Israel dismisses 2 officers over deadly drone strikes on aid workers in Gaza

[Lisa558]

And when the Jews returned to Palestine there were two peoples living there.

Jews have been living in Israel for more than 3,000 years.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Jews have been living in Israel for more than 3,000 years.

Of course, and others began arriving in growing numbers in the 19th century. It was these Jews who brought wit them a determination to establish as homeland for Jews in Palestine.

 

[Lisa558]

Of course, and others began arriving in growing numbers in the 19th century. It was these Jews who brought wit them a determination to establish as homeland for Jews in Palestine.

Wasn’t it a homeland long before? Gd led Moses to the Promised Land 3500 years ago, and there was a long line of Jewish kings in northern and southern Israel many generations before Muslims entered the picture.

 

[Deadstick]

Does that apply to anyone who moves abroad?

I could go and live in Spain, doesn't mean i am a Colonialist, but Palestine is occupied land and idiots like that New Yorker are Colonialists, just like when Zimbabwe was Rhodesia, there were thousands of British Colonialists who settled there, i knew two of them, there is a difference between Colonialism and emigration.

 

[Deadstick]

Of course, and others began arriving in growing numbers in the 19th century. It was these Jews who brought wit them a determination to establish as homeland for Jews in Palestine.

Yes and to hell with the Arabs who lived there.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Yes and to hell with the Arabs who lived there.

Actually, it was the Arabs who objected to Jews living there and still do. Go back to 1920 and trace the progress of Arab-Jewish relations and you will see every major complaint the Arabs have is the result of their ambition to eradicate the Jews. Ironically, it was these Arab attempts and failures to eradicate the Jews that built the modern state of Israel.

 

[JoeB131]

Jews have been living in Israel for more than 3,000 years.

But they weren't the majority since the first century.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, it was the Arabs who objected to Jews living there and still do. Go back to 1920 and trace the progress of Arab-Jewish relations and you will see every major complaint the Arabs have is the result of their ambition to eradicate the Jews. Ironically, it was these Arab attempts and failures to eradicate the Jews that built the modern state of Israel.

Uh, yeah, because European Jews were being settled on their land by the British after the British screwed over the Palestinians by promising them their own country and then doing backsies.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Uh, yeah, because European Jews were being settled on their land by the British after the British screwed over the Palestinians by promising them their own country and then doing backsies.

Of course just the opposite is true. After the first few years of British rule in Palestine, the British colonial office worked hard to try to stem the flow of Jews to Palestine for fear of angering the Arabs, and of course the British did give the Arabs a state of their own, appropriating 77% of the Mandate to create the new Arab state of Jordan, which was declared off limits to Jews. Again, all the Arabs complaints are the result of their repeated attempts and failures to eradicate the Jews from Palestine.

 

[eagle1462010]

I could go and live in Spain, doesn't mean i am a Colonialist, but Palestine is occupied land and idiots like that New Yorker are Colonialists, just like when Zimbabwe was Rhodesia, there were thousands of British Colonialists who settled there, i knew two of them, there is a difference between Colonialism and emigration.

Jordan is Pali land.

 

[Shusha]

I could go and live in Spain, doesn't mean i am a Colonialist, but Palestine is occupied land and idiots like that New Yorker are Colonialists, just like when Zimbabwe was Rhodesia, there were thousands of British Colonialists who settled there, i knew two of them, there is a difference between Colonialism and emigration.

Care to define that difference?

 

[Shusha]

No, and neither did the Zionist Squatters. They didn't speak Hebrew or Aramaic, they spoke - wait for it - Yiddish (which is a corrupted form of German)

Well, I'm certain those from Morocco didn't speak Yiddish. But you are incorrect that they didn't speak Hebrew. Hebrew (and Aramaic) has been used by Jewish communities throughout the world for thousands of years. Hebrew was the common language of the Jewish people returning to their homeland. Just how do you think Hebrew was able to be revived as a full living language, spoken now by 10 million people? I have spent Shabbat with Jews from, I don't know, twenty different countries and we have no problem understanding each other and celebrating together.

