Operation Breaking Dawn - The cycle of violence continues

[░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓ด้้้้้็็็็็้้]

I don't think anyone should be impressed by a desire to avoid harming civilians; I think people should expect it as a bare minimum, and when one side clearly expects this of themselves in a way that their enemy does not, I think that people should take note of that.

Not that I have a dog in this fight, but even if Israel didn't intend to kill anyone during the Lavon Affair itself, the intent was to get the US and Britain on Israel's side in going to war with Egypt to annex the Sinai peninsula up to the Suez Canal.

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure war kills people. I guess at that point the people getting killed wouldn't be civilians, they would either be combatants or collateral damage, but still, it would've been an unnecessary mass-casualty event that the Israelis started had they not gotten caught. Arguing over the semantics on the status of the people getting killed seems superficial.

"The Muslims scream about how they want to chop your heads off, while the Jews quietly plot and scheme to create situations where they can kill you in ways that are acceptable under international statutes and norms. Clearly the Jews are morally superior."

Sounds dumb to me.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

This entire point falls apart when you remember that Israel used white phosphorus in Gaza, or look at any of the other giant laundry list of awful deeds that nation committed. You might be able to trick dumb Americans raised on an information diet consisting solely of CNN and Fox News but I don't know why you'd even try to launder claims like that on the internet where people can just go and look up what Israel has actually done.

I don't see how my point falls apart, because as far as I can tell it's not me who's being selective. I absolutely condemn Israel's use of white phosphorus in Gaza; just as I condemned the United States' use of white phosphorus in Iraq. What I don't do, is limit my criticism to Israel while their enemies are engaging in behavior which makes them far worse. I am willing to criticize Israel; are you willing to criticize it's attackers?

"The Muslims scream about how they want to chop your heads off, while the Jews quietly plot and scheme to create situations where they can kill you in ways that are acceptable under international statutes and norms. Clearly the Jews are morally superior."

Except the intention on Israel's part clearly isn't to kill, unless the target in question happen to be identified as enemy combatants. Perhaps this is a trivial qualifier to you; to me it is an important distinction.

 

[Maurice Caine]

Damn, a negative K/D ratio is not new in this conflict but no Israeli died and more than a 1/3 of the Palestinian casualties is from their own side.
Besides the huge failure of the Jihad this operation shows the Palestinian rocket strategy has outlived its usefulness, and that no one gives a shit about the Palestinians anymore (the inflation and Putler are more important) which is catastrophic for the Palestinian grifting industry.

A shame. Who'll nuke Israel from orbit now?

 

[Lengthy Sex Derail]

What I don't do, is limit my criticism to Israel while their enemies are engaging in behavior which makes them far worse. I am willing to criticize Israel; are you willing to criticize it's attackers?

I absolutely disrespect Islam and think their religion is barbaric and cruel. I don't want Islam to be practiced in my nation and I think that both halal and kosher slaughter should be forbidden under the law. But what the fuck does it matter that I criticise Islam elsewhere? We're talking about Israel here and the fact that I think drawings of Mohammed fucking pigs are based and should be posted all over the internet has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Except the intention on Israel's part clearly isn't to kill, unless the target in question happen to be identified as enemy combatants.

How the fuck did you manage to transition from condemning their use of white phosphorous in Gaza to talking about how they don't want to kill non enemy combatants in the same fucking post? I'm getting whiplash here dude.

 

[UmQasaan]

Even redditors knew

 

[░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓ด้้้้้็็็็็้้]

Except the intention on Israel's part clearly isn't to kill, unless the target in question happen to be identified as enemy combatants. Perhaps this is a trivial qualifier to you; to me it is an important distinction.

To start, I don't agree with the assumption that Israel follows international norms and avoids civilian casualties considering:

• Israel's use of kidnapped/imprisoned Palestinian children as human shields, as documented by the UN.
• Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinian protesters for the express purpose of discouraging said protests, as reported by an Israeli news source.
• Israel's policy of bulldozing over Palestinian civilian homes for the purposes of forcibly annexing their territory.
• Israeli politicians and religious leaders quoted as saying that the Israeli state wishes to kill Arab civilians.

