I think Netanyahu saying it's war makes it different. And given it's indicative of a failure of Israeli intelligence, there will be long term ramifications? Anyone got a suitable line from Revelation or Nostradamus?
The reactions of Western leaders are typically supine towards Israel. Biden claiming that international law has been broken by Hamas and therefore Israel is deserving of US support.
a terrorist organisation launched an attack on a state and killed and kidnapped hundreds of civilians. Whatever the Israeli government might have done, this is a horrific attack started by an organisation that wants to eradicate the Jews.
a terrorist organisation launched an attack on a state and killed and kidnapped hundreds of civilians. Whatever the Israeli government might have done, this is a horrific attack started by an organisation that wants to eradicate the Jews.Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, apparently had an interesting perspective on this:
If we compare this to what Russia is attempting to do in the Ukraine, we can see many people in Europe support the right of the Ukrainians to defend themselves and they supply Ukraine with weapons and training. Not exactly surprising is it that different countries near the war zone will do what is in their own best interests, including Iran. Let's not be hypocritical and pretend there is some reasoned argument other than self-interest as to why someone woukd support Ukraine against Russia but not the Palestinians against Israel.
"will do what is in their own best interests"Wouldn't surprise me. But Russia bombing the shit out of Ukraine doesn't seem to be persuading the Ukranians to give up their land to Russia. Maybe people are attached to their land and if supplied with weapons they will fight back...who knew ::).
Since Israeli commentators are now comparing the attack to 9:11 and Pearl Harbour that would appear to be inviting the Israelis to bomb the shit out of the Palestinians.
"will do what is in their own best interests"Bin Laden said he got the idea of hitting the US Twin Towers after Israel invaded Lebanon and destroyed tower blocks in Beirut. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/30/alqaida.september11
Since Israeli commentators are now comparing the attack to 9:11 and Pearl Harbour that would appear to be inviting the Israelis to bomb the shit out of the Palestinians.
Wouldn't surprise me. But Russia bombing the shit out of Ukraine doesn't seem to be persuading the Ukranians to give up their land to Russia. Maybe people are attached to their land and if supplied with weapons they will fight back...who knew ::).
Some Zionists seem to have thought that the Arabs would be like the indigenous populations decimated by Western countries in USA, Australia etc - if they killed enough of them, they would just give up and walk away. Maybe if those indigenous people had been supplied with enough weapons they too would have fought back and killed the people invading and dispossessing them of their land.
Ben Gurion also warned in 1948: Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes: “The old will die and the young will forget.”
“Every school child knows that there is no such thing in history as a final arrangement — not with regard to the regime, not with regard to borders, and not with regard to international agreements.”
— Ben Gurion, War Diaries, 12/03/1947 following Israel’s “acceptance” of the U.N. Partition of 11/29/1947 (Simha Flapan, “Birth of Israel,” p.13)
“We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population? ‘Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘ Drive them out! ‘ “
Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.
Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary on 12 July 1937: “the compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the projected Jewish State…. We have to stick to this conclusion the same way we grabbed the Balfour Declaration, more than that, the same way we grabbed at Zionism itself.”
(Ben-Gurion, Zichronot [Memoirs], Vol. 4, p. 299)
I don't see much evidence that the hard Right in Israel have disavowed themselves of these views.
Hammas attacked Israel. Hammas killed and kidnapped civilians.Just to flip what you initially said about the Israeli government in reply #5, whatever Hamas might have done, you do know that Ben Gurion and many of his successors in Israel attacked and drove Palestinian women and children off their land and that IDF forces have been shooting protesting Palestinian children for years right? You should remember that.
Just remember that.
Just to flip what you initially said about the Israeli government in reply #5, whatever Hamas might have done, you do know that Ben Gurion and many of his successors in Israel attacked and drove Palestinian women and children off their land and that IDF forces have been shooting protesting Palestinian children for years right? You should remember that.
And as mentioned it was Ben Gurion's view that "Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice.”
When the Germans were bombing the shit out of British people, the response was to bomb the shit out of German people. In that situation both sides were separated by land and water so they had to travel to engage in warfare. If both sides are right next to each other and one side is far more heavily armed than the other, in many of these type of conflicts all over the world the less heavily armed side has tended to adopt guerrilla tactics to compensate for its lack of firepower e.g. lethal raids, kidnapping etc including targeting civilians, especially if they feel their own civilians have been targeted.
When the Israeli government attacks Gaza or blockades Gaza, it is targeting civilians, hoping that if it causes enough death and misery to Palestinian civilians they will stop fighting Israeli expansion and give up.
There is a narrative that Palestinians should love their children enough to stop fighting. Presumably that is what regimes with superior fire power count on in order to successfully conquer and subdue people - including Britain and other empire-building nations. But often in these circumstances people under attack come up with beliefs and slogans to help them resist against superior firepower - presumably that is why beliefs are so important to humans, and they don't just make decisions based on facts and evidence. Many Palestinian civilians believe that if they die under superior Israeli firepower, they die as martyrs and will be rewarded. That is why they are prepared to endure the deaths of their loved ones rather than giving up the land stolen from them by Israel.
