Israel strike in Gaza destroys building with AP, other media

[Belsnickel]

https://apnews.com/article/israel-west-bank-gaza-middle-east-israel-palestinian-conflict-7974cc0c03897b8b21e5fc2f8c7d8a79

This is a bad look, for sure.

Quote:GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) — An Israeli airstrike destroyed a high-rise building in Gaza City that housed offices of The Associated Press and other media outlets on Saturday, the latest step by the military to silence reporting from the territory amid its battle with the militant group Hamas.

The strike came nearly an hour after the military ordered people to evacuate the building, which also housed Al-Jazeera, other offices and residential apartments. The strike brought the entire 12-story building down, collapsing with a gigantic cloud of dust. There was no immediate explanation for why it was attacked.

The strike came hours after another Israeli air raid on a densely populated refugee camp in Gaza City killed at least 10 Palestinians from an extended family, mostly children, in the deadliest single strike of the current conflict. Both sides pressed for an advantage as cease-fire efforts gathered strength.

The latest outburst of violence began in Jerusalem and has spread across the region, with Jewish-Arab clashes and rioting in mixed cities of Israel. There were also widespread Palestinian protests Friday in the occupied West Bank, where Israeli forces shot and killed 11 people.

The spiraling violence has raised fears of a new Palestinian “intifada,” or uprising at a time when there have been no peace talks in years. Palestinians on Saturday were marking Nakba (Catastrophe) Day, when they commemorate the estimated 700,000 people who were expelled from or fled their homes in what was now Israel during the 1948 war surrounding its creation. That raised the possibility of even more unrest.

U.S. diplomat Hady Amr arrived Friday as part of Washington’s efforts to de-escalate the conflict, and the U.N. Security Council was set to meet Sunday. But Israel turned down an Egyptian proposal for a one-year truce that Hamas rulers had accepted, an Egyptian official said Friday on condition of anonymity to discuss the negotiations.

Since Monday night, Hamas has fired hundreds of rockets into Israel, which has pounded the Gaza Strip with strikes. In Gaza, at least 139 people have been killed, including 39 children and 22 women; in Israel, eight people have been killed, including the death Saturday of a man killed by a rocket that hit in Ramat Gan, a suburb of Tel Aviv.

The strike on the building housing media offices came in the afternoon, after the building’s owner received a call from the Israeli military warning that it would be hit. AP’s staff and others in the building evacuated immediately.

Al-Jazeera, the news network funded by Qatar’s government, broadcast the airstrikes live as the building collapsed.

“This channel will not be silence. Al-Jazeera will not be silenced,” an on-air anchorwoman said, her voice thick with emotion. “We can guarantee you that right now.”

Earlier Saturday, an airstrike hit a three-story house in Gaza City’s Shati refugee camp, killing eight children and two women from an extended family.

Mohammed Hadidi told reporters his wife and five children had gone to celebrate the Eid al-Fitr holiday with relatives. She and three of the children, aged 6 to 14, were killed, while an 11-year-old is missing. Only his 5-month-old son Omar is known to have survived.

Children’s toys and a Monopoly board game could be seen among the rubble, as well as plates of uneaten food from the holiday gathering.

“There was no warning,” said Jamal Al-Naji, a neighbor living in the same building. “You filmed people eating and then you bombed them?” he said, addressing Israel. “Why are you confronting us? Go and confront the strong people!”

The Israeli military did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Hamas said it fired a salvo of rockets at southern Israel in response to the airstrike.

A furious Israeli barrage early Friday killed a family of six in their house and sent thousands fleeing to U.N.-run shelters. The military said the operation involved 160 warplanes dropping some 80 tons of explosives over the course of 40 minutes and succeeded in destroying a vast tunnel network used by Hamas.

Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, a military spokesman, said the military aims to minimize collateral damage in striking military targets. But measures it takes in other strikes, such as warning shots to get civilians to leave, were not “feasible this time.”

Israeli media said the military believed dozens of militants were killed inside the tunnels. The Hamas and Islamic Jihad militant groups have confirmed 20 deaths in their ranks, but the military said the real number is far higher.

