Jerry_Atrick

Yeah - I have to restart drinking... 😉

I will keep it short this time. I don't ignore the daily reports - I know that the media has to sell and there is nothing like sensationalism nor whipping up hatred that sells. We seem to accept that on the reporting of the local issues with Muslim population, but accept blindly what is reported about Israel. So, I try and look behind the reports amd find the context. Even the "killing a country's civilians until the terrorists are disarmed" is very simplistic and ignores many other things, IMHO. I didn't say criticisng Israel's invasion was anti-semetic. I would ask you read what I wrote again. I said a lot of people hide behind criticising Zionism as being anti-semetic (or holding Israel to a different/higher standard than others is anto-semetic). They are two very different things. If you can tell me why actos of other countries you mention or those that were far worse (I provided the numbers) don't generate the same backlash as Israel (not on these fora, but more across the population) who that is not anti-semitc, I am happy to be wrong.

Now you fellas have got me on a rant 🙂 Not because I am some blind supporter of Israel - I hope the post above where I agree, there probably has been part motiviation to punish and agree that israel should be accountable to that extent. But. let's go. OK.. what war has not seen civilian casualties - especially where military assets being targeted are purposely hidden behind civilians? I'll get to proprotionality later. I absolutely agree that any government should be criticsied and held accountable for war crimes. What I am not seeing is anywhere near the eleve of criticism heing directed to other regimes for the same thing and worse. Stats given in other threads. Nor the level of criticism for Hamas inviting and wanting this conflict to kill their own civilians. Yet, everyone seems willing for the free pass to Hamas, or the Iranian government, or teh then Syrian giovernment, Saudi, Afghans, Oman, Libya, etc. Only appears to be the Israeli government that gets the criticism for far less. It doesn't excuse the justified criticism, but isf Israel does something, it is as if almost whetever that was done to provoke them into it is not even taken into account. DO you havbe inside information of why a normal enemy's intelligence was a) provided; b) the accuracy of that intelligence, and c) why Israel decided to ignore it. Are you insinuiating it was willing to let 1500 people die so it could invade Gaza and colonise it. I see no evidence there is a plan to colonise it even now (Chump;s plan doesn't give Israel control of Gaza). Before October 7, there were no attacks or plans for attack; Israel privided Gazans work in Israel, medical services to Gazans not available in Gaza, etc. All while Hamas was attacking it.. That doesn't sopund like a regime that wants to take it over by force. The question of proportionality is an interesting one. If you are saying is the cost of 70,000 lives a propritionate response to the loss of 1,500 lives? Clearly not. But is that the measure for proprotionality? Or is the pursuit of destruction of military capability poropritionalte to the ongoing attacks that well preceded October 7 and those that would continue after this war? Well, that is a different question? Of course, the cost of civilians lives has to be taken into account relative to the objective and imprtantly the ongoing threat to life. But why should Israel live under constant threat by those not willing to negotiate nor seek peace and have to constantly disproprtionately invest in defences to protect their people ? And should Hamas not be held at least equally, if not more responsible for the deaths of their civilians in a war they perpetrated and which they use their civilians as defences? Do I think the nuetralisaton of Hamas military capability is proprotionate? Yes, I do. Do I think it should be pursued at all costs? As a non-Israeli and not under the threats they live in, no I don't, but in the absence of anything coming to the peace table, I understand why those who live under threat may have a different opinion. I don't think it was all about that. Israel is more of a democracy than most; not the highest in the world, but top quartile or third by this index: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu And, so I would expect that while that is certainly part of his motivation, if that was all of it, but didn't accord with the rest of his government, it wouldn't be happening. I'm really sorry; these two situations are so far apart, it isn't comparing apples with oranges, but IMHO, apples with the moon. You are comparing a lone murderer who commits an act of terrorism on his own behalf or the behalf of some obtuse and random right wing nut job group, whee there is no state sponsored terrorism and there is no historical or continuous threat that Australia itself is not actively working to thwart to the response of an attack from a coordinated government and military of a region, that is part of a wider regional state backed military with the sole intention of not only eradicating your country (NZ in this case) but the total genocide of your people (that Hamas, Hezboll, Houtis and Iranian regine have openly stated many times and is part of their documented charter - as close to a constitution as they can be), where they, and their predecessors, often with other states involvement have consistently attacked, killed, and threatened you and will continue to do so unabated given the first opportunity. Well, if Australia, or an Australian backed milita did that to NZ and of course, that milita or Australias defence assets were hidden under Australian hospitals, schools, and other civilian areas, would I be surprised if NZ attacked after this milita broke though NZ's defences and many Aussies civilians were killed as a result? Probably not; and I would siggest there would be few who would be surprised nor think it was unfair. Another Pauline moment - can you please explain to me a) the similarity of your analogy to Hamas and b) how you're not holding Israel to a totally different standard to others?

