Israel Hamas War, West Bank, Etc. | Hostilities resume

[ZenMode]

You are just blind then. I gave you countless examples of Israel targeting civilians. When you snipe children that are attempting to get water, that is targeting a civilian. When you bomb a civilian refugee camp, that is targeting civilians. When you ambush and execute medical responders, that is targeting civilians. When you target and assassinate reporters, that is targeting civilians. When you bomb every hospital multiple times, that is targeting civilians. When you shoot at people getting food, that is targeting civilians. When you accidentally kill the hostages you're trying to save when they are walking with their hands in the air, that is targeting civilians. If you say that isn't targeting civilians, then you are just in denial. I'm done with this.

You gave me examples of individual situations involving individual soldiers, not "Israel". You also provided videos for which we likely don't have the full context.

"Israel" does not have a policy of targeting civilians. "Israel" and "IDF" has a policy of minimizing civilian deaths. "Israel" and "IDF" have a policy of trying to warn civilians when they plan to strike Hamas. The evidence of that is as clear. Hamas... the entirety of Hamas, actually has a policy of targeting civilians; Israel's and their own, which is why it's mind-numbing to see so many people equating, or trying to equate, the two sides.

 

[ZenMode]

Zen can dismiss the word ‘Islamophobia’ all he wants. But it explains why so many people don’t flinch when Muslim kids are buried under rubble.

Civilian deaths are apart of war, especially when you're fighting against an enemy that is trying to maximize civilian deaths to win a worldwide PR battle.

In a perfect world, the cease fire that existed on October 6th wouldn't have been broken and there's be no civilian deaths, but that wasn't, and never will be, the case because terrorists terrorize. It's what they do.

So much irony in the fact that probably every poster here, me included, is more concerned about civilian deaths in Gaza than a single terrorist is concerned.

 

[RaiGuy]

Civilian deaths are apart of war, especially when you're fighting against an enemy that is trying to maximize civilian deaths to win a worldwide PR battle.

In a perfect world, the cease fire that existed on October 6th wouldn't have been broken and there's be no civilian deaths, but that wasn't, and never will be, the case because terrorists terrorize. It's what they do.

So much irony in the fact that probably every poster here, me included, is more concerned about civilian deaths in Gaza than a single terrorist is concerned.

So the hundreds of Palestinian civilians that were killed prior to Oct 6th in 2023 must not count because they aren’t white.

You’ve made your point countless times. Civilian deaths are a part of war and are insignificant, except when they’re Israeli. You’ve continuously dehumanized Palestinians and Muslims, and you also ignore the Palestinian Christians. Your only argument is that Israel is morally superior to Hamas (which is not saying much and also not true). You clearly refuse to educate yourself about the history and stick to the same talking points.

 

[HintonJamesHeel]

So the hundreds of Palestinian civilians that were killed prior to Oct 6th in 2023 must not count because they aren’t white.

You’ve made your point countless times. Civilian deaths are a part of war and are insignificant, except when they’re Israeli. You’ve continuously dehumanized Palestinians and Muslims, and you also ignore the Palestinian Christians. Your only argument is that Israel is morally superior to Hamas (which is not saying much and also not true). You clearly refuse to educate yourself about the history and stick to the same talking points.

What’s a realistic end scenario considering the actors we have in the positions they are in that would be best? Platitudes like Israel let Palestinians live or give them land or things like Hamas leave Gaza don’t really seem realistic. What is the end state?

 

[Geisterfahrer]

What’s a realistic end scenario considering the actors we have in the positions they are in that would be best? Platitudes like Israel let Palestinians live or give them land or things like Hamas leave Gaza don’t really seem realistic. What is the end state?

2 state solution has never not been the best solution.

 

[ZenMode]

So the hundreds of Palestinian civilians that were killed prior to Oct 6th in 2023 must not count because they aren’t white.

You’ve made your point countless times. Civilian deaths are a part of war and are insignificant, except when they’re Israeli. You’ve continuously dehumanized Palestinians and Muslims, and you also ignore the Palestinian Christians. Your only argument is that Israel is morally superior to Hamas (which is not saying much and also not true). You clearly refuse to educate yourself about the history and stick to the same talking points.

"Your only argument is that Israel is morally superior to Hamas (which is not saying much and also not true)."

Right. This tells me how completely irrational you are in this discussion.

 

[ZenMode]

2 state solution has never not been the best solution.

If you think the attacks on Israel are bad now, make Gaza its own, sovereign state and it will make a legit run a wiping Israel off the map.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

Zen can dismiss the word ‘Islamophobia’ all he wants. But it explains why so many people don’t flinch when Muslim kids are buried under rubble.

Why is it that people only flinch when Jews are the ones doing the killing? Yet hundreds of thousands die in civil wars across North Africa and the ME and there is not a protester in sight.

 

[Calheel]

Why is it that people only flinch when Jews are the ones doing the killing? Yet hundreds of thousands die in civil wars across North Africa and the ME and there is not a protester in sight.

There are a couple theories.

My best guess is that US weaponry and financial support is not being used in those conflicts (although that doesn’t really explain the European reactions).

The next best guess is that perceived white people killing brown people is more objectionable to liberals than brown people killing brown people.

There could also be some resentment to the way Israel influences US politics.

There is also the size and scope of the killing in Gaza.

There is also the fact that Israel is always a bigger deal in the US than other areas because of the religious connection to the Holy Land.

And of course, there is always a window for antisemitism.

 

[superrific]

Why is it that people only flinch when Jews are the ones doing the killing? Yet hundreds of thousands die in civil wars across North Africa and the ME and there is not a protester in sight.