Gaza’s infrastructure, already in widespread disrepair because of an Israeli-Egyptian blockade imposed after Hamas seized power in 2007, showed signs of breaking down further, compounding residents’ misery. The territory’s sole power plant is at risk of running out of fuel in the coming days.

The U.N. said Gazans are already enduring daily power cuts of 8-12 hours and at least 230,000 have limited access to tap water. The impoverished and densely populated territory is home to 2 million Palestinians, most of them the descendants of refugees from what is now Israel.

The conflict has reverberated widely. Israeli cities with mixed Arab and Jewish populations have seen nightly violence, with mobs from each community fighting in the streets and trashing each other’s property.

Late on Friday, someone threw a firebomb at an Arab family’s home in the Ajami neighborhood of Tel Aviv, striking two children. A 12-year-old boy was in moderate condition with burns on his upper body and a 10-year-old girl was treated for a head injury, according to the Magen David Adom rescue service.

In the occupied West Bank, on the outskirts of Ramallah, Nablus and other towns and cities, hundreds of Palestinians protested the Gaza campaign and Israeli actions in Jerusalem. Waving Palestinian flags, they trucked in tires that they set up in burning barricades and hurled stones at Israeli soldiers. At least 10 protesters were shot and killed by soldiers. An 11th Palestinian was killed when he tried to stab a soldier at a military position.

In east Jerusalem, online video showed young Jewish nationalists firing pistols as they traded volleys of stones with Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah, which became a flashpoint for tensions over attempts by settlers to forcibly evict a number of Palestinian families from their homes.

On Israel’s northern border, troops opened fire when a group of Lebanese and Palestinian protesters on the other side cut through the border fence and briefly crossed. One Lebanese was killed. Three rockets were fired toward Israel from neighboring Syria without causing any casualties or damage. It was not immediately known who fired them.

The tensions began in east Jerusalem earlier this month, with Palestinian protests against the Sheikh Jarrah evictions and Israeli police measures at Al-Aqsa Mosque, a frequent flashpoint located on a mount in the Old City revered by Muslims and Jews.

Hamas fired rockets toward Jerusalem late Monday, in an apparent attempt to present itself as the champion of the protesters.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed that Hamas will “pay a very heavy price” for its rocket attacks as Israel has massed troops at the frontier. U.S. President Joe Biden has expressed support for Israel while saying he hopes to bring the violence under control.

Hamas has fired some 2,000 rockets toward Israel since Monday, according to the Israeli military. Most have been intercepted by anti-missile defenses, but they have brought life to a standstill in southern Israeli cities, caused disruptions at airports and have set off air raid sirens in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

[Au165]

America’s support for Israel should be questioned after such actions. Bombing the press is a war crime, and not something we should be aligned with. That is setting aside the apartheid we have essentially allowed to exist for so long without any repercussions.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Generally not a fan of Israel's foreign policies, but it's hard to automatically condemn them for something like this given Hamas and Hezbollah's deliberate tactics of setting up their military equipment in buildings containing civilians. As pointed out civilian casualties are a "bad look" and those terrorist organizations are more than happy to get some children killed to make Israel look bad.

[Belsnickel]

(05-15-2021, 01:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Generally not a fan of Israel's foreign policies, but it's hard to automatically condemn them for something like this given Hamas and Hezbollah's deliberate tactics of setting up their military equipment in buildings containing civilians. As pointed out civilian casualties are a "bad look" and those terrorist organizations are more than happy to get some children killed to make Israel look bad.

But bombing the press? That's highly problematic. Also, I get that terrorists tend to intermingle with the civilian population making it difficult to sort them out, but air raids on refugee camps are a bit hard to swallow.

[Dill]

(05-15-2021, 11:37 AM)Au165 Wrote: America’s support for Israel should be questioned after such actions. Bombing the press is a war crime, and not something we should be aligned with. That is setting aside the apartheid we have essentially allowed to exist for so long without any repercussions.

Agreed.  Just to add . . . 

Apartheid, while not a "war crime," is a crime against humanity and prosecutable under international law, according to the Rome Statues of the ICC.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/documents/rs-eng.pdf (Article 2. 2. f.)

