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.

Well, not sure I want to put Israeli-Palestinians at the top of the reasons of why I vote for someone. Kinda got a bunch of domestic issues here I am a little more concerned about.

But I am sure the letter will help!

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well you can't go wrong with an argument that starts with "they should have ethnically cleansed better."

I didn't say they should have killed them all. They certainly could have - they had the ability and didn't. Something that the Invading armies surely would have done. Something that Palestinian defenders are ever willing to talk about.

Ethnically cleansing is more than just killing people. Yes the Palestinians talk about it, but are we going to 1984 condemn them for thought crimes? The Palestinians are in no position to carry out idle threats and the modern Israel has nukes, so unless people hate Israel so much they make the world end it hardly matters now.

Ethnic cleansing means murdering entire populations based on race. I'm not suggesting that in the slightest. While true - with the steps Israel has taken - the Palestinians are in no place to actually threaten Israel. However - if they took your suggestions leading up to now - there is no telling how many Israelis would be dead as a result of playing soft with the Palestinians. Who knows what kind of damage they could have done if they were free to move about - acquire weapons - and carry out their holy war. One can only speculate - I for one believe them when they say they want to destroy Israel.

No, the term ethnic cleansing is also used to describe displacing entire populations out of a region, not just killing them.

pgmason wrote:
No, the term ethnic cleansing is also used to describe displacing entire populations out of a region, not just killing them.

That is not it's connotative meaning.

 KTG17 wrote:
Okay guys, after thinking about it long and hard for about 3 seconds, you're right! Israel, bad, everyone else, good!

I dont think that was anyone's point, rather that there really are no "good" guys.

I still blame the British.

 Frazzled wrote:


Also the Mongols.

*Always*, you can never forget about them...

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well you can't go wrong with an argument that starts with "they should have ethnically cleansed better."

I didn't say they should have killed them all. They certainly could have - they had the ability and didn't. Something that the Invading armies surely would have done. Something that Palestinian defenders are ever willing to talk about.

Ethnically cleansing is more than just killing people. Yes the Palestinians talk about it, but are we going to 1984 condemn them for thought crimes? The Palestinians are in no position to carry out idle threats and the modern Israel has nukes, so unless people hate Israel so much they make the world end it hardly matters now.

Ethnic cleansing means murdering entire populations based on race. I'm not suggesting that in the slightest. While true - with the steps Israel has taken - the Palestinians are in no place to actually threaten Israel. However - if they took your suggestions leading up to now - there is no telling how many Israelis would be dead as a result of playing soft with the Palestinians. Who knows what kind of damage they could have done if they were free to move about - acquire weapons - and carry out their holy war. One can only speculate - I for one believe them when they say they want to destroy Israel.

It doesn't just mean that in the law, not even in the dictionary:

Merriam Webster
Definition of ethnic cleansing

: the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of an ethnic minority by a dominant majority in order to achieve ethnic homogeneity

You're openly suggesting ethnic cleansing as what they should have done. What suggestions? Not using your armies to massacre civilians? What did I suggest that would lead to more dead Israelis? I even said that they could use lethal force if justified, but so far the violence appears entirely disproportionate to the circumstances. There are clear rules for this, approaching an inanimate object should not carry the death sentence.

 KTG17 wrote:
Well one group considers it the history of their race, so whether you want to consider what is in it or not is irrelevant. There are many that do.

So two fairytale books based for the most part on the same oral history have overlapping claims on the same piece of land.

Who would have thought that.

That's why religion has no place in government. People tend to overreact when their sky fairy of choice tells them they've been chosen.

 Xenomancers wrote:

pgmason wrote:
No, the term ethnic cleansing is also used to describe displacing entire populations out of a region, not just killing them.

That is not it's connotative meaning.

That doesn't matter, it is what it is by its legal defenition. Just like genocide by law does not have to include murder, you can commit genocide without directly murdering anyone.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
Okay guys, after thinking about it long and hard for about 3 seconds, you're right! Israel, bad, everyone else, good!

I dont think that was anyone's point, rather that there really are no "good" guys.

I still blame the British.

 Frazzled wrote:


Also the Mongols.

*Always*, you can never forget about them...