You keep trying to disconnect the Jewish people from their Jewishness by slapping a coat of paint on them and hoping people will be distracted.

 

[Deadstick]

Care to define that difference?

Of course, Colonialism is taking other peoples land and things by force, emigration is something civilised people do when they settle in another Country, they apply to enter that Country, they don't turn up with guns and take what they want.

 

[Coyote]

You display your antisemitism in nearly every post stating that anything Israel does right is because of "external pressure" implying that in your opinion Israelis are like mad dogs the must be kept on a leash, when all the facts of this war tell just the opposite story.

It is arguments like yours….pulling antisemite/antisemitism card at every juncture and every time someone criticizes or wants to hold Israel accountable, as a nation, for anything - that makes it impossible to have a rational discussion.

That is YOUR statement, not mine. The “facts” are far from clear and likely won’t emerge until after the conflict. Israel is no different than any other nation. As such, it is as open to criticism as any other nation in conflict. We, the US, got a lot of criticism (including from me) for Afghanistan, Iraq, high civilian casualties, Guantanamo, torture. But WOAH….Israel is a sacred cow isn’t it?

How, specifically, is what I stated antisemitic? Israel has some very strong, very loyal allies who were 100% behind Israel in this but are getting increasingly uncomfortable with how Israel has been conducting the war, its treatment of civilians, it’s obstruction of humanitarian aid….and they are finding it increasingly difficult to continue supporting it. The mantra that everyone is against poor little Israel just doesn’t work very well when it begins to include most of its allies. Are you going to claim they are all antisemitic?

I am not the one lying about the Biden administration.

Yes. You are.

In your first sentence you, yourself said Israel had no plan, which is exactly what Biden said when the subject of Rafah first came up.

And he was right. No plan to protect the millions of civilians who had systematically been forced south during the conflict and have nowhere safe to go.

Now the Biden administration has used a variety of adjectives to try to justify its opposition to destroying the remnants of Hamas in Rafah, all the while babbling about some unspecified "other ways" to handle Hamas, but we all know that the only way to destroy Hamas is to take Rafah.

Total crap. The Biden administration has been very clear that it’s concern is (rightfully) with 1.4 million civilians squeezed into Rafah with no way to escape and nowhere to go.

There are other ways to go after Hamas in Rafah that don’t necessarily involve a large scale offensive.

Now Biden has a detailed plan, including maps and numbers and is seeing Israel take strong actions to make it work and knows Israel was able to evacuate 900,000 Palestinians from the North and we all know he will still object to the operation.

…a “detailed“ plan presented ONLY after international pressure! There are an estimated 1 to 1.4 million people crowded into Rafah.

Little escape for Rafah residents amid plans for offensive – DW – 04/09/2024

Life remains dire for displaced Palestinians in Rafah, a city near Gaza's border with Egypt. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has now set a date for a planned offensive.

www.dw.com

Israeli military officials have indicated in briefings to reporters that civilians would be moved to "protected zones." However, it remains unclear how and to where so many people exhausted from six months of war would be evacuated.

"I don't know the operational plans of the IDF. But if you look at the map, there is no other way than to evacuate them to the north, along the coastal road near the sea, to the middle are in the Gaza Strip," Guy Aviad, an Israeli military historian and researcher, told DW.

"But that area is devastated. There is no infrastructure, and you have to supply a huge population with water, tents [and] food. That is a very major problem."

Several senior UN humanitarian workers who asked not to be named told DW that an estimated 800,000 to one million people will be forced to relocate. Most likely they will be sent toward central Gaza near the seashore, but southwards of the new military corridor, which separates northern Gaza from the south.