From the fountain of truth - youtube - there are many Israelis calling for Netanyau to go now the war is "over". They see some big failings. Maybe he wants to take Gaza because he and the country are sick of the constant attacls for years - not just one day - we can only speculate. I am going to do a Pauline. Can you please explain how Israel is expansionist?

To be honest, I think it is throughout the western world.

I don't disagree that Netanyahu would want to see the end of the Palestinians. After the October 7 attacks, I would suspect a growing number of the Israeli population are aligning more that way as well. And yes, I am sure that the relentless attacks that have taken place have been part motivated by a desire for retribution and growing hate of the Palestinians in Gaza (and probably Ramallah). But that is what a lot of wars are borne from. But, I would also contend that growing hate is as a result of the relentless attacks on them, and no desire to seek peace (Hamas, and others - not necessarily the Palestinian people themselves not wanting to seek peace). I think part of it is motivated by a desire by Netanyau to stay in power as he was increasingly unpopular again and was facing corruption charges. But, I think in part. And while Netanyau is the boss, it is stilla democracy and he does not ruule alone. Of course, he does have his share of right wingers that are keeping him in power and I think he is doing some of their bidding. But there are moderates, too. But also, remember, Hamas, Hezoboilla, & Co. have been attacking Israel on a daily basis. Mainly through rockets, which, due to the investment by Israel in protecting its citizens, rarely gets past their iron dome or whatever it is called. There are foiled terrorist.ground attacks on a too regular basis, and October 7, which on a military planning and execution scale seemed a rag-a-muffin scale, got through. And I think atonement for that embarressment (sp?) is also a motivator for retribution and if not targetting civilians, at least even being less concerned about their plight. But, having been proven the might of the Israeli military is not 100% able to guarantee the safetly of a large number of its civilians, and I am only speculating, the prime motivation is not a relentless attack on their civilians, but a relenteless pursuit to completely dismantle Hamas military capability regardless of the Palestinian civilian cost. It would make sense that they would go to destroy the capability, as it would be impossible to kill all Hamas combatants and not have people take their place or create a new militia. But if you destroy their military assets and capability, your threat - at least fore many years - is greatly reduced. The question is whether that disregard for civilian life is justified, even when the action is legal, is a moral one and not a legal one. And I think the answer will depend on the morals of people, but also the nuances around what is happening. As I mentioned, it makes sense to destory the military capability and not even Hamas, nor the doctors in hospitals under which Hamas has built its assets (as one example) deny that these assets exists in strategically civiliant areas. I think it was more a relentless pusuit of Hamas' military assets regardless of the cost. There are a couple of reasons. First, as I have mentioned, Israel warn civilians. This is a minimum 10 minute warning but they have given much longer warnings when they were going to obliterate whole areas. It may only be a token gesture to give some semblance of not targeting citizens - that is a judgement we have to make for ourselves. Secondly, Gaza is not big and the Hamas milttary assets were spread out underground. It is pretty had to attack all their military assets without creating the amount of damage that they have done to Gazan property. Again, you could assert they were targetting civilians/their property and I think there may be some truth in it. But I think their prime motivator was to destroy Hamas military assets, and the by-product is what we see - which plays into Hamas narrative. That is my opinion, but why else would you hide behind your civilian assets? Thirdly, Netanyahi has said from very early on.. they will end the war immediately on the two conditions of returning the hostages and Hamas disarm. The former is out of religious beliefs with respect to returning the dead to god in a timely manner - a belief which is shared by Muslims. The second seems pretty obvious to me, and would not entirely achieve wha I think is one of the aims - destruction of the military capability - so maybe my assumpotion is wrong. But no one in the international community tried to assert the same type of pressure on Hamas to accede and at least call Netanyahi#ss bluff. Instead, they called on a ceasfire, which really meant for Israel to stop. The logistics of disarming are nto easy, I get it, but thinking about it, the international community could have proposed a solutiuon that probably would have worked,. A UN backed peacekeeiping force overseeing the dismantlement of Hamas and guaranteeing protection of the Palestinian territory (along with the return of the bodies). Hamas would have to guarantee they would disarm and show signs of it before the peacekeeping force entered; and of course, Israel would have to back away from Gaza and accept the UN would enforce any violations from either side. Naturally, the devil is in the detail, but I am sure there could have been a compromise - on the basis Hamas was willing to stop attacking Israel.. which I am not so sure of. But because such an attempt was not made, we will never know - at least until next time. But the international community were just calling on a ceasefire which ultimately meant Israel stopping. Maybe a call for a circuit breaker would have been more appropriate - but again, there would need to be an enforcement mechanism. So, yes, I agree, Israel has not cared about the Palesinian civilians and there was some malice, if not motivation towards Palestinian civilians. But, I agree with both Biden and Chump - a ceasfire without any conditions on Hamas would have been handing Hamas a victory for terrorism. But, I don't beleive Hamas and its predecessor, the PLO has the Palestinian civilians interests at heart - this to me looks like a religious war, not territorial. The poor Palestinian civilians are pawns in this. In terms of genocidal intent, Hamas has made clear its intent. Israel's actions outside of this war would suggest anything other and I am not convinced, although I understand why others would think, there is a bordeline genocide in this war. Note, the International Criminal Court, which is frequently cited as wanting Netanyau on charges of genocide, want him for crimes against humanity and targeting civilians, but not genocide, which is a very different criminal charge: https://www.icc-cpi.int/defendant/netanyahu

