Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

...Is it impossible to address the actions of Palestinian extremists without saying "oh well, but the Israelis are also doing X! They made them do it!". Its easy enough to accuse folks of Whataboutism when discussing Russia, till every other comment regarding Palestinian actions is throwing shade on the Israelis. :/

The West blew up some Mosques. Let's follow up every post in the ISIS thread criticising terrorist actions with, "Yeah, but you have to remember what the Americans are doing. What ISIS is doing is justified if you think about it...".

 godardc wrote:

This man was clearly ressourceful and had stronger arms than mine !

Actually it turned out to be a case of clearly bs because from what I've found he was shot some distance from the fence on the Gaza side.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
...Is it impossible to address the actions of Palestinian extremists without saying "oh well, but the Israelis are also doing X! They made them do it!". Its easy enough to accuse folks of Whataboutism when discussing Russia, till every other comment regarding Palestinian actions is throwing shade on the Israelis. :/

The entire other half has done exactly the opposite though, throwing shade on the Palestinians when Israeli actions are commented on. Its a conflict that goes back 70 years, by this point tit for tat is the reality, not whataboutism really, as the people in the region engage in it for the exact reason of "well the other guys did X".

 Wyrmalla wrote:
...Is it impossible to address the actions of Palestinian extremists without saying "oh well, but the Israelis are also doing X! They made them do it!". Its easy enough to accuse folks of Whataboutism when discussing Russia, till every other comment regarding Palestinian actions is throwing shade on the Israelis. :/

It's almost like killing a hundred people is weighed differently than burning a nature preserve down.

Crazy right?

I have to point out that the Israeli were attacked first in 1948 after having eventually returned peacefully to their land, so the others did it first

 Wyrmalla wrote:
...Is it impossible to address the actions of Palestinian extremists without saying "oh well, but the Israelis are also doing X! They made them do it!". Its easy enough to accuse folks of Whataboutism when discussing Russia, till every other comment regarding Palestinian actions is throwing shade on the Israelis. :/

The West blew up some Mosques. Let's follow up every post in the ISIS thread criticising terrorist actions with, "Yeah, but you have to remember what the Americans are doing. What ISIS is doing is justified if you think about it...".

Not only is this a strawman, but also absolutely absurd since you were trying to paint the Palestinians as bad for damaging a few acres of a nature reserve (possibly since the fire investigation hadn't actually found anything yet) while posting a cute picture of children overlooking the devastation (as it as a much larger grass fire outside the reserve) designed to provoke an emotional response rather than a logical one.

Since you started this with a 'whatabout THIS' you have no grounds to complain that I pointed out that the children would be the ones being burned if it was the other side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 godardc wrote:
I have to point out that the Israeli were attacked first in 1948 after having eventually returned peacefully to their land, so the others did it first

Wow...

First of all, there was nothing peaceful about their 'return' Irgun,(a radical Zionist terrorist group) in particular, started a bombing campaign across all of Mandatory Palestine, that took British military intervention to even curtail. In response to this, Lehi (another radical jewish group) blew up a rail line to kill as many British soldiers as possible.

Israel's 'return' cost, depending on the source, 30,000 Palestinians their lives, and 700,000 their homes.

That image was just the first one I found which showed the scale of one of the fires. The Nature Reserve is the latest, but not the only one.

My point still stands. That is seemingly impossible to discuss this topic without either side dog piling one another. The response to an event isn't, "what happened was bad", its "its bad, though the other side brought it on themselves". Which just results in either a shouting a match, or an echo chamber once everyone who doesn't agree with you can't be bothered talking anymore. :/

 Wyrmalla wrote:
That image was just the first one I found which showed the scale of one of the fires. The Nature Reserve is the latest, but not the only one.

My point still stands. That is seemingly impossible to discuss this topic without either side dog piling one another. The response to an event isn't, "what happened was bad", its "its bad, though the other side brought it on themselves". Which just results in either a shouting a match, or an echo chamber once everyone who doesn't agree with you can't be bothered talking anymore. :/

This can be explained because of the several countries that posters come from. Example:

IRA: not terrorists according the the USA. Terrorists according to UK.