But, for the sake of argument, I'm going to give Israel a heaping bag of salt and assume that they don't want to kill civilians and only attack enemy combatants. My point is that it doesn't matter if one side refrains from killing civilians and will only kill people during war if that same side is constantly maneuvering to start wars for the sake of killing people.

Let me put it this way. Say there was this guy telling you about how he was involved in a self-defense shooting where he was trying to run away from an assailant, the assailant then pulled a gun and tried to shoot him, so the guy then pulls out his own gun and kills the assailant. You would say that this guy is justified in what he did because it was a defensive shooting, right? Now to add some context: this guy was in the middle of robbing a bank, and the "assailant" was the bank's security guard trying to stop the guy from fleeing with the bank's money. Would you still say this guy is justified because the guy was trying to leave the situation, the security guard drew first, and the bank robber was technically trying to defend himself from getting killed?

That's what it sounds like to me when you argue "Sure Israel does false-flags to try and start wars with other countries, and sure Israel will attack its own allies to try and rope them into fighting Israel's battles, but at least the Israelis don't kill civilians, because that's apparently the only bad thing you can ever do."

So to answer your question, yes, I'd say that claiming one side is bad and one side is good based solely on whether they kill civilians with no context is a trivial qualifier.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It has everything to do with the topic at hand when Islamist groups are seeking Israel's destruction and attacking civilians as a matter of course. Israel's overzealousness in the way that it frequently resorts to defending itself is absolutely worthy of condemnation, but it's important to remember how the situation arrived at this point. Israel didn't just adopt a hawkish attitude towards it's neighbors for no reason.

How the fuck did you manage to transition from condemning their use of white phosphorous in Gaza to talking about how they don't want to kill non enemy combatants in the same fucking post? I'm getting whiplash here dude.

I condemn the use of white phosphorous because it is a chemical weapon which indiscriminately harms people. This doesn't prevent me from understanding that the indiscriminate nature of these outcomes isn't automatically intentional, even if it is still worthy of condemnation. A far more pressing area of inquiry might be why Islamist militants overwhelmingly decide to attack Israel from civilian areas, and perhaps consider their culpability in civilians getting hurt as a consequence.

My point is that it doesn't matter if one side refrains from killing civilians and will only kill people during war if that same side is constantly maneuvering to start wars for the sake of killing people.

Except Israel clearly isn't killing people for it's own sake. The country has been under constant attack since it's founding, while the enemies it's been "maneuvering" against have openly called for it's destruction many times. You can criticize Israel's approach to responding to this threat, but I don't think you can use it as grounds for an unfavorable comparison with their enemies, and I certainly don't think you can argue that the threat isn't there.

So to answer your question, yes, I'd say that claiming one side is bad and one side is good based solely on whether they kill civilians with no context is a trivial qualifier.

Except the context is obvious to anyone who has honestly studied the conflict. One side is irredentist and seeks to destroy a sovereign nation and it's people, even at immense cost to their own side, while the other is trying to defend it's sovereignty and it's people against this from all sides. Against this context, the fact that one of the sides is less concerned about civilian casualties than the other isn't just an important consideration, it's an obvious lesson about the nature of the conflict itself.

 

[░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓ด้้้้้็็็็็้้]

Except Israel clearly isn't killing people for it's own sake. The country has been under constant attack since it's founding, while the enemies it's been "maneuvering" against have openly called for it's destruction many times. You can criticize Israel's approach to responding to this threat, but I don't think you can use it as grounds for an unfavorable comparison with their enemies, and I certainly don't think you can argue that the threat isn't there.

Except the context is obvious to anyone who has honestly studied the conflict. One side is irredentist and seeks to destroy a sovereign nation and it's people, even at immense cost to their own side, while the other is trying to defend it's sovereignty and it's people against this from all sides. Against this context, the fact that one of the sides is less concerned about civilian casualties than the other isn't just an important consideration, it's an obvious lesson about the nature of the conflict itself.