 

[Coyote]

I could go and live in Spain, doesn't mean i am a Colonialist, but Palestine is occupied land and idiots like that New Yorker are Colonialists, just like when Zimbabwe was Rhodesia, there were thousands of British Colonialists who settled there, i knew two of them, there is a difference between Colonialism and emigration.

People have been immigrating to Palestine since before Israel became a state. There was Jewish immigration but there was also a concurrent Arab migration from surrounding countries (Trans Jordan, Egypt, Syria).

The problem with the colonist/colonial schtick is that colonialism has a specific definition: the practice of one country taking control of another country and occupying it with settlers in order to profit from its resources, labor and economy.

What country is colonizing Palestine?

 

[Coyote]

This is a very fair point.

Really? It strikes me as the default argument when Israel’s conduct in this war is criticized.

I've been going on a bit recently about Palestinians' moral agency and choice and I've been fighting against the notion that every immoral act committed by the Palestinians is somehow the fault of Israel, as if the Palestinians have no moral agency.

Who has argued that every immoral act by the Palestinians is Israel’s fault? The same kind of people that absolve Israel of any responsibility for the ongoing conflict?

But it works as well the other way around: fighting against the notion that every moral act committed by Israel is somehow caused by another actor, rather than Israel's own moral agency.

Who has made that claim?

 

[toomuchtime_]

It is arguments like yours….pulling antisemite/antisemitism card at every juncture and every time someone criticizes or wants to hold Israel accountable, as a nation, for anything - that makes it impossible to have a rational discussion.

That is YOUR statement, not mine. The “facts” are far from clear and likely won’t emerge until after the conflict. Israel is no different than any other nation. As such, it is as open to criticism as any other nation in conflict. We, the US, got a lot of criticism (including from me) for Afghanistan, Iraq, high civilian casualties, Guantanamo, torture. But WOAH….Israel is a sacred cow isn’t it?

How, specifically, is what I stated antisemitic? Israel has some very strong, very loyal allies who were 100% behind Israel in this but are getting increasingly uncomfortable with how Israel has been conducting the war, its treatment of civilians, it’s obstruction of humanitarian aid….and they are finding it increasingly difficult to continue supporting it. The mantra that everyone is against poor little Israel just doesn’t work very well when it begins to include most of its allies. Are you going to claim they are all antisemitic?



Yes. You are.



And he was right. No plan to protect the millions of civilians who had systematically been forced south during the conflict and have nowhere safe to go.




Total crap. The Biden administration has been very clear that it’s concern is (rightfully) with 1.4 million civilians squeezed into Rafah with no way to escape and nowhere to go.

There are other ways to go after Hamas in Rafah that don’t necessarily involve a large scale offensive.








…a “detailed“ plan presented ONLY after international pressure! There are an estimated 1 to 1.4 million people crowded into Rafah.

Little escape for Rafah residents amid plans for offensive – DW – 04/09/2024

Life remains dire for displaced Palestinians in Rafah, a city near Gaza's border with Egypt. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has now set a date for a planned offensive.

www.dw.com

Israeli military officials have indicated in briefings to reporters that civilians would be moved to "protected zones." However, it remains unclear how and to where so many people exhausted from six months of war would be evacuated.

"I don't know the operational plans of the IDF. But if you look at the map, there is no other way than to evacuate them to the north, along the coastal road near the sea, to the middle are in the Gaza Strip," Guy Aviad, an Israeli military historian and researcher, told DW.

"But that area is devastated. There is no infrastructure, and you have to supply a huge population with water, tents [and] food. That is a very major problem."

Several senior UN humanitarian workers who asked not to be named told DW that an estimated 800,000 to one million people will be forced to relocate. Most likely they will be sent toward central Gaza near the seashore, but southwards of the new military corridor, which separates northern Gaza from the south.

That's what all the thin-skinned antisemites say: I was just criticizing Israel so that's not antisemitic. The truth is you accept nearly every negative claim about Israel's actions without any evidence and dismiss or deny everything positive that is said about Israel. Who but an antisemite would do that?

