• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

The Palestine / Israel nightmare rages on, even on facebook

Cannabis Seed Wedding Bands

Rocky

TRIBE Member
this is exactly what i mean by arguments of false equivalencies and hyperbole. thank you for once again underscoring the point with your example.

If you isolate 1,000 cases of the silencing of dissent, it's easy to deny systematic, homogeneous silencing of dissent. Some of us take these examples in a larger context. What you label as hyperbole is really just your failure to connect the dots. Information is like pointillism. If you take a single dot out of context, you see nothing but a dot. This seems to be your MO.
 

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
Well the neighborhood bully, he’s just one man
His enemies say he’s on their land
They got him outnumbered about a million to one
He got no place to escape to, no place to run
He’s the neighborhood bully

he just lives to survive
He’s criticized and condemned for being alive
Not supposed to fight back and have thick skin
Supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in

been driven out of every land
He’s wandered the earth, an exiled man
Seen his family scattered, people hounded and torn
He’s always on trial for just being born

Well he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized
Old women condemned him, said, “He should apologize”
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, ain’t nobody was glad
The bombs were meant for him, he was supposed to feel bad

Well the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That he’ll live by the rules that the world makes for him
There’s a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him given out to every maniac

Well he’s surrounded by pacifists who all want peace
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease
Now they wouldn’t hurt a fly, to hurt one they would weep
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep

Every empire that’s enslaved him is gone
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon
He’s made a garden of paradise in the desert sand
In bed with nobody, under no ones command

Now his holiest books have been trampled upon
No contract he signed was worth what it was written on
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health

What’s anybody indebted to him for?
Nothin’, they say, he just likes to cause war
Pride and prejudice and superstition indeed
They wait for this bully like a dog waits to feed

What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers?
Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill
Running out the clock, time standing still, neighborhood bully

~ Bob Dylan
 

Rocky

TRIBE Member
Le la la I can't hear you.

I've got songs, too, except this one, critical of the IDF, was banned:

Learning to kill
Is a matter of momentum
It starts small
And then it comes

Patrols every night
In the casbah of Nablus
Hey, what here is ours
And what is yours

At first just a drill
A rifle’s butt bangs on the door
Children in shock
A family terrified

Later – closure*
There’s danger already
Death is lurking
Behind every corner

Cocking the weapon
Arm shaking
Finger is firm
Against the trigger

The heart goes wild
Beats, terrified
It knows – next time
It will be easier

They are not a man, not a woman
They are just an object, just a shadow
Learning to kill
Is a matter of habit

Learning to fear
Is a matter of momentum
You start small
And then it comes

The news from above
Reaches the street
There’s no hope of living
The end is so near

Prophecies of terror
Like the crow of a raven
Close the shutters
Close up in the homes

We’re just a few
And they are so many
A tiny country
Devoured by enemies

They have only hate in their hearts
Evil, dark urges
Learning to fear
Is a matter of habit

Learning cruelty
Is a matter of momentum
It starts small
And then it comes

Every boy is a man
Craving victory
Hands behind the head
Legs spread

It’s a time of danger
It’s a time of destruction
Soldier, toughen up
There’s no good in compassion

The cousin like an animal
Used to blood
Doesn’t feel suffering
Is not human

Field uniform and chafing
Exhaustion and routine
From stupidity to evil
The route is short

All ours, all ours
Israel’s land
Learning cruely
Is a matter of habit

Son, son– stop
Son, son – come back
Come to me, sweetheart
Come to me, my baby

The sky is so gloomy
Outside, already dark
Tin soldiers still
Under the bed

Come home, son
Come home
Home
Home

Learning to love
Is a matter of tenderness
A careful step
In a cloud of gentleness

We will hesitate, we will come apart
We will soften, we will round out
Learning to love
Is a matter of habit

Being human
Is a matter of momentum
It grows like an unborn child
And then it comes

For just one minute
Just now, just today
To be on the other side
Of that same checkpoint

But our heart has hardened
And our skin is thick
Deaf and blind
In the bubble of the present

We will observe in amazement
The falling angel
Being human
Is a matter of habit

*”Closure” is a military term referring to a situation in which inhabitants of a village or town are prevented from traveling outside it.

