Jump to content

Israeli War Crimes - Part 2

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 647
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't agree.

Western countries generally feature buildings and structures at an advanced level since they don't expect ready destruction in war. On the other hand there is little such building in war-torn countries such as Libya, Syria or Iraq since no one would insure such a structure. The West is not built for violent, random warfare.

Political and businesses classes extremely rarely use large-scale violence (the kind that would bring down buildings) as their main weapon domestically within a liberal democracy to undermine it for their own power. They work in smoke and mirrors, careful not to break the glass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many times in history that the aggressor in a war loses territory. Israel is about the only one expected to surrender territory gained as a result of wars repeatedly started by Arabs. And I include in that the conventional 1948, 1967 and 1973 wars, the "guerrilla warfare that occurred between those wars and the "terrorism" and "intifadas" that occurred thereafter.

In your view do you get to start (1948 and 1973 and the terrorism/guerrilla) a war or provoke one (1967) and take a mulligan?

A good majority of Israel's territory has been gained via war ("started" by Arabs). 60% of the area pledged to Arabs by the UN was annexed by Israel in 1948, which is illegal. If you don't factor the territory pledged to Israel via the 1947 UN Partition Plan, then somewhere around 90% of Israel's territory, maybe more, has been gained "as a result of wars repeatedly started by Arabs".

The argument that Israel kept the conquered land for purely for security reasons is nonsense. Security sure, but sometimes also for permanent land acquisition. Then you have the territory gained by illegal settlement building, not sure the excuse there. There irony is that Netanyahu seems to think the state of Palestine has no right to exist, at least not on what he considers historic Israeli land. The other irony is that Israel has gained a good deal of its territory through illegal annexation or occuption, echos of Nazi Germany (though via differing means)

Personally I think the borders in the region should be redrawn to the 1947 UN Partition Plan. I don't understand why everyone says "pre-1967 borders" instead, other than borders reverting to the 1947 plan is fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee...good thing the Arabs didn't annex any land during war, eh?

If you support acquiring territory through war, then you support the US annexing Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia annexing the Ukraine, Georgia, Khasikstan, etc. You also supported Iraq annexing Kuwait. After ww1 and ww2 we kind of all decided that was a bad way to establish international borders, but it seems like some people are rethinking that.

Gonna be fun century!

Edited by dre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you support acquiring territory through war, then you support the US annexing Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia annexing the Ukraine, Georgia, Khasikstan, etc. You also supported Iraq annexing Kuwait. After ww1 and ww2 we kind of all decided that was a bad way to establish international borders, but it seems like some people are rethinking that.

Gonna be fun century!

I said no such thing...as usual.

But to put all the annexing of land on Israel's shoulders is historically incorrect. Arabs and land annexation via war go hand in hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said no such thing...as usual.

You didn't need to its a logical extension of your argument.

People claim its ok for Israel to keep that land because they took it in "defensive wars" (a half truth at best). The US claimed that Afghanistan was a defensive war too, so why don't they just keep it? It could be another US state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree.

Western countries generally feature buildings and structures at an advanced level since they don't expect ready destruction in war. On the other hand there is little such building in war-torn countries such as Libya, Syria or Iraq since no one would insure such a structure. The West is not built for violent, random warfare.

Libya was very advanced in city building and infrastructure before the bombing started there about 6+ years ago. Syria was doing alright before the assault on that nation started. Afghanistan was a great place about 20-30 years ago. Iraq was brutal but livable, and after the invasion the nation has yet to recover.

15 years of the war on terror has obliterated any kind of advancement these nations had. And they will never get their stuff together if we continue down this path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel should continue to control occupied territories as long as it faces existential threats from enemies sworn to destroy the Jewish state. "War crimes" such as those practiced by Canada and NATO in pursuit of domestic and foreign policies (not existential threats) are certainly appropriate for defense and negotiating leverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moonlight 60% of the land you claim was annexed from Arabs in 1948 is just out and out wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

To start with the League of Nations not the United Nations created a mandate to divide what was referred to as Palestine (the region today referred to as Israel, Jordan and the West Bank) between Arabs and Jews.

Britain was given the mandate to administer this division. Go read Churchill's memoirs. He wrote about it and states that Britain deliberately lied to get the mandate and never had any true intention of allowing a Jewish state because they felt they owed Arab chieftains payback for assisting the British

defeat the Turks in WW1.

In fact Britain lied many times. First it lied when it in fact seized 90% of Palestine and turned it into the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. That state was created to be Jew free and in fact as illegal. In fact on the day WW2 broke out the League of Nations was going to meet to declare the Kingdom illegal and probably to remove Britain from the mandate.