You're right, the context is obvious to anyone who has honestly studied the conflict:

• In 1947, the Jews living in the Palestinian mandate began ethnically cleansing Arabs to create a large enough contiguous land mass to found the state of Israel. Arab states and the Palestinians responded by going to war against the Jews and lost.
• In 1956, Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula in a scheme with the British and French wherein the Europeans would retain control of the Suez Canal and Israel would annex Egyptian territory up to the canal. Because of international pressure, Israel was forced to withdraw from the Sinai.
• In 1967, Israel launched a war of aggression against both Egypt and Syria, publicly claiming it was "preemptive defense", and successfully annexed the Sinai and Golan.
• In 1973, Syria and Egypt launched a war of aggression against Israel to try and recapture the land Israel took from the last war and lost.
• In 1975, civil war breaks out in Lebanon and Israel backs the SLA militants in the hopes that they would destabilize Lebanon enough to where Israel could invade and annex territory up to the Litani River.
• In 1982, Israel invades Lebanon in an attempt to annex its southern half, succeeds in occupying some territory. By 2000, Israel withdrew from Lebanon because it was too difficult to defend their forces from Hezbollah attacks.
• In 2006, Israel invaded southern Lebanon with the intent to wipe out Hezbollah. The cause of the war is disputed as Israel claims Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli troops on the Israeli side of the border, while Hezbollah claimed it captured Israeli troops who infiltrated Lebanon. Israel fails to defeat Hezbollah.
• From 2011 to present day, Israel has been involved in the Syrian Civil War by bombing government targets and civilian infrastructure in Syria while providing assistance to Jihadists in Syria as per an Israeli news source.

Given that in all but two of these conflicts Israel is the undisputed aggressor, I think it's a hard sell to claim that Israel is just an innocent country trying to defend itself against its mean neighbors who attack them for no reason. And before you reply with the usual "Israel has to start all these wars because waiting to be attacked is dumb", keep in mind that it was originally the Jews who were the irredentist side who formed terrorists groups like the Stern Gang and Haganah back when Palestine was a British mandate, performing all kinds of terrorist attacks against the British and the Palestinians in the lead up to the formation the IDF and the Likud party, the basis for modern day Israel. If it wasn't for the Jews killing British officers and Arab civilians during this period, coupled with European Zionist Jews lobbying governments for transfer programs like the Haavara Agreement to flood Palestine with Jewish migrants, the Jewish state wouldn't exist on a plot of land surrounded by enemies to begin with.

Against this context, the fact that one of the sides consistently appears to be the aggressor compared to the other isn't just an important consideration, it's an obvious lesson about the nature of the conflict itself.

 

[IAmNotAlpharius]

Let them kill each other. Palestine and Israel are both shit for different reasons.


Still evil. They attacked a US Naval vessel and lied through their teeth about it. That should have been a straight up act of war. Japan did that, and we dropped two nukes on them, but Israel got a pass? Fuck that.

And when the Saudis did it we sucked their dicks harder.

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

You're right, the context is obvious to anyone who has honestly studied the conflict:

• In 1947, the Jews living in the Palestinian mandate began ethnically cleansing Arabs to create a large enough contiguous land mass to found the state of Israel. Arab states and the Palestinians responded by going to war against the Jews and lost.
• In 1956, Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula in a scheme with the British and French wherein the Europeans would retain control of the Suez Canal and Israel would annex Egyptian territory up to the canal. Because of international pressure, Israel was forced to withdraw from the Sinai.
• In 1967, Israel launched a war of aggression against both Egypt and Syria, publicly claiming it was "preemptive defense", and successfully annexed the Sinai and Golan.
• In 1973, Syria and Egypt launched a war of aggression against Israel to try and recapture the land Israel took from the last war and lost.
• In 1975, civil war breaks out in Lebanon and Israel backs the SLA militants in the hopes that they would destabilize Lebanon enough to where Israel could invade and annex territory up to the Litani River.
• In 1982, Israel invades Lebanon in an attempt to annex its southern half, succeeds in occupying some territory. By 2000, Israel withdrew from Lebanon because it was too difficult to defend their forces from Hezbollah attacks.
• In 2006, Israel invaded southern Lebanon with the intent to wipe out Hezbollah. The cause of the war is disputed as Israel claims Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli troops on the Israeli side of the border, while Hezbollah claimed it captured Israeli troops who infiltrated Lebanon. Israel fails to defeat Hezbollah.
• From 2011 to present day, Israel has been involved in the Syrian Civil War by bombing government targets and civilian infrastructure in Syria while providing assistance to Jihadists in Syria as per an Israeli news source.