And yes one could plausibly argue the U.S. is the number one reason prosecution does not go forward in this case. 

But the more U.S. citizens see the effects of Apartheid and the more they learn of the history of the conflict over Palestine,
the less likely they'll be to blame Palestinians for their own self-defense.  

Still the problem of Evangelicals, though. They aren't much interested in international law based on universal human rights. 
God gave that land to the Jews and they need it back for the Endtime.  The occupation of the West Bank looks illegal only
to people outside that Biblical frame of reference. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2021, 04:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But bombing the press? That's highly problematic. Also, I get that terrorists tend to intermingle with the civilian population making it difficult to sort them out, but air raids on refugee camps are a bit hard to swallow.

I don't disagree with any of this, but based on what I said previously I'm going to err on the side of waiting for more information before I condemn Israel.  If Hamas is firing rockets from a refugee camp then the refugee camp getting hit is on them, not Israel.  While it's possible, I doubt Israel targeted the press deliberately or the building itself for no reason.  And again, I'm not a huge Israel backer.

[treee]

I can agree with the simple premise that Israel has the right to defend themselves with the caveat that what they are doing to Palestinians is a lot more than defend themselves. Palestinians are not an existential threat to state of Israel but they pretend that they are so that they can wave away their severely poor treatment of innocent bystanders.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2021, 05:04 PM)Dill Wrote: Agreed.  Just to add . . . 

Apartheid, while not a "war crime," is a crime against humanity and prosecutable under international law, according to the Rome Statues of the ICC.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/documents/rs-eng.pdf  (Article 2. 2. f.)

And yes one could plausibly argue the U.S. is the number one reason prosecution does not go forward in this case. 

But the more U.S. citizens see the effects of Apartheid and the more they learn of the history of the conflict over Palestine,
the less likely they'll be to blame Palestinians for their own self-defense.  

Still the problem of Evangelicals, though. They aren't much interested in international law based on universal human rights. 
God gave that land to the Jews and they need it back for the Endtime.  The occupation of the West Bank looks illegal only
to people outside that Biblical frame of reference. 

You're heavily biased towards one side on this issue, so anyone reading this should be aware of that.  Also, if you want to start accusing entities of war crimes then Hamas and Hezbollah are guilty of an insane number of them as well.  But you probably don't care about that.  Don't hold your breath on the American people siding with Palestine, we've had our own run ins with Islamic terrorism.  But you do have Tlaib and Omar on your side, so you're in good company. 

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(05-15-2021, 07:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't disagree with any of this, but based on what I said previously I'm going to err on the side of waiting for more information before I condemn Israel.  If Hamas is firing rockets from a refugee camp then the refugee camp getting hit is on them, not Israel.  While it's possible, I doubt Israel targeted the press deliberately or the building itself for no reason.  And again, I'm not a huge Israel backer.

Was Israel not just bombed for like a week straight? I don’t really start threads but no one here mentioned it at all last week. But as soon as they retaliate suddenly there’s a thread

[*jason*]

(05-15-2021, 09:24 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Was Israel not just bombed for like a week straight? I don’t really start threads but no one here mentioned it at all last week. But as soon as they retaliate suddenly there’s a thread

Israel brings guns to knife fights... Hamas and Hezbollah are scum, but it's my understanding that this latest flare up started with Israel evicting Palestinians, and encroaching on their territory... Again.

[Dill]

(05-15-2021, 09:24 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Was Israel not just bombed for like a week straight? I don’t really start threads but no one here mentioned it at all last week. But as soon as they retaliate suddenly there’s a thread

(05-16-2021, 12:24 AM)jason Wrote: Israel brings guns to knife fights... Hamas and Hezbollah are scum, but it's my understanding that this latest flare up started with Israel evicting Palestinians, and encroaching on their territory... Again.

Yes. That's not big news in the U.S. until Palestinians start fighting back. 

Then we hear of Israel's "right to self defense" against the millions they've penned in the massive, open-air prison called "Gaza."

[Arturo Bandini]

Hamas, blah blah blah, they use kids as shied, blah blah blah.

Nethanyaou needed this to stay in power to avoid jail because he is a crook.

