Israel, Palestine and Iran

[VILLAMARV]

31 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

isnt this the literal definition of a war crime

I suppose that depends on whether you feel civilians have intentionally been killed or unintentionally, and whether you feel the destruction of civilian property is necessary or not, and whether you think it's the type of mass killing that flouts the definitions of proportionality / military necessity.

We're certainly not privvy to the information that would be presented to any court, but then I don't recall any western army officials standing trial for the documented war crimes in the last 25 years, bar a few privates in abu ghraib.

But in my opinion, Of course it is. Stick it on the tab

[foreveryoung]

Even to the my untrained eye, I can more than see ,that this time, Israel are getting completely out of hand, an our governments don't seem to  have the bottle to agree.

[NurembergVillan]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

And that's just straight up despicable.

"How could we be the bullies when we were once the bullied?"

[Chindie]

Just now, NurembergVillan said:

"How could we be the bullies when we were once the bullied?"

Its grimmer than that.

They wore them 'in protest' at the UN's position on Hamas' attacks, suggesting the UN was institutionally anti-Jewish (which is itself anti-Semetic - Israel doesn't represent or speak for all Jewish people) ala the Nazis.

Essentially they're threatening the entire organisation. It's a really nasty, nasty action that demeans the memory of what that symbol represents. And frankly I hope it backfires, because I certainly, were I one of their peers in that organisation, would not appreciate the implication we were treating Israel like Nazis treated Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, because we have some balance and were able to see their horrific actions for what they are.

**** horrible state.

[a-k]

6 hours ago, Chindie said:

Its grimmer than that.

They wore them 'in protest' at the UN's position on Hamas' attacks, suggesting the UN was institutionally anti-Jewish (which is itself anti-Semetic - Israel doesn't represent or speak for all Jewish people) ala the Nazis.

Essentially they're threatening the entire organisation. It's a really nasty, nasty action that demeans the memory of what that symbol represents. And frankly I hope it backfires, because I certainly, were I one of their peers in that organisation, would not appreciate the implication we were treating Israel like Nazis treated Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, because we have some balance and were able to see their horrific actions for what they are.

**** horrible state.

I wouldn't really pay attention to anything that goes on at the UN anymore, it's a joke organization nowadays, such as in the example below

 

[Jareth]

8 hours ago, Chindie said:

And that's just straight up despicable.

I mean my first reaction is not to believe this is real. The sheer cynicism and amateur almost comical theatrics of it is unreal - speaks of a regime that is detached from reality and so far down a rabbit hole made of its own warped psyche. 

[VILLAMARV]

Murderous, apartheid state in not liking to be held to account for their actions shocker!

[bielesibub]

10 hours ago, Chindie said:

And that's just straight up despicable.

Never Again. Never again, what? If I thought it meant "never again should one group of people attempt to oppress and wipe out another group of people", I'd be 110% right behind that - but thats really not the case, just some ridiculous stunt, in which case it's pathetically sad, disgustingly ironic, dishonours all the victims of the holocaust, and flicks the fingers to those who fought and died during WW2 fighting for a "free" world for us ALL.

I've said my bit, my views on the State of Israel and its policies are mine and my own. 

[Lichfield Dean]

16 hours ago, Chindie said:

Refugee camp blown up.

Sounds like this is another of those incidents that had multiple angles to it. The status of "refugee camp" is disputed by many because it's actually a city with buildings.

Then the Israelis are claiming they didn't strike the civilian areas, but an underground stronghold that unfortunately had lots of ammunition in it and blew up, collapsing the tunnels and taking down all those buildings, after having warned the citizens to leave.

Personally I haven't seen enough to work out what the truth really is here, but there definitely seems to be a bit more to it than simply "refugee camp blown up by Israel".

Is it actually a refugee camp? Did Israel give warning? Could the citizens have feasibly left even if so? Did Israel really target just a military installation and the rest was an accidental by-product? Did they know the destruction it would cause and do it anyway?

The propaganda and spin from both sides is almost impenetrable I'm finding.

