But when normal people see their method that they used to elect party officials, they think they're fucking crazy.
The Kids are All Right
- Thread starter Phoenixmgs
- Start date
Russia and China have been significantly more hesitant about providing lethal support to Israel than America. Israel knows that in order to maintain its current international support-- on which it heavily relies-- it needs to maintain some illusion of plausible deniability. They've pushed that about as far as they can possibly go already.
What was all that irrelevant stuff about the Rwandan genocide, then?
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,328
- 4,128
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
That's because the US is already providing them weapons. Israel is pragmatic, if we stop selling them weapons they will go to russia or china and either of them will be super happy to provide since having an ally in that area is really useful.
Because I would expect some numbers closer to their numbers if this was a genocide. Like at least 10% of the population by now.
with whose money?
they already have Iran, which they would lose if they did that.
Look, you can speculate that they'd be exactly as capable without US support all you like. But the fact is, the government of Israel has decided it needs international & domestic support, and that pushing it beyond breaking point must be avoided. Hence a piecemeal, plausible-deniability approach.
Governments-- even authoritarian and repressive ones-- require the acquiescence of their people and the world at large. And so, when they pursue their worst impulses, they will dress it up, or hire it, or go slowly and deny its happening.
So you are using one of the worst genocides in modern history as a benchmark, and concluding that if this doesn't approach it, it cannot be ethnic cleansing. Can you not see how utterly inane that is? Plus, the Rwandan genocide led directly to the fall of the government perpetrating it. So obviously more cautious powers will avoid emulating it.
Besides which, we've already established that ethnic cleansing isn't simply about absolute numbers dead. The population of Gaza has reduced by 6%.
Last edited:
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,328
- 4,128
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
All I'm hearing from you is that there is a war going on, which we agree on. I am curious, is what Hamas would like to do, would you consider it ethnic cleansing?
Then you're not listening. A war against Hamas doesn't somehow necessitate the targeted slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians, the displacement of 80% of the population, or the expulsion of people of specific ethnic groups from swathes of territory. That is categorically ethnic cleansing according to all relevant definitions, and is recognised as such by all independent observers.
Yes.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,328
- 4,128
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
It kinda does if you want to kill hamas. They don't have uniforms, they love to launch attacks from civilian areas, they target civilians, they have no regard for the lives of Palestinians, and they use guerilla tactics (booby traps, pretending to be civilans, using civilians as cover, etc etc).
You're genuinely going to argue all of this is proportionate and necessary? The utter devastation, 80% displaced, tens of thousands of women and children dead, the entire hospital sector razed.
This is war crime apologia. If you believe war should have no rules, that all civilians are fair game and warlords should be able to do whatever the fuck they want, then you believe that. The civilised world is supposed to be beyond that grotesque barbarism. Yours is a standard that would see you (and me, and everyone else) dead.
Last edited:
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,328
- 4,128
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Never said that. My point is that its understandable, not that its proportionate or necessary, they might think it is, but I think it has gone overboard.
I tend to just get annoyed when people pretend that the Palestinians are without sin and that anything they do is easily justified, but any reaction that Israel has is not. Hamas has broken more international law then Israel has, but Israel has much more capacity for destruction then they do. Not to mention that Hamas does not give a shit about the Palestinian people, they would rather lob ineffective rockets into Israel and try to kill a few Israeli civilians then build up Gaza or even just make bomb shelters for its people. But too many people just ignore that and seem to be saying that Israel should just take their shit and shrug and be like "oh well."
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,328
- 4,128
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
They were elected to lead in Gaza. I think of the Palestinian people as more of victims, but like it or not elections have consequences.
More civilians killed than combatants, most women & children; paramedics executed with their hands tied... I find that quite difficult to "understand" personally.
Then you can put your annoyance aside, because I didn't do any of that.
Yet you still took the time to downplay the IDF's litany of war crimes, and to set an inane standard for ethnic cleansing that excludes obvious and internationally-recognised actions that constitute it.
No: they won a plurality in a legislative election in 2006. The distinction is important for two reasons.
Firstly, their electoral system was not supposed to hand complete power to whoever won a plurality. The winner of a plurality should have the first chance to form a new gov, but would be operating in a legislature with opposition parties, necessitating either a minority government or a coalition. They formed a national unity gov with Fatah in 2007, but then expelled Fatah by force to govern alone. None of that was decided by the electorate and it was directly against how their electoral system was meant to work.
Secondly, given the average age in Gaza, and the fact there hasn't been an election since 2006, the majority of civilians have never been given the chance to vote.
they should do that and go further, as that would be only a step toward justice.
The colonial entity that names itself after an ancient kingdom has only perpetuated the crimes it began in and around 1948. It has much to reckon with.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,328
- 4,128
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
More civilians always tend to die in war, it sucks but its not unexpected. Especially when telling the difference between a civilian and a hamas solder comes down to one pointing a gun at someone. Also, I hate to say it but woman and children can use guns, and paramedics aren't supposed to even touch them but there is footage out there of paramedics handing firearms back to people.
You sound like you are.
I said nothing to downplay war crimes. I just said I don't think there is a genocide going on and probably not an ethnic cleansing.
No, if they're the overwhelming majority of casualties (as in Gaza), that tends to be in wars that are massively one-sided and feature a lot of war crimes.
Absolutely incredible. You've stooped to justifying the targeted killing of children. How much lower can someone go? Is there no atrocity, no barbaric war crime that won't have excuses trotted out? No standard of behaviour worth upholding?
This is a lie. You have interpreted condemnation of Israel as endorsement of Hamas, either due to a failure of reading comprehension, or as a smear tactic.
In this exact post, you downplayed the severity of targeted killings of children, and excused the majority of casualties being noncombatants.