Jump to content

Israel - Hamas War 2


Kalbear
 Share

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, horangi said:

OK, I am hesitant to even step into this discussion.  That said, today, October 13, Ukraine claims to have inflicted 1030 casualties on the forces of Russia plus over 120 vehicles and 44 artillery pieces destroyed.  Granted, Ukraine has an incentive to exaggerate successes, and we have to assume Ukraine losses were a significant percent of the losses to Russia.  Why are the vast majority of posts dealing with the horrors in the Levant vs what is happening in Ukraine?  Literally the horrors lashed out by either side which have spawned multiple threads here have been just the norm for whats happening to their North-East.

 

It's news. 

It's new, you put an S on it... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

"Holocaust revisionist" explains a lot of your previous comments. 

I mean, I'm not running around saying "Hitler didn't want to kill jews.", but he had been doing it.

Also, leave behind the implications and explain to me what my comment explains to you, I'm genuienly curious, because I don't want to put words in your mind and mouth.

Edited by Daeron the Daring
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Care to explain what that phrase means? I'm not familiar with it.

It's a softer term for "Holocaust denier," sometimes used to refer to those who distort or downplay the unspeakable tragedy without fully denying that it happened.

As for Daeron's post, I believe he's referring to Netanyahu cynically embracing the Central European far right in order to gain their support and crush the idea of an independent Palestinian state, and in doing so, offering cover to Holocaust revisionism and accepting anti-Semitism. Here is an article about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Care to explain what that phrase means? I'm not familiar with it.

It's the revisionism of our perception of what the Holocaust was. Either by  denying more or less of it, or shifting the blame away from nazis in an apologetic style towards the people that the supporters of it think actually did it.

Edited by Daeron the Daring
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

For those who find Netanyahu's allowance of billions in Qatari funding to Gaza through Hamas questionable, you might want to be a bit more skeptical about relying so uncritically on Qatari state media Al Jazeera as an unbiased source of information on the conflict.

Israeli media sources say also, as do a variety of other sources.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/

https://m.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-money-to-hamas-part-of-strategy-to-keep-palestinians-divided-583082

https://m.timesofindia.com/world/middle-east/how-netanyahu-allowed-hamas-to-grow-while-undermining-the-abbas-govt-in-palestine/amp_articleshow/104286540.cms

https://english.alarabiya.net/amp/News/middle-east/2018/11/11/Netanyahu-defends-Qatari-funds-to-Hamas-Every-action-has-a-price-

Also, wouldn't it make more sense for Al Jazeera to cover that up, since it makes Qatar look bad having funded a terrorist group?

Regardless, you make a good point about not relying on one source only. We should be vigilant when researching, use multiple sources, and be wary of fake news.

Edited by Craving Peaches
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

I mean, what are you expecting from a Holocaust revisionist.

The President of Israel is Isaac Herzog. He is not a revisionist, and criticized Netanyahu for the remarks

So, what Daeron is actually referring to is this. Netanyahu is by no means "downplaying" or denying the Holocaust. But he does provide a distorted history where he argues that it was a Palestinian who played a central role in convincing Hitler to move from planning to expel the Jews to the Final Solution. This isn't all some random fantasy, though -- Netanyahu was following a line of reasoning put forward by Schwantiz and Rubin in a book published the year prior to the remarks, and I suspect he didn't follow-up its most extraordinary claim which drew a lot of attention from historians who pointed out that the authors had failed to account for other evidence against that thesis.

You know, initially the Nazis were in fact planning to expel Jews to Africa or some other place, using the British merchant fleet that they expected to capture Any Day Now. But the Battle of Britain fell out as it did, and the plan fell by the wayside. Al-Husseini did meet with Hitler and asked for him to release a statement denying Jews a national homeland in Palestine, but there's no connection between that and the abandoning of plans to expel Jews from Europe despite rumors otherwise (including testimony by one of Eichmann's aides at Nuremberg which was likely wrong or false.)

 

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herzog also immediately clarified that he was not assigning collective guilt, but was referring to the fact that there are Gazans allowing their homes (their "kitchens", specifically, is the example he gave) to be used as missile launching sites, and basically said that Israel had a right to defend themselves from those attacks when people are asking how they are going to keep civilians unharmed. Basically, what is a "civilian" is murky in Gaza because some portion of the population is indirectly supporting the attacks from Hamas, who are using their homes (and other civilian structures) as bases of operation, cover, depots, etc.

Some may say that many of them are likely not doing it by choice, but regardless, if a missile comes out of an apartment building, it is absolutely allowed within the laws of war to try to neutralize that threat, and the fact that it's a civilian building that may house civilians is not particularly relevant.

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

Herzog also immediately clarified that he was not assigning collective guilt, but was referring to the fact that there are Gazans allowing their homes (their "kitchens", specifically, is the example he gave) to be used as missile launching sites, and basically said that Israel had a right to defend themselves from those attacks when people are asking how they are going to keep civilians unharmed. Basically, what is a "civilian" is murky in Gaza because some portion of the population is indirectly supporting the attacks from Hamas. 

 

That's what he said he was saying when asked a follow-up question that confronted him with the implications of his initial statement. But it was essentially either a walkback or an obfuscation, depending on what happens going forward- because what he said initially was, explicitly, that the entire 'nation' of Gaza, civilians included, are responsible because they didn't overthrow Hamas. Like this is the quote: 

Quote

We are working, operating militarily in terms according to rules of international law, period. Unequivocally.

It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It's not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It's absolutely not true.

They could have risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup 'd état.

 

I can totally believe that he didn't actually mean by that that it justifies bombing just anyone and that he was actually making two separate points there- one about Israel's response and the necessity of responding to a direct attack and one about what he personally thinks the civilians could have done- but he's got to be far more careful about his choice of words in a position like his. Because he's delivered a perfect soundbite there to escalate hatred even further. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

but he's got to be far more careful about his choice of words in a position like his.

This I agree with. Message discipline seems pretty poor, and understandably this is an incredibly stressful and emotional time but still, the world is watching and people are ready to pick everything apart and there are those who always take the most uncharitable view of anything that comes from the Israeli government.

They should probably be using their press secretaries more and not speaking directly as often, but I gather Israel is used to having its politicians being much more accessible (smaller country and all).

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/13/world/israel-lebanon-journalists-attacked-intl/index.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67102956.amp

It is concerning that journalists are reportedly being targeted and harassed. According to Press Gazette, most of those killed are Palestinian journalists.

https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/journalists-killed-israel-gaza-war/

10 have been killed so far, by comparison 15 have been killed in the war in Ukraine, which has been going on longer. 

Spoiler

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_during_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict (not updated with most recent deaths)

 

The fact that quite a few journalists have previously been killed by snipers is especially worrying. Unlike with a bomb, I do not think there is a way to 'accidentally' kill someone with a sniper rifle. Similarly, it seems hard to 'accidentally' shoot someone very clearly marked as 'press'.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ran said:

 

You know, initially the Nazis were in fact planning to expel Jews to Africa or some other place, using the British merchant fleet that they expected to capture Any Day Now. But the Battle of Britain fell out as it did, and the plan fell by the wayside. Al-Husseini did meet with Hitler and asked for him to release a statement denying Jews a national homeland in Palestine, but there's no connection between that and the abandoning of plans to expel Jews from Europe despite rumors otherwise (including testimony by one of Eichmann's aides at Nuremberg which was likely wrong or false.)

 

AFAIK it's a topic of discussion among historians whether the Madagascar plan was a serious plan that Germany was intent to follow, or if it was more an idea put forward that was loosely considered. 

However, it's been some 20 years since I did this topic, so it's possible consensus has changed since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...