Song critical of the IDF goes viral after being banned by Israeli Army Radio – Mondoweiss
 

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
You are acting the fool. It was banned on IDF radio lol. You think it would be wise for a military station to play a song that speaks against its army?

The Dylan song perfectly paints the situation. You paint Israel as the bully but really they are being bullied outnumbered a million to 1 (if you look at the true number of Islamic fundamentalists it really works out to 16 to 1) It highlights that Israel made the land useable and renewable with resources from barren desert. It speaks of the ridiculousness to think that protecting your own is wrong in the face of constant attacks. People like you paint the bully but you fail to see that the bully is actually the victim.

I maintain that if not another rocket was fired from Gaza there would be peace.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
I ask you again Rocky but am confident you wont answer as it would blow a large hole in your theories.

Do you believe that Israeli citizens deserve to live without fear of attack?

Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist?


What would happen if Israel stopped its defence of its people?


How do you justify a military that targets civilian populations(hamas) when you denounce a military that targets military hiding within a civilian population (Israel)?
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
I ask you again Rocky but am confident you wont answer as it would blow a large hole in your theories.

Do you believe that Israeli citizens deserve to live without fear of attack?

Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist?


What would happen if Israel stopped its defence of its people?


How do you justify a military that targets civilian populations(hamas) when you denounce a military that targets military hiding within a civilian population (Israel)?

These are strange questions to ask. The fact you're asking them at all tells me you're not trying to engage with Rocky, but looking where to place him on your Enemy of Israel board.

Speaking for Rocky I am certain he would answer YES and YES to your first two questions, just like everyone else in this thread.

Your last two are quite loaded with premises that make them seem like simple questions to you with obvious answers - but to unpack all these loaded premises means answering them is more than a simple yes or no.

Opposition to policies of Israel does not mean one does not agree with Israeli people's right to live in peace or "right to exist" - this is a deliberate conflation designed to put your debate opponent into a place where you can apply a label of intolerance for the Israeli people so as to emphasize your decency and undermine theirs.

Kind of a cheap tactic, and not sure how effective it is with this audience. Might work better in the CAMERA forums..:)
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
I maintain that if not another rocket was fired from Gaza there would be peace.

conveniently placing entire onus for peace on one party - a corollary could be "no peace with occupation".

Not a productive position to take as it has given extremists veto power over the peace process on both sides. How much peace has this "YOU FIRST!" strategy given us or the Israeli people in the last decades?
 

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
conveniently placing entire onus for peace on one party - a corollary could be "no peace with occupation".

Not a productive position to take as it has given extremists veto power over the peace process on both sides. How much peace has this "YOU FIRST!" strategy given us or the Israeli people in the last decades?

I disagree - the question seeks to show that

There would be no need for "occupation" if there were no threat.

I never asked for a yes or no answer you are free to expand.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Rocky

TRIBE Member
I ask you again Rocky but am confident you wont answer as it would blow a large hole in your theories.

Do you believe that Israeli citizens deserve to live without fear of attack?
I do, and the best way to do this is to stop the continuing bombing of innocent civilians (women and children) by the thousands, and to stop the illegal settlements, theft of Palestinian land, and subjugation of its people.
Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist?
Yes. Just as much as the Palestinians do. Maybe a return to Oslo accords might help, but, that might mean another assassination since it recognized the Palestinians right to exist as well.
What would happen if Israel stopped its defence of its people?
They are on the offence. Only a fool filled with delusion could suggest that they are defending themselves. Again, when you realize this, then all of your questions become meaningless.
How do you justify a military that targets civilian populations(hamas) when you denounce a military that targets military hiding within a civilian population (Israel)?
I don't justify them. Hamas is labelled a terrorist organization, so they are condemned enough. Also, when you look at the numbers, equal condemnation is not justified. The amount of condemnation on the part of Israel apologists is inversely proportional to the kill ratio. Besides, my country doesn't support Hamas. We support Israel, and I will not have war crimes perpetrated in my name against a people who are clearly defending themselves.