That is why a negotiated peace by both sides is better than violent conflict.
"Why does the guerrilla fighter fight? We must come to the inevitable conclusion that the guerrilla fighter is a social reformer, that he takes up arms responding to the angry protest of the people against their oppressors, and that he fights in order to change the social system that keeps all his unarmed brothers in ignominy and misery."
Hamas wants to see the Jews in the Levant exterminated.You've got checkable evidence for that assertion, I take it.
The problem with a negotiated peace is that Hamas wants to see the Jews in the Levant exterminated. There is no compromise that they would accept.Many people say the same about the right-wing Israeli government - ie the problem with a negotiated peace is that for hardliner Zionists the peace is temporary and a way of shoring up strength to attack and drive the Palestinians further out of the land the Palestinians currently have, so that the Israelis can further expand their settlements. Many people say there is no compromise that the hardliner Zionists would accept.
You've got checkable evidence for that assertion, I take it.
Many people say the same about the right-wing Israeli government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_CharterYour link says:
But we know that that is not true.Firstly, why are you only quoting the first part of what I wrote without including the rest of it?
There are two million Palestinians living within the borders of Israel already. They aren't being genocided. They aren't being dforcibly relocated outside of Israel.
Your link says:
The 2017 charter accepted for the first time the idea of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders..... Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.
Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage.[38][39]
So presumably if there was a one state solution with Jews and Arabs living together and democratically elected leaders rather than a dictatorship, there would be no occupation and therefore Hamas would not have a problem with Jews being in the Levant.
Hammas attacked Israel. Hammas killed and kidnapped civilians.
Just remember that.
I see Biden and Sunak have promised military aid to Israel. I'm inclined to think that we should mind our own business and stay out of it. There's no comparison with Russia/Ukraine, where Ukraine is the innocent (well, as innocent as any country ever is) victim; The Palestinians have a legitimate, 75-years-old grievance against Israel, although this attack on civilians is outrageous.
Modern Israel has its origins in the Zionism movement, established in the late 19th century by Jews in the Russian Empire who called for the establishment of a territorial Jewish state after enduring persecution. In 1896, Jewish-Austrian journalist Theodor Herzl published an influential political pamphlet called The Jewish State, which argued that the establishment of a Jewish state was the only way of protecting Jews from anti-Semitism.
How are Jews treated in other Islamic states? Do you think they would be treated better or worse than the Muslims in Israel?Is this your way of justifying a discriminatory Jewish apartheid state? Your justification is that it's just as bad as a discriminatory Muslim state?
How can you be so naive about the nature of an Islamic state?
How are Jews treated in other Islamic states? Do you think they would be treated better or worse than the Muslims in Israel?
How can you be so naive about the nature of an Islamic state?
And I dare say many Palestinians wish Hamas would vanish up their own arses (though that didn't stop a lot of them indulging in disgusting, jubilant Schadenfreude after Hamas' attack).Maybe that's what happens to people who are dehumanised and oppressed and living in poverty for years
Can we really only limit the problem to 75 years? The religious Jews after all believed in the return of their people to the 'Holy Land' was predicted in their scriptures. And it took centuries of anti-semitic persecution for the first glimmers of that to happen, with the origins of modern Zionism in the 19th century.It wasn't just Hitler. Apparently they were upset by the discrimination and persecution they suffered every day in the 20th century West from antisemitic Europeans, Brits and Americans who believed in the idea that they were part of a superior white race.
I suppose that might have been just a pipe dream and resulted in a few skirmishes caused by the Jews who began to migrate there. But then came the Russian Revolution, and worst of all, the mass migration caused by Herr Hitler and his grisly gang. And then the attempts - meddling - of Britain and America to try and sort things out.
I don't suppose the extreme right wing policies of Netanyahu have done much to placate the situation over recent years. The best one can say about him is that he's been pretty consistent, which is more than one can say from the edicts of Hamas, whose weasel words and tergiversations don't convince me one iota that they are not violently anti-Jew, whether religious or not, and violently anti-Israel.Do you have any evidence for your belief? JP was the one who linked to the Hamas Charter as evidence of their beliefs.
RussiaIsrael is illegally occupyingUkrainianPalestinian territory, just remember that.
The 'rules of war' are a convenient nonsense drawn up by invested powers to demonise the strategic and tactical options of those without similar resources. Bombing a city from three-hundred miles away with a smart warhead is not morally or ethically superior to running in with a bomb-vest, just technologically.
O.
Hamas are not the good guys.I don't think there are any good guys in this war.
Hamas are not the good guys.
And neither are the Israeli state - it's not an exact parallel, but the nuance is distinctly absent in the media coverage and Western governmental responses.It's not a parallel, and suggesting it is seems a fairly obvious distraction from the murders by Hamas. You are indulfing in whataboutery, as are many happy to ignore the actions of the Israeli govt because of 'whatabout Hamas'.
O.