Even if it were true, by that definition most of the middle eastern states are engaged in some form of terrorism. Haven't heard anyone call Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc a terrorsist state yet? Or is Israel held to a higher standard than anyone else? In other words (and this is not to yourself in particular, Nev), even if Israel did do everyting they are alleged to have done, they receive a lot of venom when there are others that do much much worse, and nary raise an eyebrow. I call it anti-semitism.. You can hide behind "I am criticising a Zionist government", but even that is anti-semetism.. Because since when is the belief in a Jewish state a problem when there are numerous Christian, Muslim, Hindi, etc states. Maybe people should have to live - not just visit or layover or attend business meetings in some of these places. And then form a judgement.

Hmmm.. quite a strong statement.. But... I think you mean the other states. Hamas attack Israel's defenceless citizends when they can identify military targets and rely on theiur defenceless citizens as human shields. Israel seek to destroy their military capability, which is a reasonable response. But Hamas proffer up as their defences - their own defenceless citizens.. Israel even warn of when they are going to attack and where (albeit not enough notice to mobilse a lot of citizens). Who exactly is the murderous state? I don't recall Israel wantonly going into war without being attacked or in the case of 1967, the obvious mobilisation of an attack on Israel. But if you can name one, I will happily take it back. Also, for your reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_casualties_of_war Now I haven't done the maths lately, but it represents around 1,000 Palestinians per year ex the current war, but even if you looked at the last 2 year war in isolation, it is 35,000 Palesinians with no sepaation between Hamas and citizens. But lets assume citizens.. And by the way - numbers provided by Hamas, and were once reduced by them. Syria - Civil war - Around 11 years from 580 thousand to 656,00.. Minimum 50,000 year - brutally with barrell bombs and the like. Yemen/Oman - in 6 years, 377,000: https://caat.org.uk/data/countries/saudi-arabia/the-war-on-yemens-civilians/ That makes it around 63,000/year. All Yemenis. .Yet hardly anyone even knows about this war - and there wasn't much about it at the time. Iraq/Iran 300,000 civilians including targtetting 200,000 Kurds.. I could go on.. Nary a word from anyone. I guess that saying, No Jews, no news.. holds true? Back to Israel. Answer me this: What killings has Israel perpetrated that were not the result of a threat or an attack? And I am not talking about rogues, for which Israel at least did hold accountable? https://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-02/21/c_136074394.htm And I quote the Israeli judge: ""There was no reason for shooting the terrorist, certainly not at his head," (my bold). Say the roles were reversed.. Would there even be a trial? Or would it be considered an automatic tribulation. Now to Hamas (and the Palestinians that support them): I suggest you dig out the videos that Hamas took on their attacks. I understand they are available on platforms such as Telegram. I have to admit, I haven't seen them, but the commentary is not one for the squeamish. Remember, these people targetted civilians and murdered them in brutal ways. And according to the commentary, rape in front of their families before behading, heading in front of their families, etc. And it was systematic of the attack (I am sure not all were doing this, but there was enough). And of course the famous soundbyte of a Hamas militant calling his mother celebrating he killed Jews.. Now, who is murderous?

Maybe because they are living under constant threat, historically from all of their neghbours and if they lose, its curtains. Read the Hamas Charter - specifically article 7.. It leaves no doubt there is no intention to spare any Jew... anywhere. Remember, they are a proxy of Iran.. and yes, there are still a few Jews in Iran. Funny.. if that were in the constiution of Israel - but in reverse - how much attention that would get?