You are arrogant enough to believe that by saying Hamas doesn't care about the people or that Oct 7 was horrible and the hostages should be released that you can fool people into believing you are capable of being objective about this war, but in nearly every post you display your antisemitism by embracing negative claims about Israel's actions without any evidence and dismissing or denying any evidence to the contrary. Disabuse yourself of the notion you are clever enough to fool anyone.

The US State Dept., which closely monitors the war, has said it has seen no violations of International Law by Israel, and the UK has also founds no violations of international by Israel, which means no Israeli war crimes, and the Pentagon, which also closely monitors the war has said it has seen no evidence of genocide, and since the IDF meticulously abides by International Humanitarian Law, the number of civilian casualties in Gaza is the lowest possible that is consistent with the objective of destroying Hamas. Any statement to the contrary to these findings has to be taken as a lie unless it can be backed by proof Israel has not abided IHL by any honest person, unless that person is so deeply antisemitic, he or she is simply not capable of believing Israel is doing something right.

As for Biden's nonsense, only someone who is as profoundly antisemitic as you would imagine Israel would contemplate a ground operation in Rafah without first evacuating civilians. Biden argues that it would be impossible to provide enough food, medicine and shelter to accommodate the evacuated civilians, but that is exactly what Israel did in evacuating 900,000 civilians from the North before beginning the ground operation there, and the UN was saying that was impossible, too. Israel just ordered tents to accommodate 500,000 civilians who evacuate from Rafah, and aid to Gaza is surging this week and is expected to reach at least 500 trucks a day, and as the civilians are evacuated the aid will go to where it is needed, to the areas where the evacuees are so there is no basis in fact or logic for Biden's claim it can't be done.

To put all this criticism of Israel from the Biden administration, they began only after Biden faced a poor turnout of Muslims in Michigan and the only reason he is trying so hard to prevent a ground operation in Rafaj is that even after the civilians have been evacuated much of Rafah will be unavoidably destroyed and that will be bad for his reelection campaign.

 

[Shusha]

Really? It strikes me as the default argument when Israel’s conduct in this war is criticized.

Sure. And I understand why you might think so. But the difference I think I am trying to point out here is between the specific criticisms and the broader coloring of the entirety.

As example: Israel obstructs humanitarian aide into Gaza. (A point you explicitly made in post #414). Further (and I acknowledge you didn't do this, though many do, and thus the implication), that Israel is doing this deliberately to [insert emotive words here - genocide, starve, make Gaza unlivable, force out, ethnically cleanse, whatever].

This is a broad color, which assumes and presents a "factual" conclusion married to a moral judgement. It's a verdict, a finding, a decision--not a criticism.

A criticism might look like:

• Israel has a battalion at the Egyptian border which prevents all entry of aide
• Israel is not inspecting trucks fast enough
• Israel is turning away too many trucks because they contain disallowed materials
• Israel has not opened enough border crossings
• Israel has not provided enough security and protection for aide convoys through Gaza
• Israel has made errors in distinguishing between aide workers and militants in the same location

There are dozens of examples similar to this: indiscriminate bombing, disproportionality, ethnic cleansing v evacuation, widespread destruction, attacking [insert place which makes feels: hospitals, mosques, schools], occupation, apartheid, open air prison, concentration camp ...

The difference is that a criticism is actionable. You define the actor, present the action, preferably with solid evidence that this action is actually occurring, and you engage in discussion about what other actions the actor might make within the context.

The concern with antisemitism is that it puts Jews in the position of defending our underlying morality as a prerequisite to defending our actions, instead of the other way around. So, the argument starts with and centers, "why do you want to kill children?" instead of, "why do you employ 2000lb munitions instead of 500lb munitions?"

None of this is to say that Israel is above criticism. Rather, its that we never get a chance to get to the actual criticism, because we are constantly having to defend our existence, our history, our morality as abstract concepts before we even enter the conversation.