[Thug]

6 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Sounds like this is another of those incidents that had multiple angles to it. The status of "refugee camp" is disputed by many because it's actually a city with buildings.

Then the Israelis are claiming they didn't strike the civilian areas, but an underground stronghold that unfortunately had lots of ammunition in it and blew up, collapsing the tunnels and taking down all those buildings, after having warned the citizens to leave.

Personally I haven't seen enough to work out what the truth really is here, but there definitely seems to be a bit more to it than simply "refugee camp blown up by Israel".

Is it actually a refugee camp? Did Israel give warning? Could the citizens have feasibly left even if so? Did Israel really target just a military installation and the rest was an accidental by-product? Did they know the destruction it would cause and do it anyway?

The propaganda and spin from both sides is almost impenetrable I'm finding.

Really?

Ok.

I sincerely hope to god you’re never an accidental by product of anything.

 

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, Thug said:

Really?

Ok.

I sincerely hope to god you’re never an accidental by product of anything.

 

Do you have any evidence to help anyone come to their own conclusion? Or do you just believe one side of the narrative regardless then assume that to be true, as that doesn't appear to be a very objective. Poster is correct in saying it's almost impossible to determine what is the actual truth. Calling someone out for saying he's finding it really hard to work out what is truth from lies seems a bit daft if you ask me. It's not conducive to an intelligent discussion really is it?

[chrisp65]

49 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Sounds like this is another of those incidents that had multiple angles to it. The status of "refugee camp" is disputed by many because it's actually a city with buildings.

Then the Israelis are claiming they didn't strike the civilian areas, but an underground stronghold that unfortunately had lots of ammunition in it and blew up, collapsing the tunnels and taking down all those buildings, after having warned the citizens to leave.

Personally I haven't seen enough to work out what the truth really is here, but there definitely seems to be a bit more to it than simply "refugee camp blown up by Israel".

Is it actually a refugee camp? Did Israel give warning? Could the citizens have feasibly left even if so? Did Israel really target just a military installation and the rest was an accidental by-product? Did they know the destruction it would cause and do it anyway?

The propaganda and spin from both sides is almost impenetrable I'm finding.

 

On the subject of whether its a refugee camp, we’re probably getting in to semantics of the definition of refugee camp.

By the UN definition, a camp is temporary or semi permanent but will include buildings such as medical facilities and schools. It wouldn’t ordinarily include concrete built apartment blocks. But then it wouldn’t ordinarily expect the displaced people to remain displaced for 50 years, unable to return home.

It’s certainly an area where refugees, displaced people, live. Where it was known by all sides, including the side with satellites and drones, that refugees were still present. 

I guess then it comes down to whether the collateral damage of bombing families you previously turned in to refugees is acceptable to you and your backers.

 

[Thug]

3 hours ago, a-k said:

wouldn't really pay attention to anything that goes on at the UN anymore, it's a joke organization nowadays

Nowadays that they don’t agree with what Israel say or do?

Ok.  

[a-k]

5 minutes ago, Thug said:

Nowadays that they don’t agree with what Israel say or do?

Ok.  

Nowadays that they elect certain countries with horrible human rights records to their Human Rights Council. Has nothing to do with what they say about Israel.

[Thug]

2 minutes ago, a-k said:

Nowadays that they elect certain countries with horrible human rights records to their Human Rights Council. Has nothing to do with what they say about Israel.

Like Israel you mean?

Edited November 1, 2023 by Thug

[Thug]

I guess we should also ignore amnesty international nowadays.

anyone else been criticising Israel nowadays that we should ignore?

 

[Chindie]

I must admit that I don't find the argument that 'in some cases the UN does stuff that's silly and therefore we should ignore anything that happens under it's roof' terribly compelling.

The UN having a pathetic human rights arm doesn't negate Israel doing something completely despicable when taking part in a security council meeting.

[OutByEaster?]

i've not seen the link to the amnesty report yesterday:

 

 

[OutByEaster?]

Or the wikileaks document with the plan to remove Palestinians from Gaza.

 

 

[sne]

Great bunch of lads.