Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Thylacine 2000

Well-known member
Citizen
The UCLA protestors had been violent and antisemitic before that point, with no one in charge making them stop.






It was only treated as a story when enough incidents accumulated and the mob of counter protestors got very organized. If the schools had been doing their jobs guaranteeing safe access for all students, none of this would have happened.
 
Last edited:

MrBlud

Well-known member
Citizen
I feel like being pepper sprayed and/or beaten to unconsciousness is several galaxies away from “They made me use a side entrance”.

Inconvenience (without threat) is the heart of protesting.
 

MrBlud

Well-known member
Citizen
I assumed they were blocking *everyone* from the main entrance and making them go around.

If they were allowing everyone in *except* Jewish people than yes that would be wrong (and dumb!)
 

Thylacine 2000

Well-known member
Citizen
I know you never read or respond to anything here, but:

The whole point of an ICC warrant is that it is done for countries that don't have free judicial systems. For years and years and years the ICC has correctly noted that Israel does have that, so they themselves didn't have jurisdiction and wouldn't intervene. Netanyahu's judicial overhaul failed, he is still under criminal indictment. Having the ICC step in now says they are abandoning their own standards - but their opinions totes still have moral authority, guys! - and that the fight for an independent judiciary in Israel actually wasn't worthwhile, nevermind.

Basically it's a "Bush v. Gore" decision but done by leftists.

ALL of these international governing bodies are worthless on I/P, except those that are actively harmful.
 

Teufel

Active member
Citizen
Exchange of gunfire between Egyptian and Israeli forces at the Rafah border crossing leaves at least one Egyptian dead.

Link

A member of Egypt's security forces was killed in a shooting incident near the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip and an investigation is under way, Egypt's military spokesperson said in a statement on Monday.

Israel's military had earlier said it was investigating reports of an exchange of fire between Israeli and Egyptian soldiers.

"A few hours ago (Monday), a shooting incident occurred on the Egyptian border. The incident is under review and discussions are being held with the Egyptians," the Israeli military said in a statement.

Israel seized control of the Rafah border crossing from the Gaza side of the border earlier this month as it stepped up its military offensive in the area, drawing strong criticism from Egypt.
 

Thylacine 2000

Well-known member
Citizen
I'm sure Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza. It's basically impossible to have a war without them.

We have already explored here in some length how dishonest and unreliable the Federalist Society - I mean, Human Rights Watch is.
 

Spin-Out

i cant take it anymore im at my limit
Citizen
I'm sure Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza. It's basically impossible to have a war without them.

We have already explored here in some length how dishonest and unreliable the Federalist Society - I mean, Human Rights Watch is.
Stop calling it a war. It's a genocide.
 

Thylacine 2000

Well-known member
Citizen
He's not wrong about gaza though, this is israel getting away with attempted genocide.
So we quickly went from "genocide" to "attempted genocide." What will be next, "suggested genocide"? It is no such thing at all. It is killing a lot of people, which is horrible and may encompass other crimes and is not a synonym for genocide.

The Nuremberg Trials were pretty clear on this. Marching a death squad door-to-door to stab and torture 10,000 civilians to death is genocide. Flying your air force over that death squad's country and bombing so many military targets that you kill 20,000 civilians is not.

https://martinkramer.org/2023/10/26/nazi_case_for_hamas/

During trial testimony, the prosecutor pressed [Einsatzgruppen commander] Ohlendorf: “You were going out to shoot down defenseless people. Now, didn’t the question of the morality of that enter your mind?” Ohlendorf referred to the Allied bombings of Germany as a context:

I am not in a position to isolate this occurrence from the occurrences of 1943, 1944, and 1945 where with my own hands I took children and women out of the burning asphalt myself, and with my own hands I took big blocks of stone from the stomachs of pregnant women; and with my own eyes I saw 60,000 people die within 24 hours.
A judge immediately pointed out that his own killing spree preceded those bombings. But this would become known as the “Dresden defense,” to which Ohlendorf resorted still another time, in this exchange:

Ohlendorf: I have seen very many children killed in this war through air attacks, for the security of other nations, and orders were carried out to bomb, no matter whether many children were killed or not.
Q: Now, I think we are getting somewhere, Mr. Ohlendorf. You saw German children killed by Allied bombers and that is what you are referring to?
Ohlendorf: Yes, I have seen it.
Q: Do you attempt to draw a moral comparison between the bomber who drops bombs hoping that it will not kill children and yourself who shot children deliberately? Is that a fair moral comparison ?
Ohlendorf: I cannot imagine that those planes which systematically covered a city that was a fortified city, square meter for square meter, with incendiaries and explosive bombs and again with phosphorus bombs, and this done from block to block, and then as I have seen it in Dresden likewise the squares where the civilian population had fled to—that these men could possibly hope not to kill any civilian population, and no children.
Ohlendorf thought this defense so powerful that he invoked it yet another time:

The fact that individual men killed civilians face to face is looked upon as terrible and is pictured as specially gruesome because the order was clearly given to kill these people; but I cannot morally evaluate a deed any better, a deed which makes it possible, by pushing a button, to kill a much larger number of civilians, men, women, and children.
The chief prosecutor, an American, called this particular iteration “exactly what a fanatical pseudo-intellectual SS-man might well believe.”

At Nuremberg, this sort of tu quoque defense (“I shouldn’t be punished because they did it too”) wasn’t admissible. Still, in the verdict of the Einsatzgruppen Trial, the judges chose to refute it. “It was submitted,” the judges wrote, “that the defendants must be exonerated from the charge of killing civilian populations since every Allied nation brought about the death of noncombatants through the instrumentality of bombing.” The judges would have none of it:

A city is bombed for tactical purposes… it inevitably happens that nonmilitary persons are killed. This is an incident, a grave incident to be sure, but an unavoidable corollary of battle action. The civilians are not individualized. The bomb falls, it is aimed at the railroad yards, houses along the tracks are hit and many of their occupants killed. But that is entirely different, both in fact and in law, from an armed force marching up to these same railroad tracks, entering those houses abutting thereon, dragging out the men, women and children and shooting them.
The tribunal sentenced Ohlendorf to death. He was hanged in June 1951.
 
Last edited:

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
1.) it's attempted cause they haven't succeeded yet. It will be attempted when it's all finally over and israel is punished for their crimes.

2.) Israel is in fact conducting door to door sweeps. We don't really know more because of how much they're controlling access to gaza.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
 


Top Bottom