 

[Coyote]

Sure. And I understand why you might think so. But the difference I think I am trying to point out here is between the specific criticisms and the broader coloring of the entirety.

First, I want to say THANK YOU for an excellent reply that clarifies what many on both sides reduce to bumper sticker sound bites, including those lobbing accusations of antisemitism on one side and and genocide on the other, and explains the logic behind some of your posts that I didn’t completely understand.

Some of what you say, though I agree with it, also implies intent behind the statements that might not be there.

Brief example: the claim that criticizing Israel for something other states do is anti semitic. That implies a person must insert into each such posts outlining what other countries do and condemning it before moving on to discuss Israel (a unique demand, but one that gets applied in other issues as well.) An example frequently found here is discussing civilian death rates, which is frequently countered with but Hamas did xyz, why aren’t you criticizing Hamas, therefore you support Hamas and you are an antisemite. Yet civilian death rates in other have been criticized and condemned (Iraq and Afghanistan are two specific examples) without labeling the critics with a slur.

But I see the gist of what you are saying: broad generalizations (implied or specified) vs. specifics. Accusations of genocide vs. citing specifics that support how actions meet the definition of genocide.

I’ll point out the same occurs in accusing others of antisemitism: what specific statements or views are antisemitic? Is there intent? The same occurs in with racism. If a person relies on racist tropes to make an argument it is fair to the point that out and question those statements specifically otherwise yelling antisemite (or racist) shuts down discussion.

I want to respond to the rest, because they are excellent points but am out of time so I’ll respond when I am back on.

As example: Israel obstructs humanitarian aide into Gaza. (A point you explicitly made in post #414). Further (and I acknowledge you didn't do this, though many do, and thus the implication), that Israel is doing this deliberately to [insert emotive words here - genocide, starve, make Gaza unlivable, force out, ethnically cleanse, whatever].

This is a broad color, which assumes and presents a "factual" conclusion married to a moral judgement. It's a verdict, a finding, a decision--not a criticism.

A criticism might look like:

• Israel has a battalion at the Egyptian border which prevents all entry of aide
• Israel is not inspecting trucks fast enough
• Israel is turning away too many trucks because they contain disallowed materials
• Israel has not opened enough border crossings
• Israel has not provided enough security and protection for aide convoys through Gaza
• Israel has made errors in distinguishing between aide workers and militants in the same location

There are dozens of examples similar to this: indiscriminate bombing, disproportionality, ethnic cleansing v evacuation, widespread destruction, attacking [insert place which makes feels: hospitals, mosques, schools], occupation, apartheid, open air prison, concentration camp ...

The difference is that a criticism is actionable. You define the actor, present the action, preferably with solid evidence that this action is actually occurring, and you engage in discussion about what other actions the actor might make within the context.

The concern with antisemitism is that it puts Jews in the position of defending our underlying morality as a prerequisite to defending our actions, instead of the other way around. So, the argument starts with and centers, "why do you want to kill children?" instead of, "why do you employ 2000lb munitions instead of 500lb munitions?"

None of this is to say that Israel is above criticism. Rather, its that we never get a chance to get to the actual criticism, because we are constantly having to defend our existence, our history, our morality as abstract concepts before we even enter the conversation.

 

[Coyote]

That's what all the thin-skinned antisemites say: I was just criticizing Israel so that's not antisemitic. The truth is you accept nearly every negative claim about Israel's actions without any evidence and dismiss or deny everything positive that is said about Israel. Who but an antisemite would do that?

Bullshit.

I provide sources ( and not fringe ones) to back my opinions.

How about you…you automatically believe every negative thing about Palestinians without looking further. Do you discount anything positive? Does that make you a racist or Islamophobe?

As far as discounting the “good things” said about Israel, again, B.S. I have repeatedly said Israel has done more than most countries to most to avoid civilian casualties and has shown considerable restraint when it comes to retaliating against Hamas ‘s rocket fire, Israel shown itself to excel at targeted, low casualty hits, BUT NOT IN THIS CONFLICT.