Then WW2 broke out.

Let's be clear. Weitzman representing the Jewish community and Faisal representing the Arab community agreed in the early 20's to two nations side by side, one Muslim Arab, one Jewish.

When France and Britain learned of this agreement they undid it. Had it gone through, Britain and France feared a Muslim Jewish alliance would make

the need to look to Britain and France for assistance in refining oil and creating technology would not be necessary.

This is all historic and public domain. France lied to Faisal the day before he was to sign a treaty with Wietzman providing false information the Jewish state could not be trusted, Faisal took the bait and ripped up the agreement and then the very next day was arrested by the French and deported from Damascus.

On realizing his double cross the British moved to placate him. They gave one of his sons a kingdom in Iraq created by creating a 3 layer state with the Kurds on top to the North, the Sunnis in the middle and the Shiites at the bottom. The purpose was to place 3 feuding peoples together in one country

so that the British could then justify sticking around to protect this new King.

Then Britain created Jordan as a Jew free Palestinian state illegally placing Faisal's other son on that throne. Then they assured Faisal the rest of his family would be given a new kingdom in what is now Saudi Arabia to rule.

As for France they created two artificial French colonies, one called Syria and the other Lebanon. Lebanon had three feuding factions, one Phalangiste Maronite Christian, one Sunni, one Shiite and the French installed a Maronite Christian government. Syria was a strange mix of majority Sunni, Assyrian and other Christian Orthodox (Syrian, Greek Orthodox), Druze, Berbers, Jews and the Alawites a fringe group that broke away from Islam and is today the sect which Assad is from and is protected by the Iranians.

You need to read the Pictot agreement.

The UN only came into being after WW2. It in fact gave no mandate to anyone. It abandon its mandate. It never pledged anything to anyone. That is utterly false. In fact after WW2, the Jews of Palestine said they would settle for 6% of the entire area known as Palestine for a Jewish state. 6% not 80%.

Where you got 80% from Lord knows when Jordan is made up of 90% of Palestine.

6%. This was pursuant to the Balfour Declaration. What the British proposed were two kidney shaped enclaves, one Jewish one Muslim in what is roughly pre 1967 Israel. Zionists agreed to that and the Arab world rejected it.

In fact the war of 1948-1949 was started by the Arab League of Nations because they stated under Muslim laws, no Jew could own land or ever have a state in the Middle East and to this day they continue to maintain this position and this is why even Egypt and Jordan who have unofficial agreements with Israel not to attack it won't recognize it as a Jewish state.

Syria, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Algeria, Yemen, Lebanon never removed their delcarations of war against Israel. They are still in a declared state of war to this day. The charters of terrorist organizations Hamas, Hezbollag, Isil, Al Quaeda, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, Intifada, Palestinian Authority, Fatah and over 300 other terrorist organizations state in their constitutions they are at war with Jews worldwide, and Jordan, Israel and the West Bank be turned into a Muslim state, as the first stage of one Muslim kinhdom in all of the Middle East to be followed by a worldwide government run by Muslim clerics.

Could you at least find out the difference between the League of Nations and the UN.

The UN? When the Arab League declared a war with the express purpose of committing a second genocide of Jews, the UN turned its back on Jews.

In fact WW2 Nazis who fled to Syria, Egypt and Iraq and were welcomed as war heroes allied with the British in leading the Arab armies against Israel.

In fact the French coached and led Syrian, Algerian, Tunisian and Lebanese forces.

In fact precisely because the old colonialists ganged up on the Jews, Stalin sensing he had to rebalance colonial influence in the Middle East allowed 125,000 Russian Jews to leave for Israel right before and during the beginning of the war.

In fact Czechoslovakia was the only nation to officially assist the Jews of Palestine. Jewish soldiers from the British, French, American, Canadian, Australian, South African armies of WW2 volunteered to go to Israel. Gentiles from Britain, Rhodesia (now called Zimbabwe) Holland, France and the USA volunteered.

Go look at how small pre 1967 Israel is. It was ironically a little bigger than the Israel that would have come about had the Arabs not forced a war but look again. You are so utterly wrong its not funny. In fact Jordan annexed the West Bank not Israel. The West Bank was never and continued to this day to never have been part of any nation. Its disputed land that people like you assume is Palestinian. Palestine is a geographic name. Used as a political national name, that political national use only arose in 1967 after the PLO failed to seize Jordan and kill King Hussein who deported Arafat to Tunisia.

