That might change as Europe continues to drift towards right wing populism. You know things are taking a turn towards the worst when even in Portugal they are consistently growing.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
That might change as Europe continues to drift towards right wing populism. You know things are taking a turn towards the worst when even in Portugal they are consistently growing.
It is horrible. Sufferings of other people. Stories told by people, children, etc, who have had horrible experiences, are heartbreaking. Will bring tears to your eyes. It is important to know what happens in a war. In Gaza and to the Palestinians. The cost of this war and the suffering it brings will be too much, as in all wars.
But, to judge who is in the “right”, intentions matter. What you do in the now will inform everyone watching on what you will likely do in the future. Hamas has shown, and told us, what their intentions are. They don’t care about life. Their own, their people, and least of all the Israelis. They want to kill as many Israelis as they can. They will do October 7, again, and again, and again, till there are no more Israel. This is their expressed intention, backed up by action and by using their own children as human shields.
Israel, for all its faults, do not seek to destroy the Palestinians. They do more than anyone before them in war, to spare the lives of noncombatants. Their intentions are clear. They seek to defend themselves against Hamas and other entities who try to kill them. If Hamas stopped, laid down their arms, there would be peace. If Israel did the same, there would be a bloodbath.
Horrible things will happen in a war. Hopefully those who have committed crimes will be held accountable in the end.
Absolute garbage. Just plain wrong all around.
Don’t feed the troll.
Stop replying to this guy, he is the same in any thread related to Muslims.
Mate you can't truly believe that. I probably more than anyone on here supported their right to retaliate post October 7th but this has now gone well beyond any attempts to remove Hamas. They know they can't do that so they want to turn the whole place into a wasteland.
Europe is taking a hard turn to the far-right with the muslims being the main target.
They don't need religious fundamentalism, 9/11 and the terrorist attacks on european soil radically changed the game. Aside from guilt tripping and cultural affinities, Europe also views the support for Israel through the War on Terror lense. To make it worse, in many right-wing and far-right discourses, islamo-leftism has replaced what was once called judeo-bolchevism, as the root of all evil. European far-right parties with notorious anti-semites among them ostensibly display their support for Israel for very obvious reasons and they're welcomed.
I personally think that the most disastrous consequence of the Trump election in 2016 is that it worldwide broke the last shackles of the far-right and completely normalized (ultra-)nationalist, racist and extremist discourses. The seeds were already there of course, but the so-called champion of freedom and democracy electing that racist lunatic (and might do it again) basically anointed every far-right movement in the world and gave them a fair shot at the highest positions in a government.
In my opinion, a second Trump mandate will not only be the ruin of the US, but also all western democracies. I still utterly despise his alternative and do not believe the charade about Biden's hands being tied about Gaza, that ship has sailed long ago. Joe Biden is a true of believer of Zionism, stuck in a vision of the world that is completely obsolete, which will bring its own share of problems with the other major players if/when he's re-elected.
Last edited:
Yep, I agree with pretty much all of this. The support for Israel is just thinly veiled Islamophobia in many cases.
It's up to all of us to reject far-right rhetoric and politicians in any way we can. Unfortunately they often have the upper hand, because they are generally linked to right-wing economic policies as well and these are very well funded. The right wing has been very successful in shifting focus from valid concerns about modern capitalism, the wealth gap, etc. to concerns about immigration. And sadly people often prefer a scapegoat that looks a bit different and doesn't speak the language, even though they should be on the same team from a class perspective.
What planet did you just arrive from? The bolded is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read in this thread
You could swear that we aren't talking about an army that has had a widespread use of antipersonnel landmines or not known for the use of white phospherous. Or that didn't bomb entire neighborhoods.
You may not realise it, but in the second paragraph you've also perfectly described Israel, not just since October 7th, but also since 1948.
I also noticed you've regurgitated the nonsense about how there'd be peace if Hamas dropped their arms. Explain to me the West Bank situation then where Hamas have zero presence. Is it because of Hamas that Israel have sponsored the murder, land grabs and subjugation of Palestinians there?
Last edited:
Internationally, the US had been the biggest source of evil since WWII. If they would not police the world some other country would do worse? Maybe. We will never know. But reality is no one bombed more, caused more destruction, misery, direct and indirect deaths and didn't allow many countries to develope and to choose their democratic path. As you said, Israel is just another one that is being broadcast and people can't believe that this is happening.
"Famine is worsening in the north".
I pretty much agree with everything you and most others have said here - but there is one point of contention and that is white phospherous.
What is the issue with it? All militaries use it, it's part of standard practice, we train soldiers to attack through it or to retreat into it. Many armored vehicles have their own ejection of white phospherous systems.
It's a war crime to use it against civilians.
Nothing is black and white. There's a lot of grey and nuance in between. Based off what we do know aout Hamas, I agree they need to be removed. Israel can not be expected to tolerate Hamas. Then the question is what to do and how. Hamas strategy is what it is, see my previous posts on what I think about them and how they use the population as human shields. What is happening now, is what Hamas want. They may even have expected and hoped for worse. But because Israel actually cares about not killing civilians and activly aims to minimize civilian casualties, the death toll is not worse than what it is. Could they do better? Sure..