No holes in my theory, dude. Only yours. It's your delusion that Israel is the victim, and are the ones defending themselves. It is clear that the Israeli system of propaganda is working, at least with some who don't subscribe to factual reality.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
I disagree - the question seeks to show that

There would be no need for "occupation" if there were no threat.

I never asked for a yes or no answer you are free to expand.

Will do maybe later this week on those two...

But I thought the occupation was more about fulfilling religious prophecy and changing facts on the ground in a unilateral way to foil Palestinian statehood. I was not aware that the reason for the occupation was security - it seemed to be much more a project of control over land and to satisfy the extremist wings in Israeli politics that want to fulfill religious destiny.
 

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
Ill carry on with you Praktik. Given that you believe that Israel both has a right to exist and its citizens have a right to exist without fear of attack, how is it unjust for Israel to seek out those that would threaten its people? Why should they have to sit back and let the attacks come to them when they know where the attacks are planned and carried out? Granted that the measures taken were extreme but no more extreme than the bus bombs, the suicide bombers, the thousands of missle attacks (whether they hit their targets is irrelevant if the intent is there), the targeting of civilians, the laws against selling land to Jews, the outright admittance by Hamas leaders that they arm children and send them to battle, the martyring of families, holy war itself, crying foul when 6 countries attacked Israel and lost and in that loss Israel claimed land - that's what loss is, if they had won would Israel be able to say they were occupying? -probably not because everyone would be dead.
 

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
The occupation is in areas of land that were strategic attack points and water access points to Israel. The 6 day war started with access to water being cut off followed by attacks on all sides. In the push back Israel "occupied" strategic zones to not allow it to happen again.
 

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
Palestinian statehood is somewhat of a fallacy in itself. The original Palestinians were Jews named so by the pharaohs in egypt. For 20 years under Jordanian rule the people we call Palestinians never once requested a state -why is that? It was only when Iran and Syria among others decided to use the occupied areas after they lost the 6 day war that a state was sought. It became a tool in a holy war to wipe out the Jews. Which flows the slogan "from the river to the sea" - There is no peaceful solution on their side they want to drive every Jew into the sea! It was a continuance of working with the Nazis in WWII. The disputed areas also changed the landscape of who the Palestinians were. Most of the peaceful Palestinians (arabs in the disputed region) live peacefully inside Israels borders (over 1 million of them). The people of the disputed areas, the majority are expelled terrorists from Egypt and Jordan (some call them refugees but think about why they were not allowed to return to their home countries) and have been breeding and teaching the hate philosophy creating more people of the same terrorist mentality for the last 30+ years in the region. Since Arafat called on Jihadists to come to the region in the 1980's when bus bombings in Israel were a daily occurance. Israel doesn't teach its people to hate or to kill they teach acceptance but are forced to take action from years of bombardment. This is why I say if the attacks on Israel stopped there would be no fight. They would have no reason to fight.

I should add that while I think its a fallacy I do support a two state solution. Though I wonder if the Jihadists would value or honour the paper it is written on.
 
Last edited:
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

praktik

TRIBE Member
The occupation is in areas of land that were strategic attack points and water access points to Israel. The 6 day war started with access to water being cut off followed by attacks on all sides. In the push back Israel "occupied" strategic zones to not allow it to happen again.

This may explain its inception - i think its harder to argue in the settlement rush of the 90s. For instance, Jerusalem settlement expansion in Arab quarters has nothing to do with the 6 day war.

You're making an assumption that this single motivation is what guides current settlement expansion, which is proceeding based on multiple converging interests, one if which is certainly security. From my observations I think this element is less the concern in modern days, and religious/political reasons are the stronger push on this now.

This also gets though at the chicken/egg issue right: rockets must stop for there to be peace, but the grind of the occupation creates pressure that vents in the form of violence - so now if we take all your arguments at face value we have a recipe for constant war: can't have peace cause rockets, can't end occupation cause of security, but occupation causes violence - and so I guess we just keep the merry go round going?