Hamas are not the good guys.Who do you see as the good guys here? I don't see any.
Who do you see as the good guys here? I don't see any.
Hamas indiscriminately murdered civilians including women and children.
The Israeli government are currently indiscriminately murdering civilians including women and children.
If the relatives of the murdered Palestinians, in their pain and rage start setting off bombs in Israel
That's true. Hamas goes out specifically to murder civilians. Sometimes they take babies and cut their heads off.Possibly not commit war crimes?
This is not true. Israel is trying to put a stop to Hamas. Civilians are killed by Israel because Hamas has put them between Israel's armed forces and itself. Israel perceives itself to be in an existential struggle with Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist organisations. They don't kill civilians to invoke terror, they do it because they have no other means of destroying Hamas.
Yes it's horrific and morally questionable, but Hamas wants Israel destroyed. How do you think Israel should be dealing with them?
Hamas is already doing that. They've been doing it for years. Hamas is a blood soaked terrorist organisation driven by a corrupt and evil ideology. If you have got a better way to stop them that doesn't involve the deaths of thousands of people, I beg you to tell us all what it is.
And Israel even at its absolute worst ( and that is bad) at least tries to follow basic modes of human behaviour, if not always international law. It does not go into villages and rock concerts and start slaughtering people.This person is minimising the atrocities against Palestinian civilians over the decades by focusing on the Palestinian deaths in Deir Yassin in 1948. Palestinians have been facing atrocities on an ongoing basis since Israel's illegal occupation and terrorism provoked Palestinians to armed resistance. The death toll from Israeli terrorism, indiscriminate bombing and collective punishment of civilians over the years has been far greater than the hundreds of Israeli citizens murdered in the recent Hamas attack in Israel.
Not since Deir Yassin in 1948.anyeay. When extremist Zionist paramilitaries slaughtered 121 Palestinian villagers . You may have heard of it ? Every Palestinian has - it is the worst single atrocity the Palestinians have suffered in theit long history of suffering. But to put what Hamas did in context, Hamss slaughtered in excess of 700 equally innocent Israeli villagers and music concert goers on Saturday. Try and take that in. Try and open your mind and dump your cliched hopelessly inadequate leftist script.
This person is minimising the atrocities against Palestinian civilians over the decades by focusing on the Palestinian deaths in Deir Yassin in 1948. Palestinians have been facing atrocities on an ongoing basis since Israel's illegal occupation and terrorism provoked Palestinians to armed resistance. The death toll from Israeli terrorism, indiscriminate bombing and collective punishment of civilians over the years has been far greater than the hundreds of Israeli citizens murdered in the recent Hamas attack in Israel.And more whataboutery to justify murder, just like Netanyahu.
Just one attack documented in a 2021 report about an Israeli terrorist attack that took place on the night of May 15, records an Israeli airstrike hitting a house in the Al-Shati refugee camp in Gaza. Two mothers, sisters-in-law, were reportedly killed in the attack, along with eight children between the ages of 5 and 14. One 5-month-old boy was found by rescuers in the rubble from the attack still alive in his dead mother’s arms.
Blowing children into pieces is the effect of just one Israeli airstrike, and Israel has carried out thousands of airstrikes against Palestinian civilians before Hamas carried out its recent murderous operation. Prior to the attack by Hamas, Palestinian civilians including the elderly and children were under murderous attacks from Israel - they were being regularly shot and wounded or killed by IDF attacks near the border.
That's true. Hamas goes out specifically to murder civilians. Sometimes they take babies and cut their heads off.Do you have independent verification of this? I only ask for evidence because the IDF are known for lying - they usually claim they were under lethal attack before they shoot dead Palestinian children.
This is not true. Israel is trying to put a stop to Hamas. Civilians are killed by Israel because Hamas has put them between Israel's armed forces and itself. Israel perceives itself to be in an existential struggle with Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist organisations. They don't kill civilians to invoke terror, they do it because they have no other means of destroying Hamas.You are lying to yourself - possibly due to racism or propaganda you have already dehumanised Palestinian civilians in your mind to minimise their deaths. What is true is that Israel is carrying out terrorism by collectively punishing Palestinian civilians by cutting off electricity ,food, water, medical supplies and carrying out indiscriminate bombings in civilian areas as blood-thirsty revenge for the attack by Hamas.
Yes it's horrific and morally questionable, but Hamas wants Israel destroyed. How do you think Israel should be dealing with them?Morally questionable? Interesting choice of words. Ok in that case let's describe the attack by Hamas as morally questionable as well. And let's similarly describe what Hamas has done in the same terms you used for Israel's actions. Civilians are killed by Hamas because Israel has put civilians in illegally occupied land stolen from Arabs after forcibly removing the original Arab occupants at gunpoint. Palestinians consider themselves to be in an existentialist struggle for statehood with Israel. Hamas and other Palestinian militants carry out terrorism because they have no other means to defeat Israeli armed occupation. How do you think Palestinians should be dealing with Israeli occupation? Perhaps if you come up with an answer to how Israeli terrorism should be dealt with, you might have an answer for your question about how Hamas terrorism should be dealt with.