A bomb goes off in a British barracks, and the Irish Americans punch the air like they scored a goal, while the British posters respond in disbelief that what they see as wanton murder is celebrated. They're conditioned to see the 'other' as an enemy, which is why A) the US is tearing itself apart ATM and B) that the earlier suggestion that war crimes be handled at home by courts of thier countrymen would and could never work. Its a conditioned bias.

Example: I see the Israelis as an invasive species of Europeans colonizing the middle east. It bares the sort of earmarks I expect to see in that situation, including violence, reservations, murder without consequence, and all the fun things that the United States did to my own people. I have near zero sympathy for the Israelis. Thus, my own bias come into the picture. I don't think that anything good is being done by either side, but I do see that some things are worse than others. Most of these have not been from the Palestinians, and so it gets under my skin when people act as though Israel is justified in committing war crimes or mass murder, depending on how you look at the situation, because, well, they're terrorists.

Why are they terrorists? Well, basically because the US says so, which sort of brings me back around to the IRA thing and how who the terrorist is is highly subjective. Don't get me wrong, they're evil fethers too, but no one should be supporting ANY of these people.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
...Is it impossible to address the actions of Palestinian extremists without saying "oh well, but the Israelis are also doing X! They made them do it!". Its easy enough to accuse folks of Whataboutism when discussing Russia, till every other comment regarding Palestinian actions is throwing shade on the Israelis. :/

The West blew up some Mosques. Let's follow up every post in the ISIS thread criticising terrorist actions with, "Yeah, but you have to remember what the Americans are doing. What ISIS is doing is justified if you think about it...".

Not only is this a strawman, but also absolutely absurd since you were trying to paint the Palestinians as bad for damaging a few acres of a nature reserve (possibly since the fire investigation hadn't actually found anything yet) while posting a cute picture of children overlooking the devastation (as it as a much larger grass fire outside the reserve) designed to provoke an emotional response rather than a logical one.

Since you started this with a 'whatabout THIS' you have no grounds to complain that I pointed out that the children would be the ones being burned if it was the other side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 godardc wrote:
I have to point out that the Israeli were attacked first in 1948 after having eventually returned peacefully to their land, so the others did it first

Wow...

First of all, there was nothing peaceful about their 'return' Irgun,(a radical Zionist terrorist group) in particular, started a bombing campaign across all of Mandatory Palestine, that took British military intervention to even curtail. In response to this, Lehi (another radical jewish group) blew up a rail line to kill as many British soldiers as possible.

Israel's 'return' cost, depending on the source, 30,000 Palestinians their lives, and 700,000 their homes.

You can't make a whole group of people (here, the Israeli) responsible for what a little group of terrorists made. Or at least this is what I learnt since the terrorists attacks.

Doesn't the whole, "you can't make a whole group responsible" undermine your own argument over who attacked first 70 years ago.

This is exactly why we should be prosecuted at home: because we have the same culture as our fellow countrymen, and only them can truly understand us. I don't want to be tried by ouganda or whatever because I am blasphemous because I peed on a "sacred ancester tree" that is a death penalty crime for them. The biais exists and is why we should be tried home.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Doesn't the whole, "you can't make a whole group responsible" undermine your own argument over who attacked first 70 years ago.

No, not at all.
The war was an official war made by countries IIRC, so this time it was the whole group that attacked, and so, that is responsible.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
That image was just the first one I found which showed the scale of one of the fires. The Nature Reserve is the latest, but not the only one.

My point still stands. That is seemingly impossible to discuss this topic without either side dog piling one another. The response to an event isn't, "what happened was bad", its "its bad, though the other side brought it on themselves". Which just results in either a shouting a match, or an echo chamber once everyone who doesn't agree with you can't be bothered talking anymore. :/

This can be explained because of the several countries that posters come from. Example:

IRA: not terrorists according the the USA. Terrorists according to UK.

A bomb goes off in a British barracks, and the Irish Americans punch the air like they scored a goal, while the British posters respond in disbelief that what they see as wanton murder is celebrated. They're conditioned to see the 'other' as an enemy, which is why A) the US is tearing itself apart ATM and B) that the earlier suggestion that war crimes be handled at home by courts of thier countrymen would and could never work. Its a conditioned bias.