We left 70 years ago. Try finding a new culprit.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
Okay guys, after thinking about it long and hard for about 3 seconds, you're right! Israel, bad, everyone else, good!

I dont think that was anyone's point, rather that there really are no "good" guys.

Aye. The palestinian leadership is either corrupt, ineffective or terrorists. The Israeli leadership isn't really much better but they have bigger guns and Uncle Sam at their back. If someone thinks it unfair that Israel is called out more often, well, they're said to be the only democracy in the region and they have all the power needed to do stuff - surely one should require that those with democracy and more power stick to a higher standard? Saying "they could have killed more, or wiped them out" when the IDF "only" kills 60 people that managed to hurt exactly zero Israeli is technically correct, but could they maybe have killed zero people instead? It would be 60 martyrs less for Hamas to rally people around if nothing else.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
Okay guys, after thinking about it long and hard for about 3 seconds, you're right! Israel, bad, everyone else, good!

I dont think that was anyone's point, rather that there really are no "good" guys.

I still blame the British.

 Frazzled wrote:


Also the Mongols.

*Always*, you can never forget about them...

We left 70 years ago. Try finding a new culprit.

The comment was mostly tongue in cheek

Though there is a strong direct line from Sikes-Picot to many of the modern day issues in the ME.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
Okay guys, after thinking about it long and hard for about 3 seconds, you're right! Israel, bad, everyone else, good!

I dont think that was anyone's point, rather that there really are no "good" guys.

Aye. The palestinian leadership is either corrupt, ineffective or terrorists. The Israeli leadership isn't really much better but they have bigger guns and Uncle Sam at their back. If someone thinks it unfair that Israel is called out more often, well, they're said to be the only democracy in the region and they have all the power needed to do stuff - surely one should require that those with democracy and more power stick to a higher standard? Saying "they could have killed more, or wiped them out" when the IDF "only" kills 60 people that managed to hurt exactly zero Israeli is technically correct, but could they maybe have killed zero people instead? It would be 60 martyrs less for Hamas to rally people around if nothing else.

Yeah, thats a pretty good summation.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
Okay guys, after thinking about it long and hard for about 3 seconds, you're right! Israel, bad, everyone else, good!

I dont think that was anyone's point, rather that there really are no "good" guys.

I still blame the British.

 Frazzled wrote:


Also the Mongols.

*Always*, you can never forget about them...

We left 70 years ago. Try finding a new culprit.

And left a huge mess. If you leave, that doesn't mean you are suddenly not responsible for the mess you made anymore, nor does it absolve you of guilt. Quite the contrary. Britain's behaviour in this question is like a captain steering his ship into an iceberg, fleeing in the only lifeboat and then going 'Well, not my problem anymore!'
Obviously, the situation has changed a lot since the British left, and in the present day there isn't much the British can do anymore, other than what any other government can do (pressuring both sides, encourage diplomacy etc.). But again, blaming Britain is fully justified.

jouso wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
Well one group considers it the history of their race, so whether you want to consider what is in it or not is irrelevant. There are many that do.

So two fairytale books based for the most part on the same oral history have overlapping claims on the same piece of land.

Who would have thought that.

That's why religion has no place in government. People tend to overreact when their sky fairy of choice tells them they've been chosen.

If you call it fairytale books, that shows you understand nothing of religion and are really not qualified to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian question (or any question involving religion) in an intelligent manner.
People tend to overreact as well when they are very convinced that the "sky fairy" that other people believe in is fake or wrong. Religion is extremely important to like 90% of the world population, and therefore religion naturally has a very important place in any government. Governments that try to get rid of religion generally historically have not been perceived very positively. Which may have to do with their nasty tendencies to kill millions of people for being religious.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
Okay guys, after thinking about it long and hard for about 3 seconds, you're right! Israel, bad, everyone else, good!

I dont think that was anyone's point, rather that there really are no "good" guys.

I still blame the British.

Woah Woah Woah, let's not be hasty now, I'm fairly sure the French were mostly to blame there, in fact we were hardly involved, not even on the same continent.

In fact it's probably 90% France's fault, we all know what they're like when it comes to treaties and things going to pot afterwards.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
Okay guys, after thinking about it long and hard for about 3 seconds, you're right! Israel, bad, everyone else, good!