Grind the palestinians down and act surprised when actions have reactions?
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Ill carry on with you Praktik. Given that you believe that Israel both has a right to exist and its citizens have a right to exist without fear of attack, how is it unjust for Israel to seek out those that would threaten its people? Why should they have to sit back and let the attacks come to them when they know where the attacks are planned and carried out?

You are running with the premise that current Israeli strategy is the best available to deal with the current situation - so when people criticize this the reaction is "well you want us to do nothing?"

I submit that Israel could still satisfy its security concerns, and its right to self defence, without killing thousands of civilians - women and children very much included in these counts in unjustifiable numbers. So the critique is not "What Israel is doing is wrong it should do nothing and wave the white flag" - which is often what it feels like defenders of Israel are arguing against. The critique is rathermore: Israel can seek its security without the callous disregard and collective punishment that feeds Palestinian misery - choking on economic penury, lack of freedom of movement, access to electricity, food water. In fact, Israel's latest adventure in Gaza will only sow more violence - of the many hundreds dead they each have many friends and relatives with black patch on their soul they can lay directly - and accurately - at the IDF doorstep. I've presented evidence in this thread that explains most Palestinian violence is motivated by direct personal experience with loss of a loved one at the hands of an occupying force - not the TV programs they saw as a kid. This will blowback, just as it has been for the last 60+ years.

So I get what you're saying - but the premises that inform what you're saying make it impossible for you to see that the actions of Israel actually undermine its present and future security - not protect it.

At least I'm not aware of many countries that increase security by killing thousands of people among much larger populations over which they control things people who love freedom take for granted. In most cases this just feeds a slow burn of resentment that just builds up until it explodes - just ask Assad how well killing subject populations has provided for that state's security. It worked ok for them for decades - but the pressure just kept building from all the times Assad sowed misery amongst groups he targeted as enemies.

And at the end of the day all that Assad and the IDF are doing by employing violence like this is illusory short term security gains that are overcome by the long term trends.

What Israel has in its favour is a lot more stability and runway - so they can keep grinding down the populations of its occupied citizens with little actual impact.

Bodycount in the last adventure in Gaza shows how the impacts on Israel are largely psychological. Its a big deal to have to run for shelters - but at the end of the day only a few Israeli citizens stopped breathing. With the wall, its technological and overwhelming military superiority, outside benefactors protecting it from sanction in all international fora - Israel can play the long game.

But not too long - as those who highlight the demographic threat inherent to an approach that eschews a two state solution. If you're gonna be one state Israel, you have to choose between a Jewish Apartheid state or give up the Jewishness and be truly "one state and one people" - this dilemma will only rise in importance in the coming decades.
 

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
You are running with the premise that current Israeli strategy is the best available to deal with the current situation - so when people criticize this the reaction is "well you want us to do nothing?".

Suggest the alternative when the aggressors are hiding in civilian populations. Launching attacks from schools and hospitals, paying families to martyr children and women. Dressing militants as women hiding in civilian populations. They have admitted that the killing of civilians is good for their cause. They rely on it as part of the strategy to gather world support against Israel.




I submit that Israel could still satisfy its security concerns, and its right to self defence, without killing thousands of civilians - women and children very much included in these counts in unjustifiable numbers. So the critique is not "What Israel is doing is wrong it should do nothing and wave the white flag" - which is often what it feels like defenders of Israel are arguing against. The critique is rathermore: Israel can seek its security without the callous disregard and collective punishment that feeds Palestinian misery - choking on economic penury, lack of freedom of movement, access to electricity, food water. In fact, Israel's latest adventure in Gaza will only sow more violence - of the many hundreds dead they each have many friends and relatives with black patch on their soul they can lay directly - and accurately - at the IDF doorstep. I've presented evidence in this thread that explains most Palestinian violence is motivated by direct personal experience with loss of a loved one at the hands of an occupying force - not the TV programs they saw as a kid. This will blowback, just as it has been for the last 60+ years..