This is nonsense, like many other of the replies I won't bother with
It is a crime to use white phosphorus in densely populated areas.
You can use it for illumination and smoke screens but it can't be used directly against civilians.
This is not true.
There is no provision against White Phosphorus' usage against civilians.
There are provisions against "Incendiary weapons" against civilians, which certain kind of WP munitions fall under, but those specific munitions have not been in production for decades now, as better incendiary weapons have been developed.
https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/incendiary-weapons
There was a specific exemption for White Phosphorus munitions in the modern context that it does not classify itself as an incendiary weapon.
That is not true, please read the citation i've provided above.
You cannot use WP Incendiaries against civilians.
There was a specific provision made to exclude WP weapons that have a secondary use of incendiary properties but have a primary function of something else.
Also even if it was legal, it goes against the idea that IDF does everything to protect civilians. That's literally the opposite.
Yes, everything you say there I agree with.
But the provision was specifically made that discounted practically any modern shell/dumb bomb that contained WP as an "Incendiary weapon".
The argument was made after some incidents during the GWOT where US soldiers used 155mm WP shells that ended up burning civilians. The argument was put forward that these munitions were not "Incendiary" (smoke shells, in essence) and therefore they should be exempt from any ruling.
Munitions with a primary role that has a side effect of "Incendiary" are all exempt as non-incendiary weaponry, as seen in the citation above.
The relevant agencies agreed in the UN and therefore a provision was added to accomodate for this.
Whether or not WP has a primary function as something else doesn't matter, WP by default is an incendiary material.
Perhaps it's like sugar and pasta for Palestinians, primary usage is as a food stuff but secondary usage could be as a combustible for rockets....
I mean yes, i totally agree with you, like I said.
I'm just trying to make sure that narratives stick to pure facts lest they be used against for ulterior agendas
I'm speaking explicitly about legality terms here.
There is a specific accomodation in the Geneva convention that clarifies what counts as an incendiary munition and what does not. Weapons that have a primary purpose and are also incendiary, do not classify as an incendiary weapon.
Sorry if this is sidepicking a little bit, it's just I've had this conversation on repeat with people in every conflict where it's caught on camera that white smoke is rising above a civilian building from every side of the argument.
What ends up happening is some RussiaBot pops along and tries to claim Ukraine is conducting war crimes against its own people etc.
Right, you've quoted my response as 'nonsense' instead of responding to my points in good faith. Think you've outed yourself as not wanting to debate sincerely and looking to derail and troll this thread.
@AfonsoAlves is correct on the technicalities regarding white phosphorus. It is not banned per se, and it is not considered an incendiary weapon for the purposes of Article 2 (the prohibition against using air-delivered incendiary weapons in a civilian center).
That being said, Israel's attacks on Gaza are almost de facto attacks on a civilian population in general, and part of a war of collective punishment, etc, so Israel's use of WP in their current genocidal campaign are likely illegal under international law for those reasons. They are not illegal specifically and solely because WP is being used.
That being said, Israel's attacks on Gaza are almost de facto attacks on a civilian population in general, and part of a war of collective punishment, etc, so Israel's use of WP in their current genocidal campaign are likely illegal under international law for those reasons. They are not illegal specifically and solely because WP is being used.
I mean yes, i totally agree with you, like I said.
I'm just trying to make sure that narratives stick to pure facts lest they be used against for ulterior agendas
That's not what you were trying to do.
with all due respect I really think he should be left to bleat into the wind at this point. There's no sense speaking with someone who has no interest in good faith discussion.
The point wasn't strictly about the recent war but the general use by IDF. They absolutely use it against civilians and try circumvent international law and it's not a new thing.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2009/03/25/rain-fire/israels-unlawful-use-white-phosphorus-gaza
amnesty is wrong
I’ve cited the actual Geneva convention wording
the third link is correct
To be fair i wouldn’t put it past the IDF to actually be using 1970s WP incendiary munitions.
it makes no logical sense, they’re more expensive, less effective and hard to maintain.
it just seems very petty for them if they did and would be only be done as a feck you middle finger to the world.
On the flip side that describes the idf quite succinctly so who knows
it makes no logical sense, they’re more expensive, less effective and hard to maintain.
it just seems very petty for them if they did and would be only be done as a feck you middle finger to the world.
On the flip side that describes the idf quite succinctly so who knows
read the bit underneath it which discusses what doesn’t count as incendiary
We are entirely in agreement - my only point is that, as far as I can tell, the use of WP even in a civilian centre is not in and of itself a violation of international law.
We can talk about why Western countries wanted an exception like this in the law, but for the moment it does exist.
Attacks on citizens, disproportionate harm to civilians in pursuit of military objectives, and a hundred other things that Israel has done on a near daily basis for the entirety of my lifetime are all violations of international law, so Israel's use of WP is likely illegal for several reasons. The manner of use is of significantly more interest to international law than the properties of the thing used, and Israel's manner of use is quite blatantly aimed at creating suffering and death among a civilian population.
I should add that IDF has also been known for using cluster munitions around 2008-2009.
- munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracer, smoke or signalling systems;
- munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons but to be used against military objectives such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities (e.g., anti-tank missiles)