Given that in all but two of these conflicts Israel is the undisputed aggressor, I think it's a hard sell to claim that Israel is just an innocent country trying to defend itself against its mean neighbors who attack them for no reason. And before you reply with the usual "Israel has to start all these wars because waiting to be attacked is dumb", keep in mind that it was originally the Jews who were the irredentist side who formed terrorists groups like the Stern Gang and Haganah back when Palestine was a British mandate, performing all kinds of terrorist attacks against the British and the Palestinians in the lead up to the formation the IDF and the Likud party, the basis for modern day Israel. If it wasn't for the Jews killing British officers and Arab civilians during this period, coupled with European Zionist Jews lobbying governments for transfer programs like the Haavara Agreement to flood Palestine with Jewish migrants, the Jewish state wouldn't exist on a plot of land surrounded by enemies to begin with.

Against this context, the fact that one of the sides consistently appears to be the aggressor compared to the other isn't just an important consideration, it's an obvious lesson about the nature of the conflict itself.

Why wouldn't anyone support a country that based?

Attacks against British by the Haganah? Based. Fuck the British, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Capturing territory from Egypt and Syria despite them having massive amounts of aid from the USSR? Based. Kicking the shit out of them again just a few years later? You know it.
Conducting special military operations against neighboring terrorist states to ensure the security of their own nation and their own people? Uber fucking based. Both when Russia does it and when Israel does it.

Oh yeah and how many arabs were there in 1947, and how many arabs are there now? Now there are around 2m arabs in Israel alone. So much for muh ethnic cleansing.

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

You're right, the context is obvious to anyone who has honestly studied the conflict:

• In 1947, the Jews living in the Palestinian mandate began ethnically cleansing Arabs to create a large enough contiguous land mass to found the state of Israel. Arab states and the Palestinians responded by going to war against the Jews and lost.
• In 1956, Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula in a scheme with the British and French wherein the Europeans would retain control of the Suez Canal and Israel would annex Egyptian territory up to the canal. Because of international pressure, Israel was forced to withdraw from the Sinai.
• In 1967, Israel launched a war of aggression against both Egypt and Syria, publicly claiming it was "preemptive defense", and successfully annexed the Sinai and Golan.
• In 1973, Syria and Egypt launched a war of aggression against Israel to try and recapture the land Israel took from the last war and lost.
• In 1975, civil war breaks out in Lebanon and Israel backs the SLA militants in the hopes that they would destabilize Lebanon enough to where Israel could invade and annex territory up to the Litani River.
• In 1982, Israel invades Lebanon in an attempt to annex its southern half, succeeds in occupying some territory. By 2000, Israel withdrew from Lebanon because it was too difficult to defend their forces from Hezbollah attacks.
• In 2006, Israel invaded southern Lebanon with the intent to wipe out Hezbollah. The cause of the war is disputed as Israel claims Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli troops on the Israeli side of the border, while Hezbollah claimed it captured Israeli troops who infiltrated Lebanon. Israel fails to defeat Hezbollah.
• From 2011 to present day, Israel has been involved in the Syrian Civil War by bombing government targets and civilian infrastructure in Syria while providing assistance to Jihadists in Syria as per an Israeli news source.

Given that in all but two of these conflicts Israel is the undisputed aggressor, I think it's a hard sell to claim that Israel is just an innocent country trying to defend itself against its mean neighbors who attack them for no reason. And before you reply with the usual "Israel has to start all these wars because waiting to be attacked is dumb", keep in mind that it was originally the Jews who were the irredentist side who formed terrorists groups like the Stern Gang and Haganah back when Palestine was a British mandate, performing all kinds of terrorist attacks against the British and the Palestinians in the lead up to the formation the IDF and the Likud party, the basis for modern day Israel. If it wasn't for the Jews killing British officers and Arab civilians during this period, coupled with European Zionist Jews lobbying governments for transfer programs like the Haavara Agreement to flood Palestine with Jewish migrants, the Jewish state wouldn't exist on a plot of land surrounded by enemies to begin with.