Hamas is already doing that. They've been doing it for years. Hamas is a blood soaked terrorist organisation driven by a corrupt and evil ideology. If you have got a better way to stop them that doesn't involve the deaths of thousands of people, I beg you to tell us all what it is.Israel has been illegally occupying someone else's land and shooting and terrorising civilians for decades. Are you suggesting that the way to stop that terrorism by Israel is to slaughter civilians? Hamas would probably agree with the way you think.
And more whataboutery to justify murder, just like Netanyahu.Yes your friend is engaging in whataboutery to justify murder like Netanyahu. If you are posting his whataboutery then you too are engaging in whataboutery to justify murder like Netanyahu.
Good article from the Guardian.Yes - agree that many people will find it hard to support Israel's terrorism, collective punishments and indiscriminate attacks on civilians in response to Hamas terrorism.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/11/israel-hamas-attack-gaza-9-11-cautionary-tale
Not sure whether within Israel, this attack by Hamas will distract from the attention on Netanyahu's corruption and attempts to limit the powers of the judiciary. He was facing a lot of civil unrest in Israel recently. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/25/israel-protests-judicial-overhaul-reform-news-doctors-strike
Israel is trying to put a stop to Hamas. Civilians are killed by Israel because Hamas has put them between Israel's armed forces and itself. Israel perceives itself to be in an existential struggle with Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist organisations. They don't kill civilians to invoke terror, they do it because they have no other means of destroying Hamas.
Yes it's horrific and morally questionable, but Hamas wants Israel destroyed. How do you think Israel should be dealing with them?
Yes your friend is engaging in whataboutery to justify murder like Netanyahu. If you are posting his whataboutery then you too are engaging in whataboutery t justify murder like Netanyahu.I see as well as justifying murder you are happy to lie here.
Not sure whether within Israel, this attack by Hamas will distract from the attention on Netanyahu's corruption and attempts to limit the powers of the judiciary. He was facing a lot of civil unrest in Israel recently. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/25/israel-protests-judicial-overhaul-reform-news-doctors-strikeTBH I did think that an acceptance of some risk in order to avoid exposing the intelligence as in the Coventry blitz in WW2 was a possibility. You're still then using whataboutery as a distraction from the murders.
It sounds cynical and too horrible to believe and there is no evidence as yet (one of the officers in the IDF interviewed said the inquiry into Israel's intelligence failure will take years - that's convenient) but given it's Netanyahu, I hope Netanyahu or his office did not allow this Hamas attack to take place to stop the civil unrest and protests he was facing in Israel. The Hamas attacks happened despite intelligence reports alerting Israel to a imminent terrorist attack. Netanyahu is describing reports he received such intelligence as "fake news". This well-known Trump line creates even more suspicion.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-intelligence-official-says-israel-ignored-repeated-warnings-of-something-big/
Rajapaksa is accused of not preventing the 2019 bombings in Sri Lanka to create unrest to allow him to win the elections https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/8/ex-sri-lanka-leader-denies-2019-bombings-were-staged-to-help-him-win-polls
Good article from the Guardian.I don't think it takes into account enough that for both participants here it can be portrayed as an 'existential threat' which was not the case for 9/11.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/11/israel-hamas-attack-gaza-9-11-cautionary-tale
I see as well as justifying murder you are happy to lie here.I noticed that about you - you being happy to lie.
Do you have independent verification of this?
I only ask for evidence because the IDF are known for lying - they usually claim they were under lethal attack before they shoot dead Palestinian children.
You are lying to yourself - possibly due to racism or propaganda you have already dehumanised Palestinian civilians in your mind to minimise their deaths. What is true is that Israel is carrying out terrorism by collectively punishing Palestinian civilians by cutting off electricity ,food, water, medical supplies and carrying out indiscriminate bombings in civilian areas as blood-thirsty revenge for the attack by Hamas.
Morally questionable? Interesting choice of words. Ok in that case let's describe the attack by Hamas as morally questionable as well. And let's similarly describe what Hamas has done in the same terms you used for Israel's actions. Civilians are killed by Hamas because Israel has put civilians in illegally occupied land stolen from Arabs after forcibly removing the original Arab occupants at gunpoint. Palestinians consider themselves to be in an existentialist struggle for statehood with Israel. Hamas and other Palestinian militants carry out terrorism because they have no other means to defeat Israeli armed occupation. How do you think Palestinians should be dealing with Israeli occupation? Perhaps if you come up with an answer to how Israeli terrorism should be dealt with, you might have an answer for your question about how Hamas terrorism should be dealt with.
A lot of people don't support Zionism or Islamism so wanting to dismantle a Jewish state created by force and illegally occupying Arab land or wanting to dismantle an Islamist state created by force and illegally occupying Arab land or UK land or any other land would probably receive wide support. Dismantling it by violent slaughter of civilians would probably not receive widespread support...at least you would have thought so but apparently exceptions are made if the civilians being violently slaughtered are of the wrong ethnic group.
