But this is incredibly damning (literally), if even remotely indicative of reality.
Also, OP's title actually undersells the evil. It's not that they think they have "the right" to kill everyone in a conquered city...they want to do it.
And when asked directly whether they agreed with the position that the IDF, "when conquering an enemy city, should act in a manner similar to the way the Israelites acted when they conquered Jericho under the leadership of Joshua, namely, to kill all its inhabitants?" nearly half, 47 percent, agreed.
The lowest agreement was secular Jews...and that was still 31%!
Everyone else (traditional, orthodox, and haredi), were all around 60%.
holy crap. when I read the title, i thought it was an exaggeration of something along the lines of, " yes, some collateral damage is unavoidable in urban fighting, we can't really blame soldiers for mistakes while on edge" , which sounds reasonable enough. but this is a whole other level. "can we genocide a city we captured? yup, sure thing!"
The mention of Joshua and the ancient Israelites seems gratuitous and intended to increase the 'yes' vote here - while it obviously doesn't excuse the answer.
Also interesting is this:
A majority of 56 percent of Jews supported the "transfer (forced expulsion) of Arab citizens of Israel to other countries."
They're always talking about how Arabs are full citizens of Israel with equal rights, which is mostly true, but then there's this.
They're always talking about how Arabs are full citizens of Israel with equal rights, which is mostly true, but then there's this.
Also, you know Christians are only slightly behind the Muslims.
Our Greatest Ally, ladies and gentlemen. Murder and oppress everyone who's not a Jew. But let's wait and have Ted Cruz tell us why that's a good thing, before we jump to any conclusions.
Also, you know Christians are only slightly behind the Muslims.
In terms of population, or in terms of how much they're disliked? The latter is absolutely true. Many of the resistance fighters/terrorists have historically been Christians (albeit communists), before the rise of Islamism.
But let's wait and have Ted Cruz tell us why that's a good thing, before we jump to any conclusions.
Anti-semite. Blood libel. Don't you get between me and my $1.8 million.
As always, take "polls" with a grain of salt.
But this is incredibly damning (literally), if even remotely indicative of reality.
Also, OP's title actually undersells the evil. It's not that they think they have "the right" to kill everyone in a conquered city...they want to do it.
The lowest agreement was secular Jews...and that was still 31%!
Everyone else (traditional, orthodox, and haredi), were all around 60%.
holy crap. when I read the title, i thought it was an exaggeration of something along the lines of, " yes, some collateral damage is unavoidable in urban fighting, we can't really blame soldiers for mistakes while on edge" , which sounds reasonable enough. but this is a whole other level. "can we genocide a city we captured? yup, sure thing!"
Again, not can...should. "Should we genocide entire cities"?"
The mention of Joshua and the ancient Israelites seems gratuitous and intended to increase the 'yes' vote here - while it obviously doesn't excuse the answer.
Also interesting is this:
They're always talking about how Arabs are full citizens of Israel with equal rights, which is mostly true, but then there's this.
Also, you know Christians are only slightly behind the Muslims.
Our Greatest Ally, ladies and gentlemen. Murder and oppress everyone who's not a Jew. But let's wait and have Ted Cruz tell us why that's a good thing, before we jump to any conclusions.
In terms of population, or in terms of how much they're disliked? The latter is absolutely true. Many of the resistance fighters/terrorists have historically been Christians (albeit communists), before the rise of Islamism.
Anti-semite. Blood libel. Don't you get between me and my $1.8 million.