Netanyahu: Hitler didn't want to kill any Jews, the Holocaust was all the Palestinians fault.

https://www.idfblog.com/blog/2012/11/15/how-does-the-idf-minimize-harm-to-palestinian-civilians/

Anyway, if anyone is interested in the methods Israel uses to minimize harm to civilians then they can read about it at that link. It is sad that a certain poster still maintains that Jews gleefully set out with the goal to murder women and children but I guess we can expect no better out of him.

Do you think it is possible to be Jewish and not to agree with the actions of the Jewish state?

Do you think that it is possible for the Jewish state to do wrong? And if so, do you think it's possible to criticise them without being anti-Semitic?

Of course it is possible. That is not remotely what we are talking about here. We are talking about his consistent double standards where he not only holds Israel to much higher standards than anyone else in the world but he also makes lots of excuses for the terrorist actions of the Arabs and he also makes up vicious defimations about Jews deliberately killing babies.

That is such obvious and glaring bias it really does amount to antisemitism especially since, despite being asked numerous times, he cannot offer any other reason for why he singles out the Jewish state for destinctly harsher treatment.

That's all nice and cute. But you do understand why the state of Israel and its military are held to a higher standard than those terrorists?
But then, Israel is in a situation where it can't win: if they go soft they get no thanks and more rockets. If they go in heavy-handed they get no thanks and more rockets.

Yes it is.
You were asked for evidence of anti-Jewish comments. You responded with quotes about anti-Israeli comments, as if the two were equivalent. You are maintaining this equivalence and making no distinction in your posts, using "Jewish" and "Israeli" interchangeably.

I agree Israel should be held to the exact same standards as every other country. That said, the anti-Israeli folks seem to always single out Israel for even tougher standards than anyone else, unreasonably so, and thst is what I object to. Especially when it is coming from a guy who claims Jews hunt down civilians for sport.

At that point it just becomes clear he has some sort of bias against the Jewish state.

Ok, see that? I say Israel should be held to the exact same standards as every other nation and not be singled out for unequal treatment and Rick then disagrees.

Can it be any more obvious he wants to single out Israel for unequal treatment?

Lying racist has nothing to back up his lies so puts me on ignore. Classic.

I was disagreeing with the continued bullshit that followed that statement..

He singles out the Jewish state for unequal treatment and then refused to explain why only Israel should be held to a different standard from every other country. As he will not say why he is so against the Jewish state I am left to guess why that one state upsets him so. The only thing I can think of is that being Jewish in nature makes it unique. So, yes, it does seem his double standards are aimed specifically at Jews.

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/mi...t-harming-any-palestinians-n1874465/page/full

I will drop that one here.

Then you can quote the place where he or I or anyone else say that it's tolerable for other states to take these actions.

A poor basis for a putting words in someones mouth.

He can't. That's why he put me on ignore.

Anyways, Google Pally wood and you will see how the Palestinians routinely lie and just make shit up for propaganda purposes. They also routinely claim big civilian death counts when none actually occured. Lying for the cause is something the Arabs constantly do.

Well, neither of you seem to be making threads about the dozen or so countries currently experiencing armed conflict yet you do seem to make regular ones about Israel, oh, and ones to smear the US. We must not forget your hard on to smear the US as well as stick it to the Israelis.

He repeatedly refused to explain so I must work with the evidence which is available. That evidence shows he made up monstrous lies about Israelis supposedly wanting and deliberately setting out to kill civilians but if that was true they could have leveled every building in Gaza in a day. Notice how they did not do that? Instead they had a whole long list of procedures to help minimize civilian deaths despite the Palestinians deliberately using human shields and making civilian areas their firing positions.

And again you're going with what we don't say, and making assumptions based on that. So now we have two massive pieces of logic missing from your argument.

1. That criticism of Israel = criticism of Jews.
2. That criticism of Israel of Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict is unreasonable based on limited discussion of other conflicts.

By the application of this momentous display of logic, your lack of condemnation of either party in the ongoing South Sudanese Civil War makes you racially prejudiced against the members of any state that you do criticise.

So best keep shtum from now on, eh?

Oh, get off of it. No one said all criticism of Israel is the same as criticism of all Jews. The fact remains when there is a consistent double standard always against Israel then it is a very good indication of bias against Jews (that is the reason for the double standard). Especially when it is joined by lies like Israelis are deliberately trying to kill civilians. That is just the lie which pushed him over the top.

You have been using the terms interchangably for the past number of pages, and have mocked attempts to differentiate. You can't have it both ways.

No, I have explained in detail exactly when something goes beyond legitimate criticism into the realm of unreasonable double standards. If you are holding Israel to the same standards then that is fair but if you demand Israel face a greater burden than everyone else then that is unfair.

E-IDF 101 - any criticism of Israeli actions is anti-Semitic. Dinner must have taken the extra credit course where you learn how to refuse to answer when challenged on it and then run away with your tail between your legs.

But media criticism of Israel is extremely biased. Even journalists stationed in Israel talk about it. Most of them are there only to report if Israel takes action. Palestinian attacks are downplayed if reported at all. Virtually no Palestinian threats are reported.

If any NATO city was periodically attacked by hundreds unguided rockets, they would respond with all out war, redraw the map, and on satellite the area where the rockets had been launched would look like a big scorch mark. And by their historical standards NATO is in the complete pacifist/surrender-now phase. If North Korea launched rocket attacks as often as the Palestinians, it would be a smoking hole and US and South Korean troops would be patrolling what is left of Pyongyang.

Of all the countries in the UN, only Israel is told to suck it up and do nothing to protect its citizens. Why is that?

Except that none of that is true. North Korea carries out provocations all the time. In 2010 they sank a South Korean ship killing 43 serviceman. What did South Korea do? They asked for an apology, which the North Koreans refused to give. It's hard to understand why you picked such a poor example.

And yes, the rocket attacks are wrong, but they must be seen in the context of the siege of Gaza that has been going on since 2006 and is a clear example of collective punishment - a war crime. And the Israeli responses to these attacks kill far more civilians, 250x more civilians in operation Protective Edge, than the rockets. It's a totally disproportionate response.

No, it's not. If the Gazans fired rockets at us there wouldn't be any Gazans anymore. We would bulldoze the debris and build a resort on the rubble. If our cities were attacked with rocket fire, it would only happen once.

One the occasions when North Korea fires some shells into South Korean, which isn't very often, the US and South Korea military ramp up, fire back, and we tell them that the end is near - and the North Koreans stop. So North Korea has only killed about five South Korean civilians in the last 25 years or so.

OK, well if you think a response that kills 250x as many civilians is proportionate then that just shows how broken your moral compass is. It's also a typical E-IDF tactic, praising Israeli 'restraint' then bringing out some 'well if they did this to us, we'd turn the place into rubble' counterfactual which cannot ever be proven to counter clear proven numbers. It's transparent nonsense.

Ah, so there is a proportionate response you mean; one that doesn't kill hundreds of times the number of North Korean civilians? Thank you for proving my point.

IIRC half of the Jews in the world live in Israel at present. So why not equate Israelis with Jews?

Technically EVERY TERRORIST is a civilian by definition.

So even if the Israelis were killing only terrorists, they would still be killing civilians.

I think that Palestinians attacking Israel have a moral obligation to set themselves apart from civilian noncombatants and engage the Israelis openly.

That's so weak.