Israel has been illegally occupying someone else's land and shooting and terrorising civilians for decades. Are you suggesting that the way to stop that terrorism by Israel is to slaughter civilians? Hamas would probably agree with the way you think.
You're still then using whataboutery as a distraction from the murders.You can put that after every comment anyone writes if you want. I guess it's up to you if you only want to contribute a one liner to the discussion.
I noticed that about you - you being happy to lie.https://youtu.be/T4aaa931KCU?si=Xqfj8eBhupUrY6Kb
You can put that after every comment anyone writes if you want. I guess it's up to you if you only want to contribute a one liner to the discussion.Prolixity is not a virtue.
Israel has been under constant attack since 1948.You mean from the date they attacked the Arab occupants of the land they forcibly took and declared the to be the state of Israel. You seem to be surprised - whereas Ben Gurion was expecting constant attack.
If you want them to stop defending themselves by all the means that they deem necessary,Yup - they need to follow the rules of international law
you need to persuade the attackers to lay down their arms. Can you do that? I don't know how to.Hmm - that's like saying if you want the attackers to stop attacking Israel you need tell Israel to allow the Palestinian refugees to exercise their right of return under international law, to the land Israel forced them from at gunpoint. Can you do that? I don't know how to.
By the way, this attack by Hamas has nothing to do with the illegally occupied parts of the West Bank.Whatever mediation happens between Israel and Hamas eventually, it is unlikely to address the root causes of the conflict. There does not seem to be any political will within Israel to address issues like the imprisonment of Palestinians, the freezing of Palestinian funds, the dire socioeconomic conditions in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, or the continuing settlement expansion. This means the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will continue to fester and produce cycles of violence.
I'll remind you again: Hamas's aim is to destroy Israel by Jihad. Nothing less is acceptable and they are fuelled by an ideology of hatred.
Prolixity is not a virtue.Sure - if you're happy with your one-liners and what they contribute to any discussion, you go ahead and enjoy yourself.
Sure - if you're happy with your one-liners and what they contribute to any discussion, you go ahead and enjoy yourself.'K
You mean from the date they attacked the Arab occupants of the land they forcibly took and declared the to be the state of Israel. You seem to be surprised - whereas Ben Gurion was expecting constant attack.Well that is quite a distortion of the founding of the modern state of Israel.
Well that is quite a distortion of the founding of the modern state of Israel.Only for people who haven't done much to educate themselves https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/15/the-nakba-five-palestinian-towns-massacred-75-years-ago
Follow up thought. If they could stamp out the two ideologies of Hamas (exterminate Israel) and Israelis (Palestine is exclusively theirs) things might improve, especially from the pov of the Gazans, who absolutely must be allowed to get out of there and live in Israel if they want.Or Egypt could open its border with the Gaza Strip, and allow all residents of Gaza to come and go freely and move permanently to Egypt if they want to.
It's not a parallel, and suggesting it is seems a fairly obvious distraction from the murders by Hamas. You are indulfing in whataboutery, as are many happy to ignore the actions of the Israeli govt because of 'whatabout Hamas'.
The following is a post from a friend of over 40 years which says it better than I would. On a unrelated topic yesterday I was looking at editions of student newspaper from when we first met and were camaigning for Palestine. The articles, editorials, and letters were filled with comments on Palestine and Israel. It felt as though nothing had changed.
""PALESTINE SOLIDARITY" CAMPAIGNERS!
HOW IS, NOT HOW YOU WOULD LKE IT TO BE
I have been campaigning against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for decades and will continue to.
But what I will not sign up to is a one- eyed outlook that totally ignores the context to what is ha happening now .. what I predicted would happen when I first heard of Hamas'nilateral breaking of the ceasefire and all our attack on Israel on Saturday.. And, unlike many Palestinian solidarity activists I cannot ignore, dissemble away, the massacres of hundreds of Israeli civilians on Saturday by Hamas.
Palestinians in Gaza "decided" nothing. The decision to invade Israel and immediately start slaughtering its border population, was taken by four people in the Hamas leadership, two of whom live in safety in Qatar. The inability of the "Hand Off Palestine" lobby to grasp this is depressing .Hamas is not Palestine. It is a fundamentalist ,bloodthirsty ,eliminatory Islamic sect which has seized control of Gaza by military means - , like Israel has seized control of the area in general, Only in an even more brutal way.. There is such a thing as a political opposition in Israel , including Arab Palestinian political parties Which support the creation of a Palestinian state.
And Israel even at its absolute worst ( and that is bad) at least tries to follow basic modes of human behaviour, if not always international law. It does not go into villages and rock concerts and start slaughtering people.
Not since Deir Yassin in 1948.anyeay. When extremist Zionist paramilitaries slaughtered 121 Palestinian villagers . You may have heard of it ? Every Palestinian has - it is the worst single atrocity the Palestinians have suffered in theit long history of suffering. But to put what Hamas did in context, Hamss slaughtered in excess of 700 equally innocent Israeli villagers and music concert goers on Saturday. Try and take that in. Try and open your mind and dump your cliched hopelessly inadequate leftist script.
