I have no idea what he got up to in the IDF to be honest and found the entire situation/ conversation pretty vile so didn't enquire further.
He's completely brainwashed.
Those aren't prerequisites/caveats, those are one of the valid reasons to apply. The prerequisites are in the section above that titled 'preconditions'.
If diplomacy is out of the question, you really can't.
I disagree with almost everything they've written on here (that I've seen), suspect we'd fundamentally disagree about most aspects of this conflict and some of the stuff they've posted about most moral army in the world etc is just....well exactly what I've heard and seen before from IDF/previous IDF members.He's completely brainwashed.
- if someone blows up a tower block "Well there was intelligence of Hamas weapons inside"
- If a kid dies "Well that death is on Hamas"
- If people are moved out of their home "It's their right to NOT live there"
The worst bit is, I think he's being completely genuine in his comments. That's just how he was raised and he can't see how alien his perspective is to the rest of us. Kind of like the US gun debate...
Its ok though because Israel sends some leaflets telling them we are going to bomb the shit out of your area please take care when youre out and about (watch out for falling bombs/missles- maybe grab an umbrella?)
No aspect of war is pretty, none. But there’s different levels of intensity even through a structure is being felled.
And I'm just about positive that this part of the law covers the folks living in the illegal settlements...
But in the end it goes both ways: in one hand you have the continous advance of new settlements by israelis. Bare in mind that those settlements are made not by the ordinary civilians, but by people supported by far right organizations (far right exists in Israel, like everywhere in the world, just in the different shape). Remeber that these kind of organizations have funding from powerful people that can even leverage local authorities on their side.
Okay, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the argument was over the use of the word caveat. But while we're at it
The justifications for apartheid I've seen over the last few days have shocked me
Trouble is, when there is such a lopsided imbalance of power between both sides, only one side will come out on top when there's a military conflict. The Israelis can continue doing this for a protracted period of time as long as public support within Israel support it and the US pressure remains tepid. This will result in considerably more damage to infrastructure in Gaza.
Exactly. If anything Israelis are taught a dumbed down version of events growing up and as the true complexities (aka atrocities and ethnic cleansing) come to fruition they get on the defensive' as if standing up against a war crimes is a personal insult. Thankfully the tide is changing
If the camera was pointed 10 degrees either way from that building, the ‘bomb the shit out of the area’ part wouldn’t be applicable.
The balance of power would be seen as too over the top even in film in my opinion
I think I’ve pretty much responded to this already in my response to @neverdie, so yes let’s agree to disagree.
I’m not sure why you’d assume I would disagree with you here. From the Palestinian perspective of course there is no significant difference. For them Zionism = settler-colonialism, subjugation, dispossession, running now for almost 150 years. I would never dare to try to convince them they’re wrong on this, that their experiences are invalid because they got some facts wrong in the telling of it. That’s not at all what I was trying to do in my post.africanspur said:
There is a one-state reality on the ground right now, whatever other complications exist. There is no path open to the creation of a Palestinian state. Accepting that reality can seem depressing, or else we can look for opportunities in the disintegration of the so-called “status quo.” I’ve suggested on here that a mass Palestinian campaign for citizenship might help shift the terms of the debate. Not too dissimilar to BDS, but a simpler, clearer message without the baggage that BDS carries. I don’t see how any reasonable person could oppose such a movement. There are obvious massive obstacles, and no clear outcome. But at the very least it would sharpen the focus on the current unequal one-state reality and get people thinking outside the box.africanspur said:
Totally agree on the macro, but a strike such as this displays a show of restraint by the side that wields the power. The damage inflicted is about as limited as it can get. There’s always going to be the question of if the building was a ‘legitimate’ target, but felling one building in a strike isn’t inflicting as much widespread damage as could easily be done.
That's the one I saw. Even if it was an off duty soldier, where was the reason? The Palestinians in Jerusalem, as you can see from recent events, are almost totally subjugated, and it was a tourist area right by the Old City. There is and was no need.
Ive seen a lot more calling out Israel for its latest abuse of power. The forced evictions were bad enough, but when they attacked the worshippers in the AlAqsa Mosque, people really awakened to the horrible situation.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I assumed you might disagree because I thought you yourself made a distinction in your post about not denying post 1967 settler activity, though I probably read too much into that. Please note that I was not suggesting that you personally were dismissing the Palestinian experience, either in the initial post or subsequent ones.
Yes true, online it has been good to see. But I'm just so frustrated that even on this thread some people are framing it as anyone other than the horror of what is. Even at its most basic, Gaza is an open air prison from which no one can leave, yet it is being bombed in front of the worlds eyes - and some are still defending it.. (it's heart breaking). Anyway I'll take a break now as it is all too much for me too and energy seems better spent sharing on social media
There is a couple of million people in gaza... plus the terrain in the cities is awful for troop movements... they would want a lot more than 7000 extra troops
It's not a detail to be considered though. It's not a point system. Any one of those reasons is valid for application.
You're correct. Living in a settlement (or at least many of them) is a valid reason for a firearms license if pre-requisites are met.
Seen on BBC news that they were setting up tanks and mortar launchers for a ground offensive, looks like they are turning to this instead of air strikes.
I'm sure they already have tens of thousands on duty, so the extras would probably be to support ground operations.
But none of that answers the question as how should random palestinians react when they suffer injustices. You're talking about the abstract, but that doesn't help the guy who as kicked out of his home or the parent who lost a child.
The point wouldn’t really be to gain their outright support for the movement’s stated goal (citizenship), but to make liberal Zionists uncomfortable enough with the current one-state reality to really start taking the need for change seriously.
Well BDS doesn’t actually explicitly call for one state, which is a problem I think. It has three clear limited aims which it frames as human rights issues, but deliberately remains ambiguous on outcome (for tactical reasons IMO). This has allowed its opponents to mystify it and frame it as a tool for Palestinian victory rather than peaceful settlement. And I think the views of many who have embraced BDS have lent themselves to this characterization, which simply does not play well in the US (where it really matters). I think a simple campaign for citizenship and equality would resonate much better in America, and put an end to the focus on ‘occupation/settlements’ and ‘terrorism’ which ultimately perpetuate the idea that a two-state solution may still be feasible and power the peace process industry.
No I don't, but judging by the results, I don't trust the israelis either. I tend to dislike sides that kill innocent civilians, you seem to be happy with at least one.
Yes.
And it's scary how easy it is for people to be radicalised and turned to monsters.Well these buildings that are being blown up are people's homes, offices etc. The justification is that 'intelligence' states it's used as a weapon store or something else too. Maybe some kid was pictured with a toy gun at the window, take the building down. They got weapons.
He's completely brainwashed.
- if someone blows up a tower block "Well there was intelligence of Hamas weapons inside"
- If a kid dies "Well that death is on Hamas"
- If people are moved out of their home "It's their right to NOT live there"
The worst bit is, I think he's being completely genuine in his comments. That's just how he was raised and he can't see how alien his perspective is to the rest of us. Kind of like the US gun debate...
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
They’ve probably only just arrived, doubt they would be able to stop a ground offensive if it is this far along in the planning / execution stage.
I have a slightly different take more than being scary, it's predictable. Over the course of history humans have mainly been a bunch of sadistic savages who from time to time are convinced to behave, I would be willing to say that out of all animals humans are the meanest and the only ones that could be described as monsters.Yes.