What a shame.

[Dill]

(05-15-2021, 07:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're heavily biased towards one side on this issue, so anyone reading this should be aware of that. 

You are an even-handed "centrist" when it comes to Middle East conflict, so anyone reading this should be aware of that.

You grant Israel, Palestine, Hamas and all a fair hearing, just as you do Dems and Repubs in this forum. We need that kind of balance in a country where Congress, the Executive and the press heavily favor Israel, and ideologues block attempts to level the informational playing field.

(05-15-2021, 07:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, if you want to start accusing entities of war crimes then Hamas and Hezbollah are guilty of an insane number of them as well.  But you probably don't care about that.  Don't hold your breath on the American people siding with Palestine, we've had our own run ins with Islamic terrorism.  But you do have Tlaib and Omar on your side, so you're in good company. 

Er, in a response to AU, who mentioned Israeli apartheid, I discussed the ICC's definition of "apartheid," in the context of the U.S. enabling support for the aforementioned Israeli version.

If Hamas and Hezbollah have violated the ICC statutes against Apartheid,
then I think we should stop enabling them as well and withdraw all military assistance immediately.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2021, 09:24 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Was Israel not just bombed for like a week straight? I don’t really start threads but no one here mentioned it at all last week. But as soon as they retaliate suddenly there’s a thread

It is curious, is it not?

(05-16-2021, 08:31 AM)Dill Wrote: You are an even-handed "centrist" when it comes to Middle East conflict, so anyone reading this should be aware of that.

You grant Israel, Palestine, Hamas and all a fair hearing, just as you do Dems and Repubs in this forum. We need that kind of balance in a country where Congress, the Executive and the press heavily favor Israel, and ideologues block attempts to level the informational playing field.

Oooo, your sarcasm gets me hot.  I do so love it when you try to be clever.

Quote:Er, in a response to AU, who mentioned Israeli apartheid, I discussed the ICC's definition of "apartheid," in the context of the U.S. enabling support for the aforementioned Israeli version.

If Hamas and Hezbollah have violated the ICC statutes against Apartheid,
then I think we should stop enabling them as well and withdraw all military assistance immediately.

Are Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organization?  I don't think there's a side in this conflict that's clean, you do.  One one side we have Israel, who took land they shouldn't have after a defensive war and continue to encroach on that territory.  On the other side we have groups, or there predecessors, who actively participated in a war of aggression to destroy the state of Israel and who have engaged in frequent terrorist attacks ever since.  You prefer the latter, which is certainly your right, just don't try and pretend the side you choose to support isn't chocked full of terrorists who actively and routinely use women and children as shields.

[Dill]

(05-16-2021, 02:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Are Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organization?  I don't think there's a side in this conflict that's clean, you do.  

Another unsupported statement. More to come? 

(05-16-2021, 02:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  One one side we have Israel, who took land they shouldn't have after a defensive war and continue to encroach on that territory.  On the other side we have groups, or there predecessors, who actively participated in a war of aggression to destroy the state of Israel and who have engaged in frequent terrorist attacks ever since.  You prefer the latter, which is certainly your right, just don't try and pretend the side you choose to support isn't chocked full of terrorists who actively and routinely use women and children as shields.

So "one side" engaged in a "defensive war" to take other people's land? 

And "on the other side," groups,or their predecessors, whose land was taken, tried to stop the steal with a "war of aggression" against the entity stealing their land? And "Frequent attacks ever since"? Sounds like some don't accept their dispossession.  "Terrorists" then.

Any bias in the distribution of agency here? 

(05-16-2021, 02:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  You prefer the latter, which is certainly your right, just don't try and pretend the side you choose to support isn't chocked full of terrorists who actively and routinely use women and children as shields.

Which is better documented, the Israeli Army's use of Palestinian women and children as shields or Hamas'?  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-16-2021, 03:28 PM)Dill Wrote: Another unsupported statement. More to come?

Oh, I'm sorry.  Did I misinterpret your apparent support for terrorist organizations?  Simple remedy, just condemn Hamas and Hezbollah in your response and clear the air.

Quote:So "one side" engaged in a "defensive war" to take other people's land? 