The near total silence on this matter by Palestines Solidarity groups is depressing. But were at not for these sadistic acts on a mass scale by Hamas Guerillas, what is happening now in Gaza would not be happening.. Of course the situation was very bad - but there is very bad and there is appauling ,as we are now seeing. There is having electricity and water and not having electricity and water There is being bombed by wave after wave of f121, and not being bombed repeatedly by Israeli aircraft . And this simply would eould not be happening if the full scale invasion of Gaza by Israel that we are witnessing and is about to get a lot worse.had Hamas's dictatorial leadership not pulled the trigger.
And those who talk about Palestine's right to defend itself are basically talking bullshit. There is defending yourself, and there is going into attack and slaughtering sleeping families en masse. Equally Israel - there is defending yourselves and indiscriminately bombing as a civilian population in an concentrated urban area. And cutting off water and electricity to an entire population of ove 2 million people is not defending yourself
But any discussion about the suffering of the Palestinian people which does not put Hamas at the centre of The blame for much if it is hopelessly incomplete. Your long history lessons do not address what happened on Saturday.
The situation on the West Bank is dire, is not a all good. But compared to what is happening in Gaza ? That the West Bank it is getting near zero attention , not just by the mainstream media but by Palestine Solidarity organisations makes my point Israel is still the same occupying authority. The difference is Gaza is run by Hamas and the West Bank by Fatah And Fatah is a far from good leadership. It is just not genocidal. Tries its best to keep to international law and basic modes of humanity
Graspe that and you might just begin to start understanding The current situation.. Anyone Who fails to, refuses t , is not just hopelessly uninformed, but is failing the Palestinian people Your solidarity is one-eyed, and with it wholly ineffective"
Regarding the belief that Palestine is the divinely ordained home of the Jewish people forever, a thought: wouldn't it be better to welcome them to live in those countries that want to protect them, and allow Palestinians to live freely in their rightful homeland? That way the Jews could be protected and the conflict with Palestinians would end. Of course Hamas would have to be defeated, like Isis.Agreed the Tamils who wanted a separate Tamil state have currently accepted they cannot have their own homeland - they wanted it because they faced discriminatory laws and widespread racist attacks from nationalist extremists with no protection from the authorities. Many Tamils were murdered or lost their homes. The Prevention of Terrorism Act and other laws passed in Sri Lanka today allow arbitrary arrest of people and they are often tortured held without charge for months, sometimes years.
This is the situation for Tamils in Sri Lanka, who are Hindus alongside the Buddhist Sinhalese. They had to accept they could not have their own Tamil State.
I can see that it might apply the opposite way around, given that Israel is an internationally recognised country.
In itself Israel sending bombs into Syria is sadly not unusual, but this does seem to be all a bit 'slouching towards Bethlehem'
Now Israel is attacking Syria. Its becoming bigger.
Agreed the Tamils who wanted a separate Tamil state have currently accepted they cannot have their own homeland - they wanted it because they faced discriminatory laws and widespread racist attacks from nationalist extremists with no protection from the authorities. Many Tamils were murdered or lost their homes. The Prevention of Terrorism Act and other laws passed in Sri Lanka today allow arbitrary arrest of people and they are often tortured held without charge for months, sometimes years.So if you can't be Mandela, it's perfectly ok to murder babies because that's the only 2 choices available.
However, unlike the sudden influx of Jews into Palestine in the 20th century, the Tamils and Sinhalese have lived in Sri Lanka since at least 2 BC and the Tamils were asking for about 6 or 7 % of the total land area of Sri Lanka. The UN Partition Plan allocated approximately 55% of the land of historic Palestine (including some of the most fertile land) to the Jewish state even though Jews only owned 7% of the land. Following wars Israel acquired even more of the land by forcibly removing Arabs and not allowing the Arab refugees to return to their homelands.
Under the circumstances, many Palestinians probably think they have been pretty restrained. I am not particularly surprised, given the diversity of human personalities in difficult circumstances, that some Palestinians such as Hamas have such extreme reactions to Israeli oppression. Not everyone's nature/ nurture will lead them to be a Gandhi or a Mandela.
I read somewhere that some people are trying to build the Third Temple. Really going for it....what?! Is Armageddon around the corner then..?
For people like us who are far away from the action, it is an interesting watch....but sadly not for the civilians, the little children and their mothers.....on both sides. :(
So if you can't be Mandela, it's perfectly ok to murder babies because that's the only 2 choices available.If that's how you feel, ok.
If that's how you feel, ok.
It's fascinating watching you in action.
VG,I didn't see a question there. An obvious interpretation is that NS thinks it's ok to murder babies. That's why I thought it fascinating that a mod on this forum appears to think it's ok to murder babies...that Hamas and Netanyahu feel that way doesn't surprise me but that someone on this forum apparently thinks it's ok to murder babies I found fascinating.
That's not how he feels - he was asking you whether that's your position.