Against this context, the fact that one of the sides consistently appears to be the aggressor compared to the other isn't just an important consideration, it's an obvious lesson about the nature of the conflict itself.

nigger tier logic lmao, you completely ignore all arab aggression in the Palestine mandate and the UN proposal that the Jews accepted. Israel also didn't want to annex any part of Lebanon and only invaded when the Palestinians launched attacks from Lebanon. Why would the Israelis support Bashir Gemayel who was a Lebanese nationalist if they wanted to annex South Lebanon? Theres a lot more I can say but completely removing Arab agency and ignoring their attacks is insane.

 

[crows in guns]

Jews are destroying western civilization so i Support Palestine..

 

[░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓ด้้้้้็็็็็้้]

nigger tier logic lmao, you completely ignore all arab aggression in the Palestine mandate and the UN proposal that the Jews accepted. Israel also didn't want to annex any part of Lebanon and only invaded when the Palestinians launched attacks from Lebanon. Why would the Israelis support Bashir Gemayel who was a Lebanese nationalist if they wanted to annex South Lebanon? Theres a lot more I can say but completely removing Arab agency and ignoring their attacks is insane.

I was focusing on full-scale wars, not individual incidents. If I made a list of every violent interaction between Arabs and Israel, then my post would've been longer than the dictionary. And given every instance of Israel bulldozing over Palestinians, bombing Palestinian refugee camps, shooting protesters, assassinating people, and launching cross border raids, I imagine such a list would still be pretty lopsided.

As for Israel backing Bashir Gemayel, the Israelis also participated in the Iran Contra affair in smuggling weapons to the Iranian government during the Iran-Iraq War. Does this mean that Israel was secretly collaborating with the Iranians this whole time, and their rivalry is kabuki theater? Or was Israel just using the Iranians to weaken Saddam Hussein? Just like how the British lied to Arab nationalists during WWI to manipulate them into overthrowing the Ottomans under the impression that they could have their own nation, only for the Europeans to scoop up their territory after the war? There is such a thing as playing both sides to get what you want. After all, Israel militarily occupying southern Lebanon and building settlements for a decade doesn't exactly convey a pro-Lebanese nationalist slant.

My point wasn't to pick a side in the Israel/Arab argument. I know how emotional people get when they live vicariously through countries. Personally, I think doing that is retarded. My point is that saying that because side A is known for killing civilians while side B kills in the context of official military conflict means that side B is the good guy by default is arbitrary since that same side typically starts the military conflicts which they use to justify killing people in the first place. The reason I brought up Jewish terrorist groups that existed during the Palestinian Mandate period was to point out that the initial assumption that Israelis avoid killing civilians or even avoid committing acts of terrorism is also wrong.

Moralfagging is bad enough, but moralfagging when you don't even have the moral high ground is some real chutzpah.

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

I was focusing on full-scale wars, not individual incidents. If I made a list of every violent interaction between Arabs and Israel, then my post would've been longer than the dictionary. And given every instance of Israel bulldozing over Palestinians, bombing Palestinian refugee camps, shooting protesters, assassinating people, and launching cross border raids, I imagine such a list would still be pretty lopsided.

As for Israel backing Bashir Gemayel, the Israelis also participated in the Iran Contra affair in smuggling weapons to the Iranian government during the Iran-Iraq War. Does this mean that Israel was secretly collaborating with the Iranians this whole time, and their rivalry is kabuki theater? Or was Israel just using the Iranians to weaken Saddam Hussein? Just like how the British lied to Arab nationalists during WWI to manipulate them into overthrowing the Ottomans under the impression that they could have their own nation, only for the Europeans to scoop up their territory after the war? There is such a thing as playing both sides to get what you want. After all, Israel militarily occupying southern Lebanon and building settlements for a decade doesn't exactly convey a pro-Lebanese nationalist slant.

My point wasn't to pick a side in the Israel/Arab argument. I know how emotional people get when they live vicariously through countries. Personally, I think doing that is retarded. My point is that saying that because side A is known for killing civilians while side B kills in the context of official military conflict means that side B is the good guy by default is arbitrary since that same side typically starts the military conflicts which they use to justify killing people in the first place. The reason I brought up Jewish terrorist groups that existed during the Palestinian Mandate period was to point out that the initial assumption that Israelis avoid killing civilians or even avoid committing acts of terrorism is also wrong.