So deliberately obtuse.  When you are attacked by a coalition of neighbors who have publicly stated their goal is to "drive (you) into the sea" but you end up kicking their ass and expanding your borders to create a buffer zone that's a defensive war.  See, they were attacked and then defended themselves.  Now, I am on record, several times, as saying that Israel could have seized the moral high ground by not expanding their territory after the war, but they chose not to do so.  That doesn't change the fact that they were defending themselves from enemies who attacked them.

Quote:And "on the other side," groups,or their predecessors, whose land was taken, tried to stop the steal with a "war of aggression" against the entity stealing their land? And "Frequent attacks ever since"? Sounds like some don't accept their dispossession.  "Terrorists" then.

Again, are you now denying that Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organizations?  You take umbrage to being labeled a supporter of terrorist organizations, yet your posts do everything they can to support such an allegation.  Again, you can clear the air by condemning the terrorist organizations of Hamas and Hezbollah (and their Iranian backers as well, but is that a bit much to ask of you?).

Quote:Any bias in the distribution of agency here? 

On your part?  Absolutely.

Quote:Which is better documented, the Israeli Army's use of Palestinian women and children as shields or Hamas'?  

Oh, I don't know, you tell me, you're the pedantic answer man.  Or are you denying that Hamas routinely uses civilians as human shields?  Are you?

[Dill]

(05-16-2021, 06:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So deliberately obtuse.  When you are attacked by a coalition of neighbors who have publicly stated their goal is to "drive (you) into the sea" but you end up kicking their ass and expanding your borders to create a buffer zone that's a defensive war.  See, they were attacked and then defended themselves.  Now, I am on record, several times, as saying that Israel could have seized the moral high ground by not expanding their territory after the war, but they chose not to do so.  That doesn't change the fact that they were defending themselves from enemies who attacked them.

It's not a "defensive war" if you are defending territory you have seized from others who rightfully owned it, just as it's not "self defense" if you shoot a guy trying to stop you from hijacking his car. A bystander who intervenes on behalf of the owner is not committing "assault."

Your account of the '48 war begins AFTER the Israeli state has seized Palestinian territory belonging to the Arab majority, which territory Israel then "defended" against against the previous owners and an outnumbered coalition of states come to restore their land and rights.

In short, the account you are "on record" as defending has the same contours as the "official" Israeli account offered by their Ministry of Foreign Affairs. https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisrael/history/pages/history-%20the%20state%20of%20israel.aspx. 

No one is "obtuse" for rejecting the conqueror's version, which simply assumes its "right" to seize other people's land, in favor of a more comprehensive account of the conflict which incorporates victim perspectives and doesn't ignore or suppress historical facts which conflict with the aggressor's version of events. E.g., the "publicly stated goal" of the "Coalition of Neighbors" was to defend Palestinian life and property, not "drive you into the sea."
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cablegram_from_the_Secretary-General_of_the_League_of_Arab_States_to_the_Secretary-General_of_the_United_Nations

(05-16-2021, 06:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, I don't know, you tell me, you're the pedantic answer man.  Or are you denying that Hamas routinely uses civilians as human shields?  Are you?

LOL you've not been offering "answers"?  

I'm denying that the Israeli state, which controls press access to Gaza especially during conflict, is my primary source on the question of who is using Palestinian civilians as human shields. IDF allegations that Hamas does is SOP during highly publicized conflicts, for which the Israeli state provides "evidence" for journalists. That's called the "war of perception" in which Israel's control of virtually all media in the conflict region gives it a first-strike propaganda advantage. 

And I am saying that there is, at moment, better evidence that the IDF has used Palestinian civilians as human shields. 

Staring with B' TSelem https://www.btselem.org/human_shields.  They apparently compiled enough evidence to compel an Israeli court ruling against the practice in 2005. 

Defense for Children International has also compiled a record of such abuse, but only relating to children and since 2005.
 https://www.dci-palestine.org/palestinian_children_being_used_as_human_shields

As far as Hamas goes, you might find this article from 2014 a useful primer on the difficulty of determining who is doing what in a conflict zone.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/23/world/meast/human-shields-mideast-controversy.  Israel's control of the press and its own in-your-face propaganda efforts undermine its own credibility over the long term--at least for those who don't simple accept their version of events at face value. 