In using that analogy are you then implying consent for the actions of these terrorists by posters in this thread? Its just that I don't see it flying on this forum to say that you have deep cultural ties to the people behind some Jihadist terrorist organisation, then start arguing on their behalf. I doubt many here can claim much in the way of ties to either side in this conflict, and instead I suppose it falls down to personal bias.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 godardc wrote:
I have to point out that the Israeli were attacked first in 1948 after having eventually returned peacefully to their land, so the others did it first

Wow...

First of all, there was nothing peaceful about their 'return' Irgun,(a radical Zionist terrorist group) in particular, started a bombing campaign across all of Mandatory Palestine, that took British military intervention to even curtail. In response to this, Lehi (another radical jewish group) blew up a rail line to kill as many British soldiers as possible.

Israel's 'return' cost, depending on the source, 30,000 Palestinians their lives, and 700,000 their homes.

Which proceeded decades of increasingly heated tensions between the local Arabs and Jews, including a few massacres and culminating in an Arab revolt against British rule. Its a double standard to call the Jews out for turning Palestine into an Independent state when that had been the Arab's intention earlier.

It'd be wishful thinking to imagine a word where the Arabs had been the ones to control the region. In that world do you think that they'd receive as much criticism, or would the world just look at them like any other Middle Eastern state putting the boot down on a minority? You certainly don't hear Assyria being talked about much.

 godardc wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Doesn't the whole, "you can't make a whole group responsible" undermine your own argument over who attacked first 70 years ago.

No, not at all.
The war was an official war made by countries IIRC, so this time it was the whole group that attacked, and so, that is responsible.

Palestine (at least not as what it is today) didn't exist as a country back then and those Palestinians involved back then are probably dead by now and the vast majority having been men. So how are you going to hold all Palestinians, including women and children, 70 years later responsible for that?

Those terrorists that Baron mentioned, they basically founded the state of Israel, a lot of military men and politicians after 48 had connections to those organizations. Neither party is exactly being the good guys here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 godardc wrote:
This is exactly why we should be prosecuted at home: because we have the same culture as our fellow countrymen, and only them can truly understand us. I don't want to be tried by ouganda or whatever because I am blasphemous because I peed on a "sacred ancester tree" that is a death penalty crime for them. The biais exists and is why we should be tried home.

This does not work because its not in the interest of the home countries to recognize war crimes comitted by its own people. Even Germany protected war criminals after 45. France, the Netherlands, the US and many more have protected war criminals and denied war crimes for a long time. Only recently have they started making some amends, but for obvious political reasons, prosecuting your own soldiers currently is still a very slow process.

And as for the Uganda thing, this is why the international community has drawn up a list of things you can be prosecuted for. No coubtry is going to extradite you over that silly example.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 godardc wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Doesn't the whole, "you can't make a whole group responsible" undermine your own argument over who attacked first 70 years ago.

No, not at all.
The war was an official war made by countries IIRC, so this time it was the whole group that attacked, and so, that is responsible.

Palestine didn't exist as a country back then and those Palestinians involved back then are probably dead by now and the vast majority having been men. So how are you going to hold all Palestinians, including women and children, 70 years later responsible for that?

Those terrorists that Baron mentioned, they basically founded the state of Israel, a lot of military men and politicians after 48 had connections to those organizations.

The Arab countries attacked, so Israel had to defend itself, starting all this mess. I don't hold every palestinian responsible, but, at the very beggining, it wasn't Israel's fault and so is the victim here.

 godardc wrote:
The Arab countries attacked, so Israel had to defend itself, starting all this mess. I don't hold every palestinian responsible, but, at the very beggining, it wasn't Israel's fault and so is the victim here.

And no one is begrudging Israel defending itself. The problem is that being the victim 70 years ago shouldn't still be giving Israel a blank check today. Imagine how crazy the world would be.

 godardc wrote:

The war was an official war made by countries IIRC, so this time it was the whole group that attacked, and so, that is responsible.