The borders of Israel after 1949 did not come about by annexation but by de facto possession, i.e., the 1967 borders were where the Arabs ran away from and Israel chosed to stop at.

Israel seized Sinai and the West Bank after the war in 1967 but Israel gave back the Sinai to Egypt and offered back the West Bank to Jordan who refused anything to do with it because of the attempted coups by Arafat and the PLO from the West Bank.

Israel left the Gaza and since they did they've been attacked daily. They will never give back the Golan Heights given Syria continues in a declared state of war against it and used that area to kill Israeli farmers.

Moonlight you've repeated such inaccuracies many times before. Please don't. You just fuel the disinformation on the board however unintentional your efforts may be,.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is simply not true.

There is no way Canada or the U.S. would be able to get away with what Israel is doing to the Palestinians.

Oh no ? Canada and the U.S. can't get away with dropping bombs ? Or shooting artillery ? Or drone attacks ? Or destroying infrastructure ? Or security check points ? Or economic sanctions ? Or arrests and deportations ? Or.......

None of Israel's "war crimes" critics has yet explained why Israel is held to a different standard.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no ? Canada and the U.S. can't get away with dropping bombs ? Or shooting artillery ? Or drone attacks ? Or destroying infrastructure ? Or security check points ? Or economic sanctions ? Or arrests and deportations ? Or.......

None of Israel's "war crimes" critics has yet explained why Israel is held to a different standard.

Neither Canada or the U.S. are in a similar situation as Israel. This is more than spending millions on fireworks to keep the military industrial complex happy. Canada and the U.S. of today are not pushing out people from their own land and replacing them with their own. They are not pushing the original inhabitants into cantons and applying different laws on them. The only place where Israel and its actions can be compared to in modern history is Apartheid South Africa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither Canada or the U.S. are in a similar situation as Israel.

Correct....Canada and the United States have done and continue to do such things for domestic and foreign policy objectives...without facing an existential threat as does Israel. Military actions, sanctions, security certificates, deportations, unsettled land claims, high incarceration rates for "aboriginals", stolen/polluted resources, etc., etc. are all acceptable unless it involves Israel. Got it....our "war crimes" are just fine.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither Canada or the U.S. are in a similar situation as Israel.

Well then if the above is true, then your moral double standard which assumes Israel is supposed to be a Liberal democracy like the US and Canada unlike Arab countries which you claim gives you the right to engage in your double standard does not apply.

Hey now you really need to think before you give your responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In direct response to Hudon Jones' illogical attempt to justify a discriminatory standard of moral judgement against Israel which is the very pith and substance of this thread and in spport of Bush Chaney's point, I refer to an article by some trendy leftists:


No more double standard
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Dec. 06, 2002 12:00AM EST

"But the singularity of focus on Israel, which is increasingly common within the Canadian left (for example, equating Israel with apartheid South Africa), raises our fears that anti-Semitism has emerged as a powerful force in the polemic.


Meanwhile, a vocal part of the Canadian left has persisted in making the artificial distinction between Israel and Zionism, on one hand, and Jewish identity on the other. For the vast majority of Jews -- leftists and others -- Israel, Jews, Zionism and Judaism are inextricably bound and not so conveniently separable by terminological sleight of hand. The Jewishness of Israel is central, not irrelevant, to the debate on the Mideast.

A balanced analysis of the Middle East should be based on universally accepted, measurable standards of conduct. Israel should be held accountable, but no more accountable than other nations, including Palestine. Such balance has not always been apparent.

Despite Israel's functioning democracy and independent judiciary (which frequently finds in favour of Palestinian appellants), despite its freedom of elections, religion, speech and press and the protection of labour, homosexual and women's rights, Israel has been cast as one of the world's most evil nations. Meanwhile, vicious anti-Semitic propaganda and widespread detention of peaceful political opponents remain a hallmark of most of Israel's neighbours.

Some of these neighbours have even engaged in the mass killing of their own people. The behaviour of repressive regimes does not, of course, justify the harshness or recklessness of some Israeli policies. Ever. But it is disingenuous and hypocritical to disregard the brutality of large numbers of undemocratic nations. Yet only Israel is labelled "pariah state" and is subject to calls for economic sanctions and academic boycotts.

While criticism of Israeli policies obviously does not, in itself, constitute anti-Semitism, we reject any allegation that our historical and moral responsibility to speak out against the demonization of Israel represents an attempt to censor critics of Israel. It is the refusal to consider the anti-Semitism present in the Middle East debate that represents the most dangerous form of political prohibition.