For so many Americans, there is no other version of the Gaza conflict than Israel's. Efforts to question that version or offer conflicting accounts are immediately dismissed as anti-Semitism and support for "terrorism," and "bias." Keep the conversation about that, not human rights, international law, and the historical record. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-17-2021, 09:23 AM)Dill Wrote: It's not a "defensive war" if you are defending territory you have seized from others who rightfully owned it, just as it's not "self defense" if you shoot a guy trying to stop you from hijacking his car. A bystander who intervenes on behalf of the owner is not committing "assault."

Your account of the '48 war begins AFTER the Israeli state has seized Palestinian territory belonging to the Arab majority, which territory Israel then "defended" against against the previous owners and an outnumbered coalition of states come to restore their land and rights.

In short, the account you are "on record" as defending has the same contours as the "official" Israeli account offered by their Ministry of Foreign Affairs. https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisrael/history/pages/history-%20the%20state%20of%20israel.aspx. 

No one is "obtuse" for rejecting the conqueror's version, which simply assumes its "right" to seize other people's land, in favor of a more comprehensive account of the conflict which incorporates victim perspectives and doesn't ignore or suppress historical facts which conflict with the aggressor's version of events. E.g., the  "publicly stated goal" of the "Coalition of Neighbors" was to defend Palestinian life and property, not "drive you into the sea."
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cablegram_from_the_Secretary-General_of_the_League_of_Arab_States_to_the_Secretary-General_of_the_United_Nations


LOL you've not been offering "answers"?  

I'm denying that the Israeli state, which controls press access to Gaza especially during conflict, is my primary source on the question of who is using Palestinian civilians as human shields. IDF allegations that Hamas does is SOP during highly publicized conflicts, for which the Israeli state provides "evidence" for journalists. That's called the "war of perception" in which Israel's control of virtually all media in the conflict region gives it a first-strike propaganda advantage. 

And I am saying that there is, at moment, better evidence that the IDF has used Palestinian civilians as human shields. 

Staring with B' TSelem https://www.btselem.org/human_shields.  They apparently compiled enough evidence to compel an Israeli court ruling against the practice in 2005. 

Defense for Children International has also compiled a record of such abuse, but only relating to children and since 2005.
 https://www.dci-palestine.org/palestinian_children_being_used_as_human_shields

As far as Hamas goes, you might find this article from 2014 a useful primer on the difficulty of determining who is doing what in a conflict zone.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/23/world/meast/human-shields-mideast-controversy.  Israel's control of the press and its own in-your-face propaganda efforts undermine its own credibility over the long term--at least for those who don't simple accept their version of events at face value. 

For so many Americans, there is no other version of the Gaza conflict than Israel's. Efforts to question that version or offer conflicting accounts are immediately dismissed as anti-Semitism and support for "terrorism," and "bias." Keep the conversation about that, not human rights, international law, and the historical record. 

Try being a man for once in your life and actually respond to the whole post.  Since you're dodging the question I'll reiterate until you grow a pair and actually answer.  Do you condemn Hamas and Hezbollah (and their Iranian backers) as terrorist organizations?  Don't try any of your pedantic bullshit, just answer a direct question.

[Dill]

(05-17-2021, 10:28 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Try being a man for once in your life and actually respond to the whole post.  Since you're dodging the question I'll reiterate until you grow a pair and actually answer.  Do you condemn Hamas and Hezbollah (and their Iranian backers) as terrorist organizations?  Don't try any of your pedantic bullshit, just answer a direct question.

Careful.

You don't want to accumulate a list of accusations--like I'm "heavily biased towards one side," and obfuscating, "dodging the question," and not responding to "whole" posts--which will inevitably fall back on you.  

And I would also suggest that "manliness" is not a proper standard for rational discussion of politics and religion. In this case it is just a way of framing issues in black and white terms and favoring simplistic, unsupported assertions. The incentive then is for real men, who have grown a pair, to jump to conclusions and to defend them by other than rational means (e.g., ad hominem), reducing historical facts and legal principles to so much "pedantic bullshit." Discussion becomes argument and argument becomes about ego, not the issue under discussion.