Well, no, the 1947-1948 war actually started with a UN vote and then was quickly followed by organized terrorism by the Zionist factions of Jewish citizens of Palestine. It's like claiming that the Korean war started because the Americans invaded.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

Which proceeded decades of increasingly heated tensions between the local Arabs and Jews, including a few massacres and culminating in an Arab revolt against British rule. Its a double standard to call the Jews out for turning Palestine into an Independent state when that had been the Arab's intention earlier.

It'd be wishful thinking to imagine a word where the Arabs had been the ones to control the region. In that world do you think that they'd receive as much criticism, or would the world just look at them like any other Middle Eastern state putting the boot down on a minority? You certainly don't hear Assyria being talked about much.

Except that the people who were alive and in Palestine during even the 1936 uprising were a relative minority by 1948.

Yes, as I've frequently said, the British and French are the ones most at fault over the current middle east, but Sykes - Picot pretty much ensured that Wahhabist ideology would dominate the region for a very long time.

 godardc wrote:

The war was an official war made by countries IIRC, so this time it was the whole group that attacked, and so, that is responsible.

Well, no, the 1947-1948 war actually started with a UN vote and then was quickly followed by organized terrorism by the Zionist factions of Jewish citizens of Palestine. It's like claiming that the Korean war started because the Americans invaded.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 godardc wrote:
The Arab countries attacked, so Israel had to defend itself, starting all this mess. I don't hold every palestinian responsible, but, at the very beggining, it wasn't Israel's fault and so is the victim here.

And no one is begrudging Israel defending itself. The problem is that being the victim 70 years ago shouldn't still be giving Israel a blank check today. Imagine how crazy the world would be.

Yeah, I totally agree ! But the thing is, 70 years ago, this happened. And so the Arab got revenge for this, and so Israeli too, etc... It is like a "chain" that never ends. But that was started because of them, and so I have difficulties to have compassion for them when they did it, and they keep doing it. It is not like they were trying to (re)build and developp peacefully...

 godardc wrote:

The Arab countries attacked, so Israel had to defend itself, starting all this mess. I don't hold every palestinian responsible, but, at the very beggining, it wasn't Israel's fault and so is the victim here.

They attacked because the Israelis were butchering people and driving refugees into their countries. And, how on earth do you figure that Palestinians were responsible for the Arabs invading? Or do you think that all Muslims are effectively interchangeable?

The Israelis, no. You said it yourself: a bunch of terrorists. They shouldn't have attacked a country because some of its citizens were retards.
And yes, I speak about "the Arab countries" as a whole. Because from Syria to Egypt, they all tried to destroy poor Israel.

 godardc wrote:
The Israelis, no. You said it yourself: a bunch of terrorists. They shouldn't have attacked a country because some of its citizens were retards.
And yes, I speak about "the Arab countries" as a whole. Because from Syria to Egypt, they all tried to destroy poor Israel.

Because those terrorists became the Israeli government. let me spell it out for you: Israel is a state where the terrorists won. Irgun effectively founded the modern IDF.

The 'Arab countries' as you refer to them had the same reaction to Israel that the west had to ISIS.

That's interesting ! Will take a look tomorrow
I like the comparison, but be careful, I know it is illegal in France, but I think it is more free in the USA ?

 godardc wrote:
That's interesting ! Will take a look tomorrow
I like the comparison, but be careful, I know it is illegal in France, but I think it is more free in the USA ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%9348_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine

 godardc wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 godardc wrote:
The Arab countries attacked, so Israel had to defend itself, starting all this mess. I don't hold every palestinian responsible, but, at the very beggining, it wasn't Israel's fault and so is the victim here.

And no one is begrudging Israel defending itself. The problem is that being the victim 70 years ago shouldn't still be giving Israel a blank check today. Imagine how crazy the world would be.

Yeah, I totally agree ! But the thing is, 70 years ago, this happened. And so the Arab got revenge for this, and so Israeli too, etc... It is like a "chain" that never ends. But that was started because of them, and so I have difficulties to have compassion for them when they did it, and they keep doing it. It is not like they were trying to (re)build and developp peacefully...