1. I don't know why you think those events have engendered no protests. They have and do. During the genocide Rwanda was on the news every night for more than a week IIRC. Subsequent conflicts have been considerably less visible.
2. Americans generally don't know shit about Africa, so that makes it hard for them to care. For instance: the M23 conflict in Congo right now (to which you might be referring) is actually a squall of the Second Congolese War from 1998-2002. That war was fought by nine nations and 25 armed groups, making it about as big politically as WWII. Most Americans have no idea it even happened, let alone anything about it.
3. Another reason these places get less coverage is that they have considerably less strategic significance to the US. Very little changes about American policy or influence if Congo is ruled by Kabila or Felix. Very much would change if Israel were to weaken.
4. The Gaza conflict is not like a civil war at all. There is an element of injustice present there that doesn't exist everywhere.

 

[ZenMode]

So the hundreds of Palestinian civilians that were killed prior to Oct 6th in 2023 must not count because they aren’t white.

You’ve made your point countless times. Civilian deaths are a part of war and are insignificant, except when they’re Israeli. You’ve continuously dehumanized Palestinians and Muslims, and you also ignore the Palestinian Christians. Your only argument is that Israel is morally superior to Hamas (which is not saying much and also not true). You clearly refuse to educate yourself about the history and stick to the same talking points.

On a side note, between you and I, you are the only one that cares about skin color. There have been Lily white, educated men from America who have left their lives to go fight with Al-Qaeda. They are just as evil as the terrorists we are talking about.

 

[Calheel]

On a side note, between you and I, you are the only one that cares about skin color. There have been Lily white, educated men from America who have left their lives to go fight with Al-Qaeda. They are just as evil as the terrorists we are talking about.

So it is just a complete coincidence that most of your political views happen to align with the preferences of lighter skinned people? How random!

 

[RaiGuy]

"Your only argument is that Israel is morally superior to Hamas (which is not saying much and also not true)."

Right. This tells me how completely irrational you are in this discussion.

I say the same about your arguments. My argument is neither Hamas not Israel has morals. Maybe you are too distant from what’s happening. Talk to actual Palestinians and ask them how moral Israel has been to them. And I’m talking from the real start, not just October 7.

You condemn Hamas leaders for calling for the destruction of Israel (as one should), yet you call Israel morally superior even when their leaders call for the destruction of Gaza. Explain that one.

 

[ZenMode]

So it is just a complete coincidence that most of your political views happen to align with the preferences of lighter skinned people? How random!

Nope. It's just that all "you" see is color in political positions that have nothing to do with color.

 

[RaiGuy]

On a side note, between you and I, you are the only one that cares about skin color. There have been Lily white, educated men from America who have left their lives to go fight with Al-Qaeda. They are just as evil as the terrorists we are talking about.

Al-Qaeda has nothing to do with Hamas. You lump them all together yet they are ideologically and politically different. You also ignore the Christians that being killed in Gaza. You also ignore any Palestinian death prior to Oct 7th and call October 7th the largest escalation in the “conflict”. The only thing that makes it an escalation is because it was Israelis that were attacked. There’s only one common denominator there.

 

[ZenMode]

Al-Qaeda has nothing to do with Hamas. You lump them all together yet they are ideologically and politically different.

They're all terrorist organizations.

You also ignore the Christians that being killed in Gaza.

I'm not ignoring it, it's just not relevant to my position in this discussion.

You also ignore any Palestinian death prior to Oct 7th and call October 7th the largest escalation in the “conflict”.

Because it is.

The only thing that makes it an escalation

At least we agree on that

is because it was Israelis that were attacked.

No, it's because of the number of civilians killed. It would be the equivalent of 30,000 Americans dying on 9/11.

There’s only one common denominator there.

Yes. Terrorists terrorizing innocent civilians.

 

[RaiGuy]

They're all terrorist organizations.

I'm not ignoring it, it's just not relevant to my position in this discussion.

Because it is.

At least we agree on that

No, it's because of the number of civilians killed. It would be the equivalent of 30,000 Americans dying on 9/11.

Yes. Terrorists terrorizing innocent civilians.

So why isn’t the killing of hundreds of Palestinians an “escalation”? Is it because it was spread over a few months instead of one day? Would it have been more palatable to you had Hamas spread out its attacks over a year?

 

[superrific]

Al-Qaeda has nothing to do with Hamas. You lump them all together yet they are ideologically and politically different. You also ignore the Christians that being killed in Gaza. You also ignore any Palestinian death prior to Oct 7th and call October 7th the largest escalation in the “conflict”. The only thing that makes it an escalation is because it was Israelis that were attacked. There’s only one common denominator there.

I think maybe the second to last sentence is hyperbole. I mean, it was an escalation. I know what you're getting at, but that argument worked a lot better when we were talking about a bus bombing. There's no way O7 can be described as anything but a major escalation. Let's put it this way: pretty much every country remotely involved in the region treated it that way.

 

[superrific]

Is it because it was spread over a few months instead of one day?

Well, yes, that's one reason. It's a valid reason.

 

[ZenMode]

So why isn’t the killing of hundreds of Palestinians an “escalation”?

It may have been at the time it happened. I don't know what you're referring to.

Is it because it was spread over a few months instead of one day?

Yes. It's not impossible that more total Americans had been killed, around the world, by terrorists prior to 9/11, but 9/11 was very clearly a huge escalation and not just because of the number of civilians killed.

Would it have been more palatable to you had Hamas spread out its attacks over a year?

No terrorism is palpable and any amount of "terrorism" by Jews is also not palpable.