Attention Israel apologists/disinfo freaks!

[leftofthedial]

Is there any act extreme enough that if Israel committed it, you would criticize them? If so, what is it?

Is Israel justified in killing anyone they choose?

[BillZBubb]

1. How long will this thread last?

[stepnw1f]

2. Nah... Just as Extreme and Biggoted as Hezbollah

"Kill em all!!!!"

[Swamp Rat]

10. Sounds like Falwell

[stepnw1f]

12. Yes and of Course those Christo-Fascists

are cheerleading the destruction of both the Jews and Muslims. But not a peep about the Christians in Lebanon? Hmmmmmm....

[Dhalgren]

3. That's not an outrageous question.

I have asked it before. Is the Israeli government capable of making errors or mistakes or of doing wrong? If so, what would be an example?

[Igel]

20. Numerous cases.

They've struck more than one van with civilians and non-combatants, for instance. Striking the UN bunker.

I assume this was in error, and it was certainly a mistake. I have seen, and argued, that many strikes called 'war crimes' may well have been nothing of the kind. This is not to say that they weren't; just that the evidence to justify the claim is in short supply, and a plausible non-war-crimes explanation for the strike exists.

What seems to be wanted is a kind of essentialist moral condemnation of Israel, an assumption of guilt unless evidence of innocence is sufficient beyond any (reasonable?) doubt, and to have others make the assumption that anything that can be considered an error was intentional. Now, this may be exaggerating wrt this thread, but the tenor seems to be true.

[Master Mahon]

4. There is only one person capable of answering that question.

THE DECIDER !!! :+

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TahitiNut]

6. (wow) Seems your monitor has a very reflective surface.

You'd cheer the killing of a DUer? I'd say that's pretty hateful. :eyes:

[malaise]

16. Pretty hateful is a

euphemism. Damn!

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mandate My Ass]

8. Question everything

but Israel. Evidently that was in the fine print somewhere.

[question everything]

9. Not a fellow, and I doubt it is a DUer. Probably a virus

that penetrated this forum

[Mandate My Ass]

11. something infected is definitely here

just not the OP.

[Lars39]

17. You do realize that saying things like that hinders empathy, right?

[Wonk]

13. IBTL

:popcorn:

[Lars39]

19. puzzled...

what's that mean, Wonk? I've seen it here before, but can't figure it out. :hi:

[cracksquirrel]

14. Really now...

What is the purpose of these threads? There have been dozens of them springing up every week. Is the idea to drum out anyone who doesn't agree with you on Israel, and to drive them out of the party with jeers and taunts? No new information is really presented, and there's never any nuance or room for negoation and understanding when the OP sounds like the unshaved, placard porting guy on the streetcorner in Berkeley with a megaphone rambling about the Lizard Men from the Center of the Earth.
Give it a rest, have some alkaseltzer, take some deep breaths. You'll feel better, and that rare rush of oxygen to the brain might do you some good.

[Igel]

15. Knowing that they targeted civilians,

knowing they were civilians.

My standards for Israel are far below perfection, and I believe that intent matters in choosing targets in war just as much as it does in a court of law.

The difference between the two different POVs widely debated here is in the basic assumptions: Do you require explicit justification for every strike, including those that look more than dubious, or do you assume in the absence of information that a strike is a war crime that the IDF would not to knowingly target innocents? That is, what do we assume in the absence of sufficient information, and when is information sufficient?

Additional differences are the degree of certainty needed before a target is declared military, and the willingness to accept civilian deaths that are incidental or accidental.

I've seen incidents that are distressing, and which I'm more than willing to criticize the IDF for: they were sloppy, or possibly should have tried a different means. But that doesn't rise to the level of 'war crime'; I require more evidence.

[PCIntern]

18. Yes...

if they prevented you from asking a monstrously ridiculous question like this. This is a 'have you stopped beating your wife' question.

That would be censorship...you should be able to make a fool out of yourself without government sanctions.

Since I'm Jewish - I'll answer a question with a question: Is there anything that someone who respects the right of Israel to live in peace, something which she has not doen since the day of her inception in 1948, can say that will placate those who feel that she is 'illegitimate'?

Here's another question for 100 points and a shot from our Mystery Gunner: Suppose all the Jews in Israel went POOF! and appeared somewhere where they'd be accepted in toto...say Madagascar or Pluto. What do you think the people remaining would do there? Do you think they'd create a society which would rival that of the Israeli's now, or do you think that in short order it would resemble Gaza? For extra credit, how long would it be before all of these folks would show up in Madagascar or Pluto, say that it is the birthplace of their people and they want it back?

[pinto]

21. Locked.

Flamebait, pure and simple.