And addressing that is apparently antisemitic now in the new expanded definition of antisemitism.

You:

Acceptable argument: accept everything Israel says.
Unacceptable argument: accept anything the UN, NGO’s, medics and aid workers


Shusha, you agree with his post, I am no longer interested in discussions with you.

You are arrogant enough to believe that by saying Hamas doesn't care about the people or that Oct 7 was horrible and the hostages should be released that you can fool people into believing you are capable of being objective about this war, but in nearly every post you display your antisemitism by embracing negative claims about Israel's actions without any evidence and dismissing or denying any evidence to the contrary. Disabuse yourself of the notion you are clever enough to fool anyone.

Are you objective? I have never said I was. No one here is, including you. Including Shusha.

But now, lack of being objective is “anti- semitic” if it favors the Palestinians.

The US State Dept., which closely monitors the war, has said it has seen no violations of International Law by Israel, and the UK has also founds no violations of international by Israel, which means no Israeli war crimes, and the Pentagon, which also closely monitors the war has said it has seen no evidence of genocide, and since the IDF meticulously abides by International Humanitarian Law, the number of civilian casualties in Gaza is the lowest possible that is consistent with the objective of destroying Hamas.
Any statement to the contrary to these findings has to be taken as a lie unless it can be backed by proof Israel has not abided IHL by any honest person, unless that person is so deeply antisemitic, he or she is simply not capable of believing Israel is doing something right.

The ability to monitor a conflict of this scale in the midst of the conflict is extremely difficult and to assume everything will be known about before it is over is a lie, particularly given the restricted access to the combat area. Many investigations are completed after the conflict. Until it is over or safe access is opened, you cannot say a lot decisively.

The UN determined Gaza is not committing genocide (which I agree with) but they also strongly noted that Israel needed to do more to protect civilians. You accept one part and discard the other, what a convenient double standard. I have never said Israel is committing genocide. What I HAVE said, at the beginning of the conflict, after Hamas’ attack, is that all the elements for possible genocide existed and Israel needed to be careful. This was based on an article I specifically linked to. Genocide has a very specific definition (and antisemitism used to until it became a way of shutting discussion on Israel).

As for Biden's nonsense, only someone who is as profoundly antisemitic as you would imagine Israel would contemplate a ground operation in Rafah without first evacuating civilians. Biden argues that it would be impossible to provide enough food, medicine and shelter to accommodate the evacuated civilians, but that is exactly what Israel did in evacuating 900,000 civilians from the North before beginning the ground operation there, and the UN was saying that was impossible, too. Israel just ordered tents to accommodate 500,000 civilians who evacuate from Rafah, and aid to Gaza is surging this week and is expected to reach at least 500 trucks a day, and as the civilians are evacuated the aid will go to where it is needed, to the areas where the evacuees are so there is no basis in fact or logic for Biden's claim it can't be done.

To put all this criticism of Israel from the Biden administration, they began only after Biden faced a poor turnout of Muslims in Michigan and the only reason he is trying so hard to prevent a ground operation in Rafaj is that even after the civilians have been evacuated much of Rafah will be unavoidably destroyed and that will be bad for his reelection campaign.

Amazing. All this aid now coming in…AFTER EXTREME INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE, and finally, the US threatening to pull back, only then. Israel presented no credible plan until after there was an international uproar, long after it stated it stated it was going into Rafah, long after it had systematically pushed a huge portion of the population into Rafah and the Rafah crossing. The plan now, which emerged after multiple iterations were shown to be unworkable, has huge gaps. So they are ordering thousands of tents. AFTER international pressure. But no logistics on the necessary supporting infrastructure. Maybe you should listen to what so e of those in positions of power have said concerning Gaza, which might give some insight in regards to this.

But that would be anti-semitic.