Moralfagging is bad enough, but moralfagging when you don't even have the moral high ground is some real chutzpah.

Israel never built settlements in South Lebanon retard. You take every instance of Israel doing stuff in a context free chamber but then have arab actions forgiven by contextualization. For example: crying about Israel destroying Palestinian houses and completely ignoring that it's to offset the reward money that Palestinians get from the PA in order to carry out terrorist attacks.

Or crying about how Israel bombed a refugee camp but never mentioning that the refugee camp in question was used as a base for operations by the PLO.

Iran contra was a way for Israel to serve the USA while also advancing their own agenda. Simple as that.

 

[░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓ด้้้้้็็็็็้้]

Israel never built settlements in South Lebanon retard. You take every instance of Israel doing stuff in a context free chamber but then have arab actions forgiven by contextualization. For example: crying about Israel destroying Palestinian houses and completely ignoring that it's to offset the reward money that Palestinians get from the PA in order to carry out terrorist attacks.

View attachment 3581249

View attachment 3581251


Or crying about how Israel bombed a refugee camp but never mentioning that the refugee camp in question was used as a base for operations by the PLO.

Iran contra was a way for Israel to serve the USA while also advancing their own agenda. Simple as that.

Could you quote the parts of my posts where I forgave Arab actions through contextualization, because I don't remember ever doing that. All I remember doing is pointing to information that shows Israel doesn't have the moral high ground over the Arabs.

As far as your moralfagging in this post goes, I figure anyone could just turn that around on you in the same way.
"Hamas fires rockets at Israel to offset the salaries that IDF soldiers receive and the aid packages Israel gets from the US to launch attacks against Palestinians."
"Hamas fires rockets at Israel because it's a base of operations for the IDF."
See? Now the Israelis are no better than Hamas.

Also, lol at the idea of Israel serving the US.

 

[St.Davis]

I think it's interesting that the conversation was quickly slid away from the idea that "Israel false-flagging in an attempt to rope uninvolved countries into wars on Israel's behalf is a bad thing".
This is a bad thing. I do not want to give Israel money, their problems are not my problems and they can deal with them themselves.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

In 1947, the Jews living in the Palestinian mandate began ethnically cleansing Arabs to create a large enough contiguous land mass to found the state of Israel. Arab states and the Palestinians responded by going to war against the Jews and lost.

The war was started due to the UN giving both the Jews and Arabs a country and the Arabs not wanting to give up an ounce of land. The Jews accepted that plan. I have no idea about "ethnic cleansing" when Palestinians aren't an ethnicity, the country was barely settled or developed, and that the population of Palestinians "mysteriously" exploded over this genocide.

In 1956, Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula in a scheme with the British and French wherein the Europeans would retain control of the Suez Canal and Israel would annex Egyptian territory up to the canal. Because of international pressure, Israel was forced to withdraw from the Sinai.

You are forgetting the fedayeen employed by Egypt who caused hundreds of Israeli deaths. And Israel being convinced to go to war by powerful countries is the exact opposite of the narrative usually pushed here.

In 1967, Israel launched a war of aggression against both Egypt and Syria, publicly claiming it was "preemptive defense", and successfully annexed the Sinai and Golan.

"If a guy is seen readying a gun, aiming at you, and saying I'm going to shoot you, then you are a bad person for preemptively shooting him".

In 1973, Syria and Egypt launched a war of aggression against Israel to try and recapture the land Israel took from the last war and lost.

If only Israel preemptively defended against them...

Given that in all but two of these conflicts Israel is the undisputed aggressor, I think it's a hard sell to claim that Israel is just an innocent country trying to defend itself against its mean neighbors who attack them for no reason.

Because the Middle East is known as a peaceful place and not a shithole where countries endlessly threaten each other or invade.

In the end it's all leftist moral faggotry "subjective moralism" argument that only exist since no context was given for what the countries did, ending in the Muslims dindu nuffing. The Israeli are considered the more moral side because they attempt to get peace, including cases like returning ground to the Palestinians (only for it to be immediately used to fire rockets at them). Fucking find me a Palestinian organisation that did any action for peace, I'm waiting.