I didn't see a question there. An obvious interpretation is that NS thinks it's ok to murder babies. That's why I thought it fascinating that a mod on this forum appears to think it's ok to murder babies...that Hamas and Netanyahu feel that way doesn't surprise me but that someone on this forum apparently thinks it's ok to murder babies I found fascinating.
Do you think it's ok to murder babies too?
VG,Again, NS has not denied he thinks it's ok to murder babies and it wasn't phrased as a question. Neither have you. Why aren't you and NS stating that you think it's not ok to murder babies?
Again, he was challenging your position by paraphrasing it (or at least what it appears to be). Not for one moment did NS imply that he thought murdering babies was justified. No sane person thinks that.
Again, NS has not denied he thinks it's ok to murder babies and it wasn't phrased as a question. Neither have you. Why are you and NS not stating that you think it's not ok to murder babies?You've sought to justify the murder of children.
I don't think it's ok to murder babies. See - it's not difficult, is it? Your turn.
If that's how you feel, ok.I wish I could say the same about you.
It's fascinating watching you in action.
You've sought to justify the murder of children.Stop projecting. You're the one who said it's perfectly ok to murder babies.
I wish I could say the same about you.'K
Again, NS has not denied he thinks it's ok to murder babies and it wasn't phrased as a question. Neither have you. Why aren't you and NS stating that you think it's not ok to murder babies?
I don't think it's ok to murder babies. See - it's not difficult, is it? Your turn.
Stop projecting. You're the one who said it's perfectly ok to murder babies.
VG,Just checking because if you think "no sane person thinks that" and yet you asked me if I think that, this would suggest you think I am insane. Similarly I think you are insane, so I had to check. Given NS's name on here is Nearly Sane, obviously we need him to confirm his position on killing babies.
This is mad. Your un-nuanced mind is letting you down again here. Of course he wasn’t suggesting that murdering babies is OK – he was paraphrasing (what appeared to be) your justification of it with your references to Israel’s historic mistreatment of the Palestinians.
If you didn’t think that Israel’s historic mistreatment the Palestinians justified Hamas’ murder of Jewish babies though then all you had to do was to say so.
As for me, how much clearer about that than “No sane person thinks that” would you like me to be?
Just checking because if you think "no sane person thinks that" and yet you asked me if I think that, this would suggest you think I am insane. Similarly I think you are insane, so I had to check. Given NS's name on here is Nearly Sane, obviously we need him to confirm his position on killing babies.
Do you and NS think that the murders carried out by Hamas against Israeli civilians justifies the Israeli government killing Palestinian babies by carrying out their airstrikes on Gaza?
I didn't see a question there.
Agreed the Tamils who wanted a separate Tamil state have currently accepted they cannot have their own homeland - they wanted it because they faced discriminatory laws and widespread racist attacks from nationalist extremists with no protection from the authorities. Many Tamils were murdered or lost their homes. The Prevention of Terrorism Act and other laws passed in Sri Lanka today allow arbitrary arrest of people and they are often tortured held without charge for months, sometimes years.The thing about the Tamil/Sinhalese situation is, the Tamils tried to get what they felt they were entitled to through terrorism (Tigers). That's the problem here too. And as with the situation in Gaza now, Tamil civilians were caught up in the last big Tigers standoff.
However, unlike the sudden influx of Jews into Palestine in the 20th century, the Tamils and Sinhalese have lived in Sri Lanka since at least 2 BC and the Tamils were asking for about 6 or 7 % of the total land area of Sri Lanka. The UN Partition Plan allocated approximately 55% of the land of historic Palestine (including some of the most fertile land) to the Jewish state even though Jews only owned 7% of the land. Following wars Israel acquired even more of the land by forcibly removing Arabs and not allowing the Arab refugees to return to their homelands.
Under the circumstances, many Palestinians probably think they have been pretty restrained. I am not particularly surprised, given the diversity of human personalities in difficult circumstances, that some Palestinians such as Hamas have such extreme reactions to Israeli oppression. Not everyone's nature/ nurture will lead them to be a Gandhi or a Mandela.
"When you're in a hole...."Good advice for NS and BHS
I think most people used to the subtleties of the English language would have thought a question was implied.As it happens I got an A for English at A'Level so I might be able to help you with this. This is how you frame a question - do you DU think it's perfectly ok to kill babies as a response to the murder of family members - Israeli, Palestinian or any baby for that matter?
The thing about the Tamil/Sinhalese situation is, the Tamils tried to get what they felt they were entitled to through terrorism (Tigers). That's the problem here too. And as with the situation in Gaza now, Tamil civilians were caught up in the last big Tigers standoff.Agreed - terrorism does not solve anything. People who engage in terrorism usually find themselves trapped in an endless cycle of violence, whether it's the LTTE, the Sri Lankan government, Hamas, the Israeli government, the Jewish terrorist organisations that were murdering people to form the State of Israel etc
Just checking because if you think "no sane person thinks that" and yet you asked me if I think that, this would suggest you think I am insane.
