think Hamas plays by those rules? Give me a ****ing break. To pretend they are morally equal is to abandon all claim to a reasonable position in this discussion.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That does not appear to be quite right. According to this source it was not an offer from the Japanese Supreme War Council. it was from some "peace party". In other words it was no a genuine offer. I am sure that the writers of it probably thought that it was, but they were not controlling the country:
Did the Japanese offer to surrender before Hiroshima? (Part 2)
What if Japan did offer nearly-full surrender terms to the US in early 1945? In the 1940s, just this was claimed — but it's not very likely.
blog.nuclearsecrecy.com
This source indicates that there was still resistance to surrender after the bombs were dropped:
"From the replies these diplomats received from Tokyo, the United States learned that anything Japan might agree to would not be a surrender so much as a "negotiated peace" involving numerous conditions. These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia. Many within the Japanese government were extremely reluctant to discuss any concessions, which would mean that a "negotiated peace" to them would only amount to little more than a truce where the Allies agreed to stop attacking Japan. After twelve years of Japanese military aggression against China and over three and one-half years of war with the United States (begun with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor), American leaders were reluctant to accept anything less than a complete Japanese surrender.
Following the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 (left), the Japanese government met to consider what to do next. The emperor had been urging since June that Japan find some way to end the war, but the Japanese Minister of War and the heads of both the Army and the Navy held to their position that Japan should wait and see if arbitration via the Soviet Union might still produce something less than a surrender. Military leaders also hoped that if they could hold out until the ground invasion of Japan began, they would be able to inflict so many casualties on the Allies that Japan still might win some sort of negotiated settlement. Next came the virtually simultaneous arrival of news of the Soviet declaration of war on Japan of August 8, 1945, and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki of the following day. Another Imperial Council was held the night of August 9-10, and this time the vote on surrender was a tie, 3-to-3. For the first time in a generation, the emperor (right) stepped forward from his normally ceremonial-only role and personally broke the tie, ordering Japan to surrender. On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state. "
They were still holding out hope to hold on to at least some of the countries that they had conquered, nor were they will to have any oversight. The bombings appear to have been legit. Even in hindsight.