I dont think that was anyone's point, rather that there really are no "good" guys.

I still blame the British.

Woah Woah Woah, let's not be hasty now, I'm fairly sure the French were mostly to blame there, in fact we were hardly involved, not even on the same continent.

In fact it's probably 90% France's fault, we all know what they're like when it comes to treaties and things going to pot afterwards.

I suspect you may be correct...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

If you call it fairytale books, that shows you understand nothing of religion and are really not qualified to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian question (or any question involving religion) in an intelligent manner.

Thanks for the ad hominem. Similarly I think that whoever puts religion higher than stuff such as property or other human rights is not qualified to be in any kind of position of power, but that's my personal belief.

I understand that religion is so important to some people that they're ready to inflict harm to others or themselves (to the point of death, if need be), plus some of the best historians of religion are atheists, so we'll have to disagree on that.

I've been to the all of the holy places spelled here out pure of historical intest (just like I've been to Yad Bashem and, being a wargamer, to Yad La-Shirom as well, I even have a pilgrim certificate). You can perfectly understand something and not agree with it, whoever tells you differently is just telling spiritual BS. Actually that's the purest, simplest rule of living in a society: be prepared that other people will think different and learn to live with that.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

pgmason wrote:
No, the term ethnic cleansing is also used to describe displacing entire populations out of a region, not just killing them.

That is not it's connotative meaning.

That doesn't matter, it is what it is by its legal defenition. Just like genocide by law does not have to include murder, you can commit genocide without directly murdering anyone.

The words common usage is far more important than is dictionary definition. 99% of people when they hear ethnic cleansing will first jump to the conclusion that you are talking about genocide. That makes it a poor word choice when talking about the subject I was talking about - but hey - it sounds a lot worse than what I was saying so I understand why you want to use it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

pgmason wrote:
No, the term ethnic cleansing is also used to describe displacing entire populations out of a region, not just killing them.

That is not it's connotative meaning.

That doesn't matter, it is what it is by its legal defenition. Just like genocide by law does not have to include murder, you can commit genocide without directly murdering anyone.

The words common usage is far more important than is dictionary definition. 99% of people when they hear ethnic cleansing will first jump to the conclusion that you are talking about genocide. That makes it a poor word choice when talking about the subject I was talking about - but hey - it sounds a lot worse than what I was saying so I understand why you want to use it.

No it doesn't, what you said is literally that they should have ethnically cleansed better. It is what it is based on your words. You can squirm and argue on 99% of people. But 99% of people generally don't have more then a general clue on most subjects. You make it sound however you want to, just know you advocated that they should have driven out the Palestinians better and are trying to avoid admitting you said what you said, which is downright ethnic cleansing advocacy.

 Xenomancers wrote:
[Israel should have driven the populations into Jordan in Syria (you know the 2 countries that joined forces with the Palestinians to try and annihilate Israel and failed at it TWICE). That would have solved the problem.

No one cares

Maybe it's common usage where you're from, but its definitely not everywhere. I've certainly only heard it used in the more broad category. The news is full of stories about ethnic cleansing of Rohingya people in Myanmar being forced over the border into Bangladesh for example. Maybe its a difference of US usage rather than UK usage, but what you're advocating definitely fits the definition of ethnic cleansing.

Just like no one cares about war crimes being comitted by Israel? I beg to differ.

Isn't ethnic cleansing the openly admitted objective of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and all of Israel's enemies?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Isn't ethnic cleansing the openly admitted objective of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and all of Israel's enemies?

True, and that is why we should always support Israel's survival. But we shouldn't just let them be monsters because the other side wants to be. One is actively engaging in horrible things, the other wishes it could. One is doing far more harm at the moment and should be held accountable as a Western ally.

Yeah I am pretty sure they want Israel wiped off the map.

Held accountable as a western ally? Who cares who they are allied with? Would non-allies get a free pass?

Well we would all be dead if they actually tried so Iran might logically keep it mostly rethorical. Hamas and Hezbollah will never be a force that can take on the Israeli army, let alone invade and destroy Israel.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Isn't ethnic cleansing the openly admitted objective of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and all of Israel's enemies?