Rather I suggest that the "pedantic bullshit" approach is preferable, as it sets discussion on a defensible historical and legal basis and values logical consistency. 

Now to the single question you've decided has to be answered: I haven't yet decided whether Hezbollah and Hamas are "terrorist organizations," for two reasons:

1. I am aware of no definition which, if held consistently, would not include Israel. Current definitions and applications are "heavily biased in favor of one side"--the side that took the "terrorists'" land. 

2.  And I take seriously the armed national liberation exemption in the 1998 Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism: 
"All cases of struggle by whatever means, including armed struggle, against foreign occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination, in accordance with the principles of international law, shall not be regarded as an offence." 
https://www.unodc.org/images/tldb-f/conv_arab_terrorism.en.pdf

I'd like to review possible objections to that before settling down on one side or another, as opposed to simply accepting definitions of Israel, the U.S. State Department, and the EU. 

In any case, the question of terrorism is closely linked to the point made in my last "whole post" which you have not addressed--namely that Israel took by force the lives and property of Palestinian Arabs in order to have that territory you claim they were merely "defending," and only then took a little more to create a buffer. I'll add that they sought to frighten the Arab populations from those lands by, among other things, village massacres. One must be "heavily biased towards one side"--that of the Israelis--to see such an appropriation and ethnic cleansing, carried about by people most of whom had just arrived in Palestine, as "a defensive war." 

Now they hold millions hostage in Gaza, some of whom respond much the same way many Americans would--as "real men" with guns. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-17-2021, 02:39 PM)Dill Wrote: Careful.

You don't want to accumulate a list of accusations--like I'm "heavily biased towards one side," and obfuscating, "dodging the question," and not responding to "whole" posts--which will inevitably fall back on you.  

And I would also suggest that "manliness" is not a proper standard for rational discussion of politics and religion. In this case it is just a way of framing issues in black and white terms and favoring simplistic, unsupported assertions. The incentive then is for real men, who have grown a pair, to jump to conclusions and to defend them by other than rational means (e.g., ad hominem), reducing historical facts and legal principles to so much "pedantic bullshit." Discussion becomes argument and argument becomes about ego, not the issue under discussion.

Rather I suggest that the "pedantic bullshit" approach is preferable, as it sets discussion on a defensible historical and legal basis and values logical consistency. 

Now to the single question you've decided has to be answered: I haven't yet decided whether Hezbollah and Hamas are "terrorist organizations," for two reasons:

1. I am aware of no definition which, if held consistently, would not include Israel. Current definitions and applications are "heavily biased in favor of one side"--the side that took the "terrorists'" land. 

2.  And I take seriously the armed national liberation exemption in the 1998 Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism: 
"All cases of struggle by whatever means, including armed struggle, against foreign occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination, in accordance with the principles of international law, shall not be regarded as an offence." 
https://www.unodc.org/images/tldb-f/conv_arab_terrorism.en.pdf

I'd like to review possible objections to that before settling down on one side or another, as opposed to simply accepting definitions of Israel, the U.S. State Department, and the EU. 

In any case, the question of terrorism is closely linked to the point made in my last "whole post" which you have not addressed--namely that Israel took by force the lives and property of Palestinian Arabs in order to have that territory you claim they were merely "defending," and only then took a little more to create a buffer. I'll add that they sought to frighten the Arab populations from those lands by, among other things, village massacres. One must be "heavily biased towards one side"--that of the Israelis--to see such an appropriation and ethnic cleansing, carried about by people most of whom had just arrived in Palestine, as "a defensive war." 

Now they hold millions hostage in Gaza, some of whom respond much the same way many Americans would--as "real men" with guns. 

That's a long way of saying no.  Thank you, for at least giving us a clear picture of where you stand on this issue.  Both Hamas and Hezbollah are clearly terrorist organization and frequently engage in acts of terror.  As I find terrorism highly offensive, and those who refuse to condemn it equally offensive, I will leave you to your false equivalencies and defense of the indefensible.  Thank you.