Leo Gura

New War In Israel / Gaza

7,527 posts in this topic

@Karmadhi

32 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

The difference in our opinion is that you assume IDF is trying their best not to kill civilians and they are doing this whole thing under some good will where they care a lot about Palestinian civilians.

I do not think they are doing this under good will nor do they care about civilians dying in Gaza.

So even though a part of Palestinians may be affiliated with Hamas, Israel often treats them all as affiliated, when conducting their operations. 

And that I do not find acceptable which is why I am so critical of them.

 

   Hypothetically, let's assume this or next year, no other conflicts escalate, Israel/Palestine conflict ends with treaty or ceasefire, fighting over for now. When it comes time to investigate war crimes, and they find that say 20% of IDF committed actual war crimes, would Israel punish that 20% of soldiers? What if it's about 40% guilty, would they punish? How much would Israel feel like it's too much to prosecute? This is why IMO Israel should, more sooner than later, resolve this conflict one way or another so that when comes the investigations and trials, that lower numbers of soldiers get tried, not wait until 50% or more are guilty, then what? put all 50% behind bars, and have a -50% reduction in military?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Hypothetically, let's assume this or next year, no other conflicts escalate, Israel/Palestine conflict ends with treaty or ceasefire, fighting over for now. When it comes time to investigate war crimes, and they find that say 20% of IDF committed actual war crimes, would Israel punish that 20% of soldiers? What if it's about 40% guilty, would they punish? How much would Israel feel like it's too much to prosecute? This is why IMO Israel should, more sooner than later, resolve this conflict one way or another so that when comes the investigations and trials, that lower numbers of soldiers get tried, not wait until 50% or more are guilty, then what? put all 50% behind bars, and have a -50% reduction in military?

I am not saying that half of all soldiers go to jail.

Ideally there is a chain of command and hierarchy, so the higher ups responsible go to jail for war crimes. Also those that displayed genocide language should be prosecuted too. You can also prosecute individual cases but as far as I know it usually works with higher ups. 

Similar way it happened in Serbia, Japan etc.

You did not see half the Japanese or Serbian army go to trial for war crimes, it was the military generals, commanders, leaders etc.

This will create a precedent that carelessly breaking international law and killing civilians unjustly is not tolerated anymore.

International Military Tribunal for the Far East - Wikipedia

One example.

Edited by Karmadhi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raze said:

How do you know they are doing that? If they are why by their own estimation is over 70% the dead civilians and even worse if you look at US gov estimates? Why are they restricting medicine and food into Gaza which can’t be used to attack them? Why are they destroying farm land? Why did they publicly state the goal is to focus on damage? Why are they using unguided bombs and bombs 4x larger than what the US dropped in Afghanistan?

Exactly...

The raw actions are: destroying homes, starving, injuring and killing thousands of innocent people. How is that different from the Hamas terrorist attack? Seems even worse to me... Intention? Hell is full of good intentions.

Israel's good intentions are so biased / uncaring which is equal to what we call evil. The more biased you are the more evil you'll create.

And the Israelis in this thread are creating all sorts of excuses and justifications for this shit. Also, I even understand Israeli bias, but they should have grown out of it a little by now. So Leo is right to ban some of them, for keep on denying and justifying, out of close mindedness.

Edited by Vibes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IDF notify Gazanians ahead of time to evacuate, example is northern Gaza, to eliminate Hamas facilities and infrastructure. This alone shows their effort to avoid massacre. This is not the first/last time IDF have been doing that.
When they finished, they allow them to go back.

As I said before, war is sad and painful.
Innocent do die in war. On both sides. Currently Hamas has Israeli babies on his possession so please stop comparing between the two. This will continue the conflict and disagreement here.

I wish we can brain storm a solution here instead of repeating lies and blaming the other side.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura Can we create some sort of evidence based discussion here? If someone can’t provide a proof to what they write, We can stop him of further participation.