Begore I call BS, show evidence. - and that it is systematic. Even Australia has its eveil people - Roberts Smith hasn't even been tried while the whistleblower languishes in prison. Doesn't mean Australia is systematically war criminals 9but it seems to harbour their own, anyway). You think consant firing of rockets at civilians over the years.. and then breaking through and brutally killing 1500-ish people and taking hostages is throwing stones? So far peacepul Palestinian protestors? And now that? Give me a break about no antisemetism

I appreciate that and there can be the perception of a blind spot given what I wrote. Working now, but will respond more fully later. I wasn't aware of the Turkish journalist attack, but will do some research on it (Wilipedia can't be taken at face value and one event does not necessarily mean a systematic targetting). I am not saying Israel is perfect or should not be held to account.. I am saying there seems to be a lot levelled at it which is more based on belief than fact.

Sorry - I tend to post long as I try and give the background as to why I take a position, and these areas are rarely simple.. I also think, if you strip away the Israel thing, and the fact I don't think Labor (and Labour here) are doing enough for the people the purport tp represent although concede there are pratical challenges in doing so - we are probably more closely aligned than you think.

There have been as many white people in Aus, and nore in the US committing terrorism as Muslim. Sadly, any anti-solcial behaviour is not the preserve of one or a subset of nationalities or religions.

Allowing no reporting - by Israel? Are you serious? Journos were killed.. Were they actually targetted as journalists? How much reportng do you get from Iran once the protests started and before the war? What evidence do you have that journalism is systematically suppressed where it is physically safe (i,e, they are not going to be directly in the line of fire) by Israel? I have to admit, I am flummoxed by these assertions.. But if you can provide evidence to support that position, I am fine.. otherwise, are they not rabid? Re essentials of life - it is the UN who had decided not to enter Gaza nor allow the other organisation to distribute their supplies.. on what premise? As I understand, it is alleged what UN essentials were being distribnuted were ending up in Hamas' hands largely and not the people. Of course, that could be wrong because the press don't report these things all the time. But, that is my point.. A lot of aspersions are cast with scant evidence, and sensationalistic reporting by the very journos Israel are supposed to suppress. The default position is Israel is wrong, and I will challenge it if the facts don't fit (on anything). Sorry. I am an argumentative SoB. BTW, we all criticise the Iran war, and rightly so given the US objectives. But so far, the one Iranian I know (and it is only one) is still supportive of it. And I prefer to take people with their experience of it on the ground than us armchair experts. Oh, and by the way, she thinks Israel has gone too far on accoasions, but is generally supportive of Israel. They give her reiligion a home free of prejudice, which cannot be said of the Iranians, where the religion was born.

Sorry... What? OK.. the milita of a country invade your country... but don't target your military - but your defencelss and well separated from the military civilians.. illegally under intenational law; you legitimately retaliate and target their mitilary assets, which they hide behind cilvilan assets - and you target their military assets legally, but because they use civilians aas part of their defence (which is not really even contested by them) and, by the way being totally legal under the rules of war as long as they are targeting legitimate military assets - and Israel is the terrorist? Yeah - they took the West Bank - but not through some arbitrary decision - it was the resuilt of a war waged on them.. Or have I missed something. And in exchange for peace, the Palestinians (which even Arabs don't class as a separate Arabic identity) were offered 96% of it back, but rejected it at the last minute.. Now, there are tensions, because Ramalla is a Palestinian controlled territory on the West Bank, and tensions in a war between Israel and Gaza are going to surface. Is it right? No! But no country has never been hostile to those of "enemy" ancestry in their territory (which I know, the UN doesn't sanction, but at the end of the day, it was territory siezed as a result of a war perpetrated on Israel). And did they actually target the journos and NGOs, or was it a) friendly fire or b) mistaken identity - IN A WAR, FFS.. I think in Kosovo (BTW, an illegal war as there was no direct threat to NATO states, and there was no UN security resolution, and humanitarian reasons ions not a defence), journos and NGOs were killed by firendly fire, as was that in Afghanistan, and the list goes one. In fact, the betrayal of firendly Afghans by the west doesn't need to be brought up again, eoither. What terrorism did Israel actually commit. Where, without procvocation, did they go in and wantonly kill people as a country/defence force? Sorry dude - you and I live in a different world when it comes to this. (Apologies, that was condascending and I take it back) You may disagree with what they are doing - and I don't agree with it all, either, but it is not terrorism.