 

[░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓ด้้้้้็็็็็้้]

The war was started due to the UN giving both the Jews and Arabs a country and the Arabs not wanting to give up an ounce of land. The Jews accepted that plan. I have no idea about "ethnic cleansing" when Palestinians aren't an ethnicity, the country was barely settled or developed, and that the population of Palestinians "mysteriously" exploded over this genocide.

You are forgetting the fedayeen employed by Egypt who caused hundreds of Israeli deaths. And Israel being convinced to go to war by powerful countries is the exact opposite of the narrative usually pushed here.

"If a guy is seen readying a gun, aiming at you, and saying I'm going to shoot you, then you are a bad person for preemptively shooting him".

If only Israel preemptively defended against them...

Because the Middle East is known as a peaceful place and not a shithole where countries endlessly threaten each other or invade.

In the end it's all leftist moral faggotry "subjective moralism" argument that only exist since no context was given for what the countries did, ending in the Muslims dindu nuffing. The Israeli are considered the more moral side because they attempt to get peace, including cases like returning ground to the Palestinians (only for it to be immediately used to fire rockets at them). Fucking find me a Palestinian organisation that did any action for peace, I'm waiting.

Considering that the US was responsible for getting the majority vote for Israel's recognition in the UN and that President Truman was being coerced by American Jews to support Israel under threat of using their political power to lose him the 1948 presidential election, I wouldn't consider Israel's UN recognition to be entirely above board. I made sure to use Jewish sources to put your mind at ease. Here's a list of all the Palestinian villages that were "depopulated" by Israel during the 1948 war. You can argue whether or not "Palestinian" is an ethnicity if you want, I don't think anyone else really gives a shit.

From what I could find on the Fedayeen from 1948 to 1956 ("The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World" by Avi Shlaim, ISBN: 0-14-028870-8 (page 84) and "Israel's Border Wars, 1949-1956: Arab Infiltration, Israeli Retaliation, and the Countdown to the Suez War" by Benny Morris, ISBN: 0-19-829262-7 (page 67), both are Israeli historians in case you think they may be biased), Egypt wasn't backing the Fedayeen and in fact made efforts to try and stop them from conducting cross-border raids. The Israelis claimed otherwise, but never provided any proof. There is proof that the Fedayeen received support from the Muslim Brotherhood, whom Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser staunchly opposed, which just makes the Israeli accusation against the Egyptian government even less credible. As far as Israel being an unwilling participant in the Sinai invasion during the Suez Canal crisis being dragged along by the British and French, remember that after the British and French gave up, the Israelis refused to leave the Sinai until the UN forced them to.

Concerning the 1967 war: "There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." - Condoleezza Rice, lying about Saddam Hussein's ability to build nukes in his palace basement to create a pretext for the US to "preemptively defend itself" against Iraq. Believe it or not, there are some countries smart enough to lie about their intentions before declaring war for the sake of making themselves appear justified.

As per the 1973 war, it's almost like Israel gave Egypt and Syria a motivation to attack them by stealing a bunch of land from them six years ago.

Also, I guess you never heard of the Oslo Accords, negotiated on by the PLO and enforced by the PNA? The one that Israel repeatedly reneged on?

---

I know I've gone full autist in this thread with all the sources and dissertation length posts. Honestly, I just wandered into this thread because I sometimes check the Happenings section to see if there are any new mass shootings, saw people in this thread arguing over why Israel would attack the USS Liberty, and gave an answer. Honestly, I never expected this much kvetching to take place on KiwiFarms. I've said something mean about sacred Israel, so I must be an evil, SJW, Muslim who believes the Arabs dindu nuffin and that six gorillion Jews weren't enough. Maybe this section is like KF's Twitter/Reddit-user containment area. I dunno. At least Badungus Kabungus' post wasn't moralfagging bullshit, he at least tried to be funny and didn't whine about how I was being mean to poor little Israel.

I'm going to go back to laughing at Ethan Ralph. This place is boring.

 

[LaxerBRO]

Go Israel! Kill those muzzies!

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

@░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓ด้้้้้็็็็็้้
ThrowingShitOverTheWall.png

Nigger, if you go in a forum and give an extremely biased "facts", only to be called on your shit, don't act like an offended little bitch.