See above the alternative really is to sit back and do nothing or put soldiers in harms way by facilitating hand to hand combat on the ground. Israel is not willing to put more of its people at risk by doing this.

So I get what you're saying - but the premises that inform what you're saying make it impossible for you to see that the actions of Israel actually undermine its present and future security - not protect it..

I can understand how it would be detrimental to peace I am not blind. Though I can't really see an alternative as thousands of rockets are fired with the intent to kill Israeli civilians not military. That's the point the Jihadists will not be satisfied until the last Jew is driven into the sea. Then they can start taking aim at the Christians as their brothers have done in Egypt.

.
At least I'm not aware of many countries that increase security by killing thousands of people among much larger populations over which they control things people who love freedom take for granted. In most cases this just feeds a slow burn of resentment that just builds up until it explodes - just ask Assad how well killing subject populations has provided for that state's security. It worked ok for them for decades - but the pressure just kept building from all the times Assad sowed misery amongst groups he targeted as enemies.

And at the end of the day all that Assad and the IDF are doing by employing violence like this is illusory short term security gains that are overcome by the long term trends.

..

Where you go wrong here is that Assad carried out attacks on his own people within its own borders.
FSA: No terror is comparable to Assad Israel is acting against an aggressor from outside its borders and population. It owes nothing to these people yet provides more aid than any of the arab nations surrounding them (weapons do not count as aid).


.
What Israel has in its favour is a lot more stability and runway - so they can keep grinding down the populations of its occupied citizens with little actual impact.

Bodycount in the last adventure in Gaza shows how the impacts on Israel are largely psychological. Its a big deal to have to run for shelters - but at the end of the day only a few Israeli citizens stopped breathing. With the wall, its technological and overwhelming military superiority, outside benefactors protecting it from sanction in all international fora - Israel can play the long game.

But not too long - as those who highlight the demographic threat inherent to an approach that eschews a two state solution. If you're gonna be one state Israel, you have to choose between a Jewish Apartheid state or give up the Jewishness and be truly "one state and one people" - this dilemma will only rise in importance in the coming decades.

What you miss here is that intent is as important as outcome. The fact that Israel has a missile defence system does not negate the fact that thousands of rockets are fired at its civilian populations with the intent to kill tens of thousands. Where you may pull isolated accounts of Israeli's celebrating Palestinian deaths that is not representative of the general populations sentiment. My friend and his family living in an arab area within Tel Aviv attended mass mourning vigils crying for losses on both sides. He accounts to me the fireworks and celebrations he sees from Gaza when Israelis are killed.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
I actually have come to the idea that intent actually doesn't matter - results do. Intent is nothing but the sweet lies we tell ourselves about the wars and drone strikes in our name - but at rock bottom?

The side with the allegedly "best intent" has the highest number of dead babies and grandmas which it has killed "by accident".

How much comfort does that give to the relatives of those dead?

Not much. The only comfort that provides is for those for whom the violence was employed.

And since this talk of intentions has become such a sweet sauce with which to more easily digest the people dead at our hands, I've come to a place where I am really a materialistic utilitarian - forget intentions, what has actually happened, whats the bodycount.... cause the road to hell is paved with good intentions... The other issue is that is assumed these good intentions permeate the Israeli political and military establishment, among which we can find many extremists advocating for quite horrible things.

So how universal are these good intentions anyway is another question not often asked, and gets to some of the rising bloodthirstiness and callousness some observers of Israel have been calling out in recent editorials and commentary.

Looks to me like the good intentions are eroding - and the fig leaf with them - however much they really mattered at all anyway...
 
Last edited:

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
The other thing to consider that was the original point I was trying to make earlier is that Hamas does not want peace. They don't care about land. They don't care about what happens to the Palestinians. All they care about is having a battlefield to launch attacks from and the ability to continue fighting until the last Jew is driven to the sea.