The issue I have with free speech is misinformation. 
And of course promoting terror organizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Heaven said:

IDF notify Gazanians ahead of time to evacuate, example is northern Gaza, to eliminate Hamas facilities and infrastructure. This alone shows their effort to avoid massacre.

 

2 minutes ago, Heaven said:

Can we create some sort of evidence based discussion here? If someone can’t provide a proof to what they write, We can stop him of further participation.

Sure, here you go with actual evidence and not empty words.

Visual Evidence Shows Israel Dropped 2,000-Pound Bombs Where It Ordered Gaza’s Civilians to Move for Safety - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Tell me what you think of this.

Note: I do not know why links are not properly sent here but I think you can find the article if you search those words.

Edited by Karmadhi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Heaven said:

When they finished, they allow them to go back.

Netanyahu's Likud Ministers, Far-right MKs to Attend Israeli 'Gaza Resettlement' Conference - Israel News - Haaretz.com

Israel’s far-right wants to move Palestinians out of Gaza. Its ideas are gaining attention | CNN

There has been growing concern that part of Israeli politicians do not want them to go back.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

 

Sure, here you go with actual evidence and not empty words.

Visual Evidence Shows Israel Dropped 2,000-Pound Bombs Where It Ordered Gaza’s Civilians to Move for Safety - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Tell me what you think of this.

Note: I do not know why links are not properly sent here but I think you can find the article if you search those words.

Thank you for proving my statement.

 

4 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

INetanyahu's Likud Ministers, Far-right MKs to Attend Israeli 'Gaza Resettlement' Conference - Israel News - Haaretz.com

Israel’s far-right wants to move Palestinians out of Gaza. Its ideas are gaining attention | CNN

There has been growing concern that part of Israeli politicians do not want them to go back.

 

It doesn’t matter what extremists want. Bottom line, they are allowed to go back. 

Edited by Heaven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Heaven said:

It doesn’t matter what extremists want. Bottom line, they are allowed to go back. 

Well lets hope for that. From what I have seen so far nothing has been decided yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

Well lets hope for that. From what I have seen so far nothing has been decided yet.

Because the war is still going on. I am actually really optimistic about the future of Gaza. I think it will be under the right leadership and will be focused on creating value to the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nivsch said:

There is no such a thing.

I think truth is, in a sense at least, a war between biases that cannot be forcefully bypassed, but to be found graduately through the bias process.

Of course you could be unbiased.. if you wanted it and opened your eyes. 


In Tate we trust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

To be clear, I think there is a part of Gazans that would kill Israeli civilians if they could. The issue is that we do not know how many of these Gazans are there so I do not support the idea putting them all in 1 basket and saying "all are guilty". Which is why I am against collective punishment.

But I do agree that some citizens in Gaza do help/support Hamas so there is a link between the two. Issue is that it is quite hard to know who it is exactly. Gaza being so dense does not help with that either.

So some are quite bloodthirsty and some are more moderate and would only kill if necessary.

Ideally the ones that took part in killings (non Hamas Gazans) should be prosecuted for murder/rape etc.

Hope it is more clear :) 

Sounds a fair approach to me ok I agree with you here 👍


🌻 Stage Yellow emerges when Green starts to have tolerance and respect to the variety of views within HIMSELF. Israelis here? Let me know!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Danioover9000

16 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

so what do we do when we're fed with propaganda, lies and misinformation?

To learn from every sources, but being able to descern the truth and the agenda.

The answer isn't to spread more propaganda.
I'm all for being conscious of what's happening on the field, but too much of that leads poeple to reinforce their biases, deafening critical thinking.

Arguing about a single isolated event is useless.

16 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

Feels like we're trying to downplay this issue and distance ourselves from this by going back to a more 'distant' timeline away from this current emotional conflict in Israel/ Palestine, it's like you're trying to tell us to back away, to go to distant pasts, away from the current situation because it's too uncomfortable. 

Not at all. 
I think we should back away because we risk to judge a hot event with rushed conclusion.
Remember all the poeple that rushed to conclusion over the early hospital explosions, not even a day after the facts.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, _Archangel_ said:

I'm all for being conscious of what's happening on the field, but too much of that leads poeple to reinforce their biases, deafening critical thinking.