Not just Jewish leftists, but all leftists, have a right and obligation to denounce anti-Semitism wherever and whenever they see it. That includes the debate about Israel and Palestine. We reject as anti-Semitic the shameful double standard applied to the only Jewish state. We call on the Canadian left as a whole to reject this double standard as well. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tactic used by Big Guy, Hudson Jones et al, which holds Israeli Jews to a different moral standard than any other country and people in the world

is easily explained. Its called false moral equivalence and its used as a device to demonize not just the state of Israel but all Israelis and all Jews.

I refer you to:

False Moral Equivalence as a Tool to Demonize Israel
by Manfred Gerstenfeld and Jamie Berk
April 18, 2016 at 5:00 am

"Among the many tools mobilized for the demonization of Israel, one frequently used is a mode of argument known as false moral equivalence. The term "moral equivalence," originates from a 1906 address by American philosopher William James.[1] It is the claim that there is no difference between two actions of greatly varying character. It is frequently used to emphasize similarities between two otherwise dissimilar acts. False moral equivalence undermines norms and values in a society, blurring the lines between good and evil also right and wrong."


False moral equivalence used against Israel may be categorized into nine main groups, shown below. These groups are:

The false moral equivalence between Israel and Nazi Germany;
Israel and South African apartheid;

Zionism and racism and its sub-categories Zionism and colonialism/imperialism, as well as Zionism and fascism, the Holocaust and the Nakba (Arabic for "The Catastrophe," of 1948.)

False moral comparisons of murder and accidental death, comparisons of targeted killings of terrorists with intentional murder of civilians;

Equivalencies drawn between kidnapping of soldiers and imprisoning terrorists;

Presenting moral equivalence between Israel's actions as a legitimate sovereign state and the illegitimate actions of terrorists.

A ninth category, "others," includes demonization of Israel in ways which do not fit into the above categories, such as the moral equivalence drawn between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, and the perceived parallels between Nazi brutality and the actions of their Allied opponents."

You will see on this thread how each and every category stated above has been uttered on this thread and the article in fact responds directly to each

false moral comparison.

However the true game here is to just continually flood the word with a continuous false moral equivalencies against Israel. It doesn't even mater if the same ones are repeated over and over again and repudiated-the game is to keep flooding the board with them using the assumption that thread headlines and posts aren't traced back to their repudiations and act as propaganda advertisements.

You all know that in advertising it doesn't matter how crap the product is, if you repeat it over and over it is felt that it becomes a given or assumption your future cognitive processing when evaluating Jews not just Israelis.

In layman's terms-repeat the same lie long enough and it takes on an assumption it must be true no matter how illogical or unfounded it actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As fast as the anti semitic drivel is thrown out, some of us respond and have responded to it and explained it as follows:


Recognizing the "New Anti-Semitism"

"Moreover, the so-called "new anti-Semitism" poses a unique challenge. Whereas classical anti-Semitism is aimed at the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, "new anti-Semitism" is aimed at the Jewish state. Since this anti-Semitism can hide behind the veneer of legitimate criticism of Israel, it is more difficult to expose. Making the task even harder is that this hatred is advanced in the name of values most of us would consider unimpeachable, such as human rights.

Nevertheless, we must be clear and outspoken in exposing the new anti-Semitism. I believe that we can apply a simple test - I call it the "3D" test - to help us distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism.

The first "D" is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

The second "D" is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism.

The third "D" is the test of delegitimization: when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly the person I quoted Sharansky actually does not care if someone uses a double standard of morality against Israel. In the following article he welcomes it:


He had this to say in direct response to acusations Israel is inhumane with its bombings:

For example, 12 years ago, during the Second Intifada, I was a member of the Israeli security cabinet when the army first decided to use aviation to target terrorist leaders. In nearly every cabinet meeting, Israel’s attorney general insisted that our targets must be chosen not on the basis of crimes already committed, but solely in light of proof that they were planning new terrorist acts. In other words, no matter how much death and destruction someone had caused, a targeted killing could be justified only by documented intentions to carry out another attack. A serious case had to be prepared for each assassination attempt, and therefore the number of such operations could be counted on one hand. Now that targeted killings are practically the norm — when the United States uses drones for this purpose all over the world — I would hope others are as scrupulous as Israel has been.