Peace can't be formed with a population that supports this government. Make no mistake, I remember the years where Israel could have leveled Fatah who were carrying out attacks backed by the PLO but feared that the replacement would be worse. Then Arafat and his successors migrated hundreds of thousands to the region to allow Hamas to secure enough votes to win power. This conflict was voted in and supported by the people. Hamas does not respect its own citizens they do not respect treaties, governments, they use the UN's UNWRA to smuggle weapons and build caches within their facilities. They rob their own people of aid money to build tunnels into Israel to launch more attacks. Israel was not going to stand by and let them gain enough strength to do major damage to its citizens.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
With regards to your intent comment- Intent does matter. If Israel did not have its defense system would you be shouting for the thousands of dead within its borders? In your statement and stance you justify the rocket attacks and encourage them as they don't count because they didn't hit their targets. I could just see the government of Israel saying "Have no fear we don't need to stop the rockets cause we have a missile defense system that stops 85% of the rockets" would that give comfort to your family?

15% of the rockets hit targets. This is why the people of Israel are in fear for their safety and why the attacks must be stopped at all costs. The body count is as described above a terrible tragedy, on that we agree. However it is used to create sympathy by Hamas. They encourage a rise in body count. They want more civilians to die. It is part of their strategy yet you hold no responsibility to them for that. They pay people and families to martyr themselves to cause international outrage.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
But those intentions don't offer much comfort to someone who lost two daughters to an IDF missile now does it?

So what good are they but to help us feel better about the people killed in our name? Intentions don't count for nearly as much as results - and this brings us to another question, if Israel truly had the "best intentions" - then why is the number of palestinians dead in their name in the last decade up in the thousands?

if Israel has the best "intentions", then why did they "intend" and implement a policy of collective punishment on innocent palestinians for the crimes of a few?

So this whole "intent" angle seems to me to be not only morally bankrupt - but intellectually bankrupt as well.

The results don't jive with the intentions so something is wrong - and the dead bodies are dead bodies - so it must be a problem with the intentions. The best intentions would not get Israel the results we have seen written in the blood of innocent palestian children.
 

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
But those intentions don't offer much comfort to someone who lost two daughters to an IDF missile now does it?..

The intent of the IDF is to take out civilian targets. In war there are casualties. Unfortunately the strategy of Hamas is to maximize the numbers of civilian deaths. Why are they not held accountable for putting their own people in harms way? Or for shooting a family that leaves a house that the IDF has marked for bombing, called to warn that a bomb was coming. No army in history has ever taken the measures that Israel has to avoid casualties yet Hamas counters those measures to maintain its strategy.

So what good are they but to help us feel better about the people killed in our name? Intentions don't count for nearly as much as results - and this brings us to another question, if Israel truly had the "best intentions" - then why is the number of palestinians dead in their name in the last decade up in the thousands?

For the same reason that attacks are up against Israel. when you look at the numbers killed in this fight they pale in comparison to the atrocities that Hamas and organizations like it have committed against arab populations in the middle east. They are singled out because they are more widely reported as Israel does not limit free speech or the press. Israelis are more critical of their own government than even say....you.


if Israel has the best "intentions", then why did they "intend" and implement a policy of collective punishment on innocent palestinians for the crimes of a few???..

Israel was forced into a situation where elevated attacks and a strengthened position would be executed against their civilian population if they did not act swiftly. Its unfortunate but Hamas and those with its mentality don't respond to diplomacy and negotiations (no peace no negotiations no recognition- the famous 3 no's) they only react to violence. After you are pushed too many times eventually you are going to push back.

So this whole "intent" angle seems to me to be not only morally bankrupt - but intellectually bankrupt as well.

The results don't jive with the intentions so something is wrong - and the dead bodies are dead bodies - so it must be a problem with the intentions. The best intentions would not get Israel the results we have seen written in the blood of innocent palestian children.

Quite the contrary. The intent of Hamas is extremely relevant. Its the reason the battle has come to where it is. If Hamas was truly open to negotiations, truly had any desire for peaceful resolution there is a partner waiting at a negotiation table. The reality is they don't for the reasons explained above.
 