True, and that is why we should always support Israel's survival. But we shouldn't just let them be monsters because the other side wants to be. One is actively engaging in horrible things, the other wishes it could. One is doing far more harm at the moment and should be held accluntable as a Western ally.

I agree. But I think it does go a long way to explain the Israeli mindset and motivations. When all your neighbouring countries have actively sought (and failed) to wage genocide against your people for the 70 years since your Nation was founded...it does tend to put power in the hands of the hardliners in your Government.

Israel has a siege mentality. Because it quite literally is under siege, and always has been, and so their attitude is that they should pre-empt any and all attacks on them with overwhelming force, and keep their neighbours weak.

Who would all be dead?

 KTG17 wrote:
Held accountable as a western ally? Who cares who they are allied with? Would non-allies get a free pass?

The issue is that the US and the West do hold non-allies accountable. Haley called Iran's crackdown of protests a disgrace and said what boils down to security should not trump freedom and human rights. One year later she is praising Israel as proportional. Everybody sees this, its harmful to the US position in the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KTG17 wrote:
Who would all be dead?

All of us. Israel has nuclear weapons and based on their history its a pretty safe bet they would take as many with them as they could. An invasion would be pretty suicidal.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
Held accountable as a western ally? Who cares who they are allied with? Would non-allies get a free pass?

The issue is that the US and the West do hold non-allies accountable. Haley called Iran's crackdown of protests a disgrace and said what boils down to security should not trump freedom and human rights. One year later she is praising Israel as proportional. Everybody sees this, its harmful to the US position in the world.

No its not. We've been supporting Israel doing crappy stuff for years. Nothing new there.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KTG17 wrote:
Who would all be dead?

All of us. Israel has nuclear weapons and based on their history its a pretty safe bet they would take as many with them as they could. An invasion would be pretty suicidal.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Isn't ethnic cleansing the openly admitted objective of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and all of Israel's enemies?

True, and that is why we should always support Israel's survival. But we shouldn't just let them be monsters because the other side wants to be. One is actively engaging in horrible things, the other wishes it could. One is doing far more harm at the moment and should be held accluntable as a Western ally.

I agree. But I think it does go a long way to explain the Israeli mindset and motivations. When all your neighbouring countries have actively sought (and failed) to wage genocide against your people for the 70 years since your Nation was founded...it does tend to put power in the hands of the hardliners in your Government.

Israel has a siege mentality. Because it quite literally is under siege, and always has been, and so their attitude is that they should pre-empt any and all attacks on them with overwhelming force, and keep their neighbours weak.

Yes, but the problem with people like Netanyahu is that they cynically gamble Israeli lives away to stay in power as hardliners. Israel is just turning it up to 11 every time and we all know it will just backfire in the long run because that's another generation growing up hating Israel.

The siege is also becoming a lot less pervasive. Egypt and Jordan are no longer very beligerent. Iraq as it once was is gone, Syria is terribly weakened and Lebanon is Lebanon. Almost everything they are doing now is wage wars on groups that live amongst civilian society and cause large amounts of civilian casualties. Israel won't face another country in the near future. For all the fears about Iran, Iran could not sustain an offensive war against Israel at the moment and with SA in Yemen and Syria it has no reason to take on a third conflict.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
Held accountable as a western ally? Who cares who they are allied with? Would non-allies get a free pass?

The issue is that the US and the West do hold non-allies accountable. Haley called Iran's crackdown of protests a disgrace and said what boils down to security should not trump freedom and human rights. One year later she is praising Israel as proportional. Everybody sees this, its harmful to the US position in the world.

No its not. We've been supporting Israel doing crappy stuff for years. Nothing new there.

Yes and unconditional support for Israel has been harming the international position of the US in the region for years.

 KTG17 wrote:
All of us how?

Because an invasion of Israel might set of a nuclear war that could escalate beyond the region.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yes and unconditional support for Israel has been harming the international position of the US in the region for years.

Uggh, No. Egypt, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. All close to the US. Syria, Lebanon, Iran, whoever else may not like it but I don't see us caring.

 KTG17 wrote:
All of us how?

Because an invasion of Israel might set of a nuclear war that could escalate beyond the region.