Around the same time, we in the cabinet also discussed the importance of using weapons that minimize civilian deaths, even if this meant decreasing an operation’s chance of success. Many operations were modified or canceled because of this. Today, Israel goes even further. Before the IDF bombs an area in Gaza, residents are alerted by radio, e-mail, phone and text message telling them to leave. The Israeli army also uses small warning missiles to let civilians know that a real missile will soon be fired. Do other free countries go to similar lengths?"

The answer to the above is no. When Russia drops its bombs in Syria, when NATO engaged in its air mission in the former Yugoslavia, when Iran, Turkey and Iraq bomb the Kurds, when China uses air war against its Muslim radicals, when Saudi Arabian financed and Iranian financed forces drop bombs in the civil wars in Bahrain and Yemen, when Muslim extremists bomb civilians in so many countriues, the standard Israel in fact upholds is not followed.

This is why he went on to state:

" I believe it is the obligation of the United States and free countries to lead an uncompromising struggle against terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. But the obligation of the IDF to protect Israeli citizens from thousands of missiles and from underground terrorist infiltrations is just as sacred. In view of the developing global war between the free world and terror, it is time that leading military experts from Israel, the United States, Britain and other countries, along with international lawyers and politicians, compare their experiences and agree about the standards according to which the free world can defend itself.

But once these standards are accepted, they should be applied to every free country. Otherwise, stop calling it a higher standard and call it by its real name: a double standard. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I made earlier as to how this thread is being used to promulgate anti semitism can be understood with these words:

"The perniciousness of anti-Semitism on today's Internet is that the more one sees it, the more one is likely to consider it normal, and acceptable. Good people are numbed by the proliferation, and daunted by the task of responding. And others consider it a reflection of what is acceptable in society. Like the nuanced Nazi propaganda designed for the general population, that is the real danger of online anti-Semitism."


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly Pope Francis said:

“To attack Jews is anti-Semitism, but an outright attack on the State of Israel is also anti-Semitism,” Francis told a delegation from the World Jewish Congress (WJC). “There may be political disagreements between governments and on political issues, but the State of Israel has every right to exist in safety and prosperity."

source: http://www.timesofisrael.com/pope-says-denying-israels-right-to-exist-is-anti-semitism/

Today's Catholic Church recognizes the right of Jews to a JEWISH state unlike the Arab League of Nations, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Lebanon,

Fatah, the Palestinian Authority, Islamic Jihad, Intifada, PFLIP, Al Quaeda, ISIL, on and on.

The people Ghost denies are on this and other threads demonizing Israeli demonize Israeli Jews in their choice of words because their agenda is crystal clear-when discussing anything to do with Israel question its right to exist and insuilt any notion a Jew has a right to their own state.

This thread was started to demonize the entire Jewish state's Jews for being Jews, for having a Jewish state. It doesn't use words that simply question excessive force. The words are public domain and they question the holocaust, basic concepts of Judaism and make false statements about Judaism the religion and the origin of Jews, Jewish history and even where the Muslim concept of denying Jews the right to own land and have their own state comes from.

Its about isolating specific alleged incidents, and then referring to Israel and its people as a cancer. There is no acknowledgement that the acts critiicized happened in direct response to terror attacks and if someone like me engages in a defence I am told my posts are too long if I go word for word through what the accuser says about Jews and point out why they are false generalizations.

If I provide sources for my opinions they are called spam.

There is Ghost denying people have used this thread to spit out anti Jewish hatred and now "Dre" suddenly surfaces to call the articles I provide spam but "Dre" call the repeated references to A; Jazeera spam? Lol. Of course not.

Israel is not a criminal state. Jews are not criminals because they liberated themselves from European oppression, the holocaust and Muslim dhimmitude. We are a people with just as much of a right to be free and in control of our own destinies no different than anyone else.

We do what we have to, to survive and defend against terrorism. We must always strive to protect the innocent including Palestinians, no matter how had and impractical that gets at times.

The haters on this thread for me are a joke. They have no clue where Israel is, where the West Bank is, who Palestinians and Israelis are, and what both Palestinians and Israelis, Jews and Muslims have done to try prevent the terrorism and dialogue the haters on this board ferment.

Y'all know where to find me Moe.

My tumour spreads.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is Ghost denying people have used this thread to spit out anti Jewish hatred and now "Dre" suddenly surfaces to call the articles I provide spam but "Dre" call the repeated references to A; Jazeera spam? Lol. Of course not.

Well, the question stands, who is throwing the drivel out? And can you differentiate between drivel and real criticism? I'll get an admission out of you yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
  • Recent Achievements

    • wwef235 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
    • User went up a rank
    • NakedHunterBiden earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Videospirit earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...