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
In my first paragraph it was supposed to say The intent of the IDF is to take out military aggressors hiding among civilian populations.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
The intent of the IDF is to take out civilian targets. In war there are casualties. Unfortunately the strategy of Hamas is to maximize the numbers of civilian deaths. Why are they not held accountable for putting their own people in harms way? Or for shooting a family that leaves a house that the IDF has marked for bombing, called to warn that a bomb was coming. No army in history has ever taken the measures that Israel has to avoid casualties yet Hamas counters those measures to maintain its strategy.

So the dead civilians at the hands of IDF weaponry are all Hamas' fault?

Doesn't make any sense. Israel knows what will happen when it fires munitions into densely populated areas, and it does so more freely because of the lies it tells itself about how nobly intended all its actions are:


When you focus on intentions, it’s easy to lose sight of tactical decisions that endanger civilians as a side effect. High on this list is the IDF’s shift from guided missiles to artillery. Based on the U.N. review and its own reporting, the Times says the fatal hits in Jabaliya “were likely to have come from heavy artillery not designed for precision use.” Such artillery is “considered effective if it hits within 50 yards of its target.” That margin of error obviously increases the risk to civilians.

A human rights lawyer tells the Times that no matter how hard you try, “You just can’t aim that weapon precisely enough in that environment because it’s so destructive.” From the standpoint of good intentions, that’s an excuse. But morality isn’t just about where you aim. It’s also about the weapon you use. It’s easy to tell yourself that you aimed as well as you could, when the fatal decision was to use a weapon you couldn’t have aimed any better.​
Furthermore, there's this:

An anonymous Israeli general interviewed by the Times says that just before the school was hit, “Hamas people were shooting at” Israeli troops who were trying to demolish a Hamas tunnel. The Times asked the general whether it was OK to use artillery in that situation, especially since none of the Israeli troops was injured by the Hamas shooting. He replied that “the question is whether or not they were under great or imminent risk.” If they were under imminent risk, he argued, then they might be “allowed to fire artillery or mortar shells into urban areas.” A retired Israeli general makes the same point: “[T]o rescue forces that are getting into trouble, sometimes you have to use a little more firepower.” Another Israeli official says it’s complicated: “Terrorists shooting on our soldiers, our soldiers reacting.”

But this line of thinking loses its relevance as you move from defense to offense. When the enemy is shooting at your civilians, that’s terrorism. When you send troops into the enemy’s territory, and the troops get shot at, that’s not terrorism. That’s plain old war. In Jabaliya, the only civilians immediately at risk were Palestinian. In that context, when you invoke “imminent risk,” you’re no longer using the safety of your civilians to justify the killing of enemy soldiers. You’re using the safety of your soldiers to justify the killing of foreign civilians. And you’re the one who put the soldiers at risk to begin with, by invading.​
And the human shield gambit is used to blame Hamas for all those innocents killed by the IDF and its amazing "intentions":
Israeli briefers have cited many cases in which Gaza militants launched rockets from, or stored rockets in, U.N. facilities. With regard to Jabaliya and other tragedies, the retired Israeli general interviewed by the Times argues that Hamas fighters try to draw fire from the IDF “and hope that some mistake will cause a disaster in order to delegitimize Israel.” Israel’s prime minister and other officials have argued that Hamas’ use of human shields makes it completely responsible for any civilian casualties in Gaza.

This mentality makes it that much easier to pull the trigger. The Times says Israeli officials have offered no evidence that enemy fighters were near the Jabaliya school, and interviews with people on the neighboring streets found nobody who had seen fighters in the vicinity. Nor were there any bullet casings or holes. Does the enemy’s frequent use of human shields justify killing civilians in an instance where there’s no evidence of that behavior? Did this rationale play a role in the IDF’s decision to shoot?​
Note in my response above I am speaking about Israel's intentions and how they don't matter much when set against the pile of dead innocents from the last few decades of occupation and IDF operations - this is a moral argument I am framing with respect to the professed "good intentions" of Israel. Hamas' intentions are another matter - and whatever they may be, even if they're the Worst in the World Ever - we can still discuss whether Israel allegedly having "good intentions" means that its ok for them to kill thousands of innocent people to manage occupations in densely populated areas.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top