But that was 70 years ago. Its unreasonable that Israel is reacting as if it was 70 years ago. Israel is an 7 feet tall adult and Palestine is a 4 foot tall kid when it comes to strength. Yes, when the kid kicks the adult that is indeed a bad thing, but the adult shouldn't respond by beating the kid senseless every time.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I take that this crap hasn't really been discussed much here?



The Palestinians continue to spread wildfires using "fire kites". The latest location hit was a Nature Reserve.

Though I doubt this really fits into the media's Palestine as the eternal victim agenda.

If you'd followed the news a bit you'd know that burning each others' fields is as typical of the holy land as hummus.

https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Study-96-percent-of-destruction-of-Palestinian-olive-tree-cases-fall-apart-due-to-police-incompetence-378724

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/settlers-palestinian-bringing/

House-bulldozing and field-burning is the typical collective punishment doled out from the Israeli side.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 godardc wrote:
That's interesting ! Will take a look tomorrow
I like the comparison, but be careful, I know it is illegal in France, but I think it is more free in the USA ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%9348_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine

It's better to go slightly further back:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_insurgency_in_Mandatory_Palestine

When the white paper was published in which the British authorities rejected a two-state solution and instead defended a single state with an Arab majority the different Jewish armed faction started a terrorist campaign against the British, going as far as assassinating the highest British authority in the Middle East during wartime and sneaking as many immigrants as possible to try to change the demographic balance (which incidentally is why right of return is so symbolically important for Palestinians).

 BaronIveagh wrote:



Example: I see the Israelis as an invasive species of Europeans colonizing the middle east.

Ignoring incredibly problematic language like ‘invasive species’, this Ashkenormative picture of Israeli Jews is very misleading. Only around a quarter of Israeli’s are Ashkenazi. Obviously most of the Sephardic community are also largely european-descendents, but I tend to suspect that when people talk of Israeli Jews as Europeans they mean Ashkenazis. Though they may well be unfamiliar with the term. That said, even of you include all Sephardis, I think you’re still below half of the total population.

nfe wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:



Example: I see the Israelis as an invasive species of Europeans colonizing the middle east.

Ignoring incredibly problematic language like ‘invasive species’, this Ashkenormative picture of Israeli Jews is very misleading. Only around a quarter of Israeli’s are Ashkenazi.

Most Mizrahi in Israel arrived post-independence.

The initial flows were very much European. The 1st to 5th Aliyahs were very much an European affair.

jouso wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I take that this crap hasn't really been discussed much here?



The Palestinians continue to spread wildfires using "fire kites". The latest location hit was a Nature Reserve.

Though I doubt this really fits into the media's Palestine as the eternal victim agenda.

If you'd followed the news a bit you'd know that burning each others' fields is as typical of the holy land as hummus.

https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Study-96-percent-of-destruction-of-Palestinian-olive-tree-cases-fall-apart-due-to-police-incompetence-378724

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/settlers-palestinian-bringing/

House-bulldozing and field-burning is the typical collective punishment doled out from the Israeli side.

It really is just that difficult for people to discuss this topic without falling back on this eye for an eye nonsense.

Do you really think the media paints Palestinians as eternal victims? We must watch really different media.

 Da Boss wrote:
Do you really think the media paints Palestinians as eternal victims? We must watch really different media.

Depends on the media, AJ (which is state run propaganda tbh) and other Arab news networks do

 Wyrmalla wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I take that this crap hasn't really been discussed much here?



The Palestinians continue to spread wildfires using "fire kites". The latest location hit was a Nature Reserve.

Though I doubt this really fits into the media's Palestine as the eternal victim agenda.

If you'd followed the news a bit you'd know that burning each others' fields is as typical of the holy land as hummus.

https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Study-96-percent-of-destruction-of-Palestinian-olive-tree-cases-fall-apart-due-to-police-incompetence-378724

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/settlers-palestinian-bringing/

House-bulldozing and field-burning is the typical collective punishment doled out from the Israeli side.

It really is just that difficult for people to discuss this topic without falling back on this eye for an eye nonsense.

That is a pretty ironic thing to say, considering the fact you are engaging in exactly that behaviour.
But yes, in the discussion of any conflict "but the other side did X" is going to be inevitable. That is how conflicts work. People get angry over bad things the other side does and then use it as justification for doing bad things themselves.