Israeli–Palestinian conflict

[David]

I wouldn't want to be sharing office space with the Nicks corporate headquarters when the Israelis find out what is occurring on this forum!

Hey, we’ve got people posting literal IDF propaganda verbatim, so I think we’ll be okay!

[stui magpie]

Hey, I'm just putting up the IDF view, not saying it's correct but it is what they're saying.

On the other hand for those playing at home, a little easy reading background to the whole mess.

https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-ea ... 49f2e800ff

[watt price tully]

In amongst the murderous exchanges of best friends (Hamas and Netanyahu) comes some glimmer of hope:

https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/jewish- ... ion-668533

[stui magpie]

Ceasefire.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-21/ ... /100154602

[David]

Meet the new government, same as the old one …

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-17/ ... /100221800

[watt price tully]

Meet the new government, same as the old one …

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-17/ ... /100221800

What, so they should invite more balloons laden with fuel and bombs to continue to set ablaze forests, buildings and people? Pathetic David.

[David]

Strangely it is possible to condemn violent retaliations without endorsing provocation. (Having said that, this does not seem to have, as I presumed when I posted that, so far resulted in another round of attacks on civilians. But I don’t hold high hopes that the new government will pursue a fundamentally different approach.)

[watt price tully]

Strangely it is possible to condemn violent retaliations without endorsing provocation. (Having said that, this does not seem to have, as I presumed when I posted that, so far resulted in another round of attacks on civilians. But I don’t hold high hopes that the new government will pursue a fundamentally different approach.)

There were no deliberate attacks on civilians David. That is a false premise.

However: https://www.timesofisrael.com/photos-sh ... -gaza/amp/

[David]

I didn't say "deliberate", although I think the kindest adjective you could use is "callous and indifferent". The fact is that unarmed civilians were injured (2000) and killed (128, over half of them children) by these latest military strikes, and that this has occurred in every major Israeli military campaign in Gaza (not to mention the destruction of crucial infrastructure, which sometimes does indeed appear to be deliberate). Any attempt to semantically explain that away is just sophistry.

[watt price tully]

I didn't say "deliberate", although I think the kindest adjective you could use is "callous and indifferent". The fact is that unarmed civilians were injured (2000) and killed (128, over half of them children) by these latest military strikes, and that this has occurred in every major Israeli military campaign in Gaza (not to mention the destruction of crucial infrastructure, which sometimes does indeed appear to be deliberate). Any attempt to semantically explain that away is just sophistry.

This isn't semantics. no one wants any civilian to be harmed but apparently it's OK for Israeli civilians to be harmed.

The numbers were way over inflated by Hamas. The fact that the population of Gaza is over 70% minors then statistically the numbers are quite low.

Secondly, some of the so called minors were older adolescents and part of the military wing.

Remember Israel retaliated to missiles. There were over 4000 missiles fired. I thought Israel's reaction was moderate.

[stui magpie]

^

We're on the same page here. It's a circle of violence designed by a psychopathic marketing expert designed to elicit media sympathy for those in Gaza and simultaneous condemnation of Israel at the expense of civilian casualties. And it works.

[David]

I didn't say "deliberate", although I think the kindest adjective you could use is "callous and indifferent". The fact is that unarmed civilians were injured (2000) and killed (128, over half of them children) by these latest military strikes, and that this has occurred in every major Israeli military campaign in Gaza (not to mention the destruction of crucial infrastructure, which sometimes does indeed appear to be deliberate). Any attempt to semantically explain that away is just sophistry.

This isn't semantics. no one wants any civilian to be harmed but apparently it's OK for Israeli civilians to be harmed.

The numbers were way over inflated by Hamas. The fact that the population of Gaza is over 70% minors then statistically the numbers are quite low.

Secondly, some of the so called minors were older adolescents and part of the military wing.

Remember Israel retaliated to missiles. There were over 4000 missiles fired. I thought Israel's reaction was moderate.

Firstly, these are official UN statistics. Secondly, I don't know how to dignify the two following paragraphs but it's appalling to me that anyone would suggest the numbers of underage deaths is "quite low" because of population demographics or justifiable because some minors are trained fighters (as are nearly all Israeli adults, for what it's worth ...). I know it's a fraught topic, but we don't need to throw our moral compass out the window just because the Israeli government did years ago.

^

We're on the same page here. It's a circle of violence designed by a psychopathic marketing expert designed to elicit media sympathy for those in Gaza and simultaneous condemnation of Israel at the expense of civilian casualties. And it works.

If you're only seeing the propaganda coming from one side, then I don't think you're really seeing anything close to the full picture. There's an aggressive marketing push on both sides to say the least, and plenty of resources devoted to making you think that Palestinians are the sole antagonists and that Israel is merely defending itself.

[What'sinaname]

This has escalated to horrific levels overnight

[stui magpie]

Goodbye Gaza.

[What'sinaname]

Yep. Attacking military targets is one thing. Capturing 50 hostages and parading a dead German tourist is another.