Arguing about a single isolated event is useless

True. I think another aspect is that the biases we see from the 'other' side can lead to frustration to the point each side will want to share isolated events which can help pop the other sides bubble and let them see that its not that they have biases, but that biases actually have them completely imprisoned. Similar to the fact that its not that people have routines or power but that routines and power have them as their servants. ie the guy who feels he can't get his day started without his 3 hour biohacking routine and anything missed ruins his day, or so he thinks lol.

If a isolated event is stark enough and individualized it can be a powerful tool at exposing our biases. When we hear large numbers like 10'000 dead it doesn't impact the same way seeing a named face who has dreams, aching eyes and a story behind them. Hits deeper and shakes us out of apathetic dehumanization and overlooking our 'sides' actions in perpetuating that suffering. 

38 minutes ago, _Archangel_ said:

I think we should back away because we risk to judge a hot event with rushed conclusion.
Remember all the poeple that rushed to conclusion over the early hospital explosions, not even a day after the facts.

Yeah jumping to conclusions too quickly is problematic. So is repeatedly leaving these isolated events one after another to accumulate dust while the other side uses them deflecting their responsibility and amplifying the event to then justify the continued horrors they commit. I think thats also a big reason why people rush to straighten out the facts and propaganda that has deadly consequences. If it wasn't consequential they probably wouldn't. Its really messy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, StarStruck said:

Of course you could be unbiased.. if you wanted it and opened your eyes. 

No such a thing. You have a goal and an emotion behind this "opened your eyes".

Say for a second we try to cut off our emotions and be only rational, firstly what will happen is that after 2 seconds your mind will say "no way, I am not a robot" and quit it.

But say you could be only rational, then you see the truth most clearly right? Wrong. The logical mind is thousands times slower in its capacity hold information, and actually these are emotions that hide much more information in them in the subconscious mind.

The only way to be "objective" about this conflict is to have another bias which isn't one of the sides but rather a more elevated one like unity, love, caring for the whole system's long term health etc.

But even then, when one of the sides seems in your opinion to hinder or go against this goal then you will judge it. But you are entangled in this, and when you do this you participate in this.

Then you will have to surrender and understand better the other side's motives and be more balanced for example in how you divide the responsibility to the situation between the sides.

But then you might feel you are again too neutral and you will resist it and want to be more active again. This is an ever growing up process involving emotions and biases all the time.

Edited by Nivsch

🌻 Stage Yellow emerges when Green starts to have tolerance and respect to the variety of views within HIMSELF. Israelis here? Let me know!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@zazen

   What do you think is the probability of Israel disobeying the ICJ ruling, or not? If they're found guilty of genocidal intent? 

Probably will (disobey) already have. The response has been the usual remarks by some of the government - anti-Semitic and mockery. Ben Gvir tweeted Hague Schmague - pariah state behaviour. A lot of pro-Israeli media have tried spinning it as a win lol that just because the court didn’t order a ceasefire the case is bogus, but they omit everything else including that a plausible case for genocide has been made and all the orders are in effect a ceasefire - just not in name. Guessing the system (ICJ) didn’t want to stand up too straight against Western empire and give South Africa the complete win - they spared them complete embarrassment, gave a off-ramp, and probably saved themselves in the process too.

On a more technical note some have said ceasefire implies two warring militarised states which isn’t the case so the term wasn’t applied.

I’m no longer frustrated when talking to avid Zionists because like fish in the sea, they are submerged in the propaganda of their state which has seeped into them like microplastics in water. The danger this presents is that they can go on as usual by the false propaganda their state dishes out to them which causes a moral hazard. If made to believe all is okay and they don’t police their hate inciting language they ultimately self own themselves.

