All things Middle East related

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by nonniey

No just pointing out 40K Palestinian women and children (I guess the latest narrative is that only women and children have been killed there now?) does not equate to a genocide. Claiming it is really takes away what a genocide is and undermines attempts at pointing out actual genocides (The old cry wolf effect).

It's not the narrative 70% of all victims have been women and children that is well documented. This also clearly fits the definition of a genocide:

a. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
b. Deliberately inflicting conditions of life that are intended to destroy the group
c. Refusing the movement of medicine and food to a group
d. Intentionally targeting and killing humanitarian aide workers and the buildings that hold those services.

If it is not genocide could we at least agree it is colonialization via murder?

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

It's not the narrative 70% of all victims have been women and children that is well documented. This also clearly fits the definition of a genocide:

a. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
b. Deliberately inflicting conditions of life that are intended to destroy the group
c. Refusing the movement of medicine and food to a group
d. Intentionally targeting and killing humanitarian aide workers and the buildings that hold those services.

If it is not genocide could we at least agree it is colonialization via murder?

And again, it goes back to deliberate tactics of HAMAs to maximize casualties within the Palestinian population. HAMAS intent was to prevent targeting of their assets by surrounding those assets with civilians. Israel made the decision not to acquiesce to those tactics which resulted in the large number of civilian casualties. As it wasn't the civilians who were the targets a, b and d above don't apply, and the claim of c. is a bit dubious as movement of medicine and food to Palestinians has occurred (with that also being targeted/restricted when HAMAS uses it for their purposes. (Here is a historical analogy - The Lusitania was sunk with heavy loss of civilian life - she was in fact carrying arms and thus was a legal target - politically it was a disaster for Germany as it contributed to the eventual US entry into the war - but still she was a legal target and ultimately no charges were brought against any Germans for her sinking).

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by nonniey

And again, it goes back to deliberate tactics of HAMAs to maximize casualties within the Palestinian population. HAMAS intent was to prevent targeting of their assets by surrounding those assets with civilians. Israel made the decision not to acquiesce to those tactics which resulted in the large number of civilian casualties. As it wasn't the civilians who were the targets a, b and d above don't apply, and the claim of c. is a bit dubious as movement of medicine and food to Palestinians has occurred (with that also being targeted/restricted when HAMAS uses it for their purposes. (Here is a historical analogy - The Lusitania was sunk with heavy loss of civilian life - she was in fact carrying arms and thus was a legal target - politically it was a disaster for Germany as it contributed to the eventual US entry into the war - but still she was a legal target and ultimately no charges were brought against any Germans for her sinking).

I'd feel a lot more confident in this reply if HAMAS didn't agree to the cease fire deal that Israel had put forth and then Israel decide to renege on it back in July. There are plenty of other incidents which strike me as criminal as well. Such as when Israel designates safe zones for Palestinians and then bombs those areas or repeatedly raiding food aid distribution and throwing out the food despite knowing there are no terrorists there. I feel like over the course of the last year Israel has altered their tactics to become far more aggressive with the goal of taking land, their motives have shifted.

What are your thoughts on them moving into the Golan Heights buffer zone and then further into Syrian territory?

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

I'd feel a lot more confident in this reply if HAMAS didn't agree to the cease fire deal that Israel had put forth and then Israel decide to renege on it back in July. There are plenty of other incidents which strike me as criminal as well. Such as when Israel designates safe zones for Palestinians and then bombs those areas or repeatedly raiding food aid distribution and throwing out the food despite knowing there are no terrorists there. I feel like over the course of the last year Israel has altered their tactics to become far more aggressive with the goal of taking land, their motives have shifted.

What are your thoughts on them moving into the Golan Heights buffer zone and then further into Syrian territory?

I'd have to give the later some more thought. If it is temporary probably no major issue (probably).

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

I'd feel a lot more confident in this reply if HAMAS didn't agree to the cease fire deal that Israel had put forth and then Israel decide to renege on it back in July. There are plenty of other incidents which strike me as criminal as well. Such as when Israel designates safe zones for Palestinians and then bombs those areas or repeatedly raiding food aid distribution and throwing out the food despite knowing there are no terrorists there. I feel like over the course of the last year Israel has altered their tactics to become far more aggressive with the goal of taking land, their motives have shifted.

What are your thoughts on them moving into the Golan Heights buffer zone and then further into Syrian territory?

Why were Palestinians taking part in the Oct 7 attack? It wasn’t just Hamas but citizens who supported the attack to the tune of over 70% in favor of it. They aren’t innocent, they could have supported the West Bank party in 2007, they chose Hamas. Why didn’t Jordan or Egypt open the border to help? Well they have before and know Palestinians are terrorists. I’m sorry, but this is a war Hamas brought and they are only responsible for every single Palestinian death.

Obviously Israel is correct in taking defensive positions Golan and can’t rely on UN. We have seen how the UN enforced the zone in Lebanon and allowed Hezbollah to operate without enforcement.

I would advise the Syrian rebels to tread lightly with Israel.

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Why were Palestinians taking part in the Oct 7 attack? It wasn’t just Hamas but citizens who supported the attack to the tune of over 70% in favor of it. They aren’t innocent, they could have supported the West Bank party in 2007, they chose Hamas. Why didn’t Jordan or Egypt open the border to help? Well they have before and know Palestinians are terrorists. I’m sorry, but this is a war Hamas brought and they are only responsible for every single Palestinian death.

Obviously Israel is correct in taking defensive positions Golan and can’t rely on UN. We have seen how the UN enforced the zone in Lebanon and allowed Hezbollah to operate without enforcement.

I would advise the Syrian rebels to tread lightly with Israel.

Do you really think what is happening in Gaza right now has anything to do with Oct 7th? If it did why doesn't Israel have the hostages back? HAMAS offered them up in July. HAMAS agreed to the ceasefire demands by Israel. This should have ended 6 months ago but Israel has decided to continue its operation. Call it what you want but to me that is amoral. Now we see they are moving settlers into Syria. More of the same from the worst ally we have ever had. Kills journalists to hide the truth, kills Americans and we send them billions. Just an awful government if you ask me.