Maybe we can’t even lay blame to them similar to how we can’t always lay blame to children with poor parenting - which in this case is that US has parented their child and baby, the 51st state of the US otherwise known as Israel. What we see is the result of 7 decades of impunity and no accountability manifestly on display that makes anyone suffer from 2nd degree embarrassment from watching the delusion, denial and distortion. I don’t say this with glee but with worry for their own image to the world and for them to continue business as usual which Palestinians suffer from and which doesn’t help regional peace.

I think the only chance of them stopping is US and Western power pressuring them / not enabling them further.

Spin doctor:

Edward speaking out. Will the White House show a white heart or a black one in their response at the next resolutions.

 

Edited by zazen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zazen Snowden is on point here. Even though I can see Israel's side, it's hard to disagree with him.

US is mental when it comes to defending itself after getting caught red handed in crimes. It acts as the defacto human rights police but complicit in enforcing itself to such standards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zazen

4 hours ago, zazen said:

True. I think another aspect is that the biases we see from the 'other' side can lead to frustration to the point each side will want to share isolated events which can help pop the other sides bubble and let them see that its not that they have biases, but that biases actually have them completely imprisoned. Similar to the fact that its not that people have routines or power but that routines and power have them as their servants. ie the guy who feels he can't get his day started without his 3 hour biohacking routine and anything missed ruins his day, or so he thinks lol.

If a isolated event is stark enough and individualized it can be a powerful tool at exposing our biases. When we hear large numbers like 10'000 dead it doesn't impact the same way seeing a named face who has dreams, aching eyes and a story behind them. Hits deeper and shakes us out of apathetic dehumanization and overlooking our 'sides' actions in perpetuating that suffering. 

Shock value is always the way to change uneducated and deeply biased minds. I agree.
My post was directed to those who aspire to have a more nuanced pov over the situation.

4 hours ago, zazen said:

Yeah jumping to conclusions too quickly is problematic. So is repeatedly leaving these isolated events one after another to accumulate dust while the other side uses them deflecting their responsibility and amplifying the event to then justify the continued horrors they commit. I think thats also a big reason why people rush to straighten out the facts and propaganda that has deadly consequences. If it wasn't consequential they probably wouldn't. Its really messy.

The risk here is dumbing down the conversation too much tho. Propaganda conversation. Not knowing exacly what's happening you jump to conlusions in fear that the other do it quicker then you.
There is already too much of that.

Again, i was writing from the pov of someone who wish to understand better the dynamics of the conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@_Archangel_

6 hours ago, _Archangel_ said:

@Danioover9000

To learn from every sources, but being able to descern the truth and the agenda.

The answer isn't to spread more propaganda.
I'm all for being conscious of what's happening on the field, but too much of that leads poeple to reinforce their biases, deafening critical thinking.

Arguing about a single isolated event is useless.

Not at all. 
I think we should back away because we risk to judge a hot event with rushed conclusion.
Remember all the poeple that rushed to conclusion over the early hospital explosions, not even a day after the facts.


 

   I agree to learn from every source, and discern truth and agenda, but what if the information ecology is polluted by propaganda, and poisons the well of discerning truth and agendas? 

   Great, I agree the answer isn't to spread more propaganda, yet why is Israel spreading more propaganda than the pro Palestinians?

   How is arguing a single isolated event useless? For example, in Andrew Tate's human trafficking trial, they're focused on proving/disproving him being guilty for specifically human trafficking, so is that a useless event and waste of time to gather more details?

1 hour ago, _Archangel_ said:

@zazen

Shock value is always the way to change uneducated and deeply biased minds. I agree.
My post was directed to those who aspire to have a more nuanced pov over the situation.

The risk here is dumbing down the conversation too much tho. Propaganda conversation. Not knowing exacly what's happening you jump to conlusions in fear that the other do it quicker then you.
There is already too much of that.

Again, i was writing from the pov of someone who wish to understand better the dynamics of the conflict.

   If your main point is to inspire more nuanced POV of the situation, and to lessen propaganda, then why have you not addressed Israel's greater spread of propaganda than the Palestinians? Why not suggest to us some outside sources, like ground news or other, that is critical of both sides using propaganda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.