Similarly I think you are insane, so I had to check. Given NS's name on here is Nearly Sane, obviously we need him to confirm his position on killing babies.
Do you and NS think that the murders carried out by Hamas against Israeli civilians justifies the Israeli government killing Palestinian babies by carrying out their airstrikes on Gaza?
Good advice for NS and BHS
As it happens I got an A for English at A'Level so I might be able to help you with this. This is how you frame a question - do you DU think it's perfectly ok to kill babies as a response to the murder of family members - Israeli, Palestinian or any baby for that matter?
So do you?
I figure there's no harm in checking with individual posters on here about their views on whether it's ok to kill babies - because apparently NS does think it's perfectly ok to kill babies as he hasn't denied it since he posted that comment.
VG,Except I did not imply that. Lying is not a good look for you or NS.
If you think that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians justifies Hamas' murder of babies in their homes (as you implied) then yes, or at least if not insane then morally bankrupt.
Non sequitur. There is no “similarly” because I didn’t seek to justify the murder of babies by referencing the behaviour of their country of citizenship. The moral bankruptcy was only yours.Still lying as I did not justify murder. You arbitrarily interpreting and deciding that talking about the behaviour of Israel is a justification of murder by Hamas is your bigotry letting you down. Lying and bigotry on your part - not a good look.
NS can speak for himself, but I’ve made clear that I don’t think that anything justifies the murder of babies. Presumably the Israelis would seek to draw a moral difference between the cold-blooded hunting down and slaughter of families in their homes by gunmen and the killing of non-combatants used as human shields at rocket launch sites in the Gaza Strip for example, but that’s a different matter.Yes the Israelis might draw that moral difference by trying to argue that they were only seeking to destroy rocket launchers during their indiscriminate air strikes of civilian buildings and resulting execution of Palestinian babies. Only someone insane would believe them.
As it happens I got a Distinction for my “S” Level English so I might be able to help you with this. What NS posted was a type of reductio ad absurdum – he framed back to you the argument you implied (that the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians over decades somehow justifies Hamas murdering Israeli families in their homes) to show its moral bankruptcy.You lying to support NS lying is still not a good look. Despite your Distinction you appear to not know what the word "justifies" means. Please define what you think "justifies" means and quote where I justified Hamas murdering Israeli families
Hope that helps you.
You can stop lying about that now. He think no such thing, and nor does his version of a reductio ad absurdum imply that he does.I suggest you and NS stop lying and have a think about why it might be hypocritical for you both to have an issue with lying, given your own morally bankrupt behaviour.
VG,She doesn't think that nor has she implied it. She said people are diverse and it's not surprising that some of them react violently to the way Israelis treated Palestinians.
If you think that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians justifies Hamas' murder of babies in their homes (as you implied)
She doesn't think that nor has she implied it. She said people are diverse and it's not surprising that some of them react violently to the way Israelis treated Palestinians.Thanks Spud.
That's true. Hamas goes out specifically to murder civilians. Sometimes they take babies and cut their heads off.Just checking - did you manage to get any independent verification of this claim you made about babies being beheaded? So far on the internet all I can find is that it hasn't been verified:
Just checking - did you manage to get any independent verification of this claim you made about babies being beheaded? So far on the internet all I can find is that it hasn't been verified:I must say that it sounds like the sort of atrocity story that each side tells about the other in war-time, likeWW1 German soldiers bayonetting babies, or Spanish republicans raping nuns in the Spanish civil war.
https://news.sky.com/story/its-important-to-separate-the-facts-from-speculation-what-we-actually-know-about-the-viral-report-of-beheaded-babies-in-israel-12982329
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/biden-israel-hamas-images-children_n_6527d0cce4b09f4b8d433731
She doesn't think that nor has she implied it. She said people are diverse and it's not surprising that some of them react violently to the way Israelis treated Palestinians.
Under the circumstances, many Palestinians probably think they have been pretty restrained. I am not particularly surprised, given the diversity of human personalities in difficult circumstances, that some Palestinians such as Hamas have such extreme reactions to Israeli oppression. Not everyone's nature/ nurture will lead them to be a Gandhi or a Mandela.
Spud,Which bit in particular?
Here’s VG (Reply 64):
That’s sounds like an implied justification to me. You obviously think differently.
Spud,
Here’s VG (Reply 64):
That’s sounds like an implied justification to me. You obviously think differently.
Referring to a dictionary isn't as conclusive as you seem to think, since modern dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.Ok. I didn’t think dictionaries were conclusive but they would give some indication that BHS and NS were doing something more than just guessing based on their unevidenced beliefs and bias.
Could we possibly drop this sterile debate about semantics, and get back to discussing the Hamas-Israel war?
Referring to a dictionary isn't as conclusive as you seem to think, since modern dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.While I agree with you, I am struck by the difficulty of the word 'glorify' in the link below. What amounts to glorification? And even if it does amount to it should it be an offence?
Could we possibly drop this sterile debate about semantics, and get back to discussing the Hamas-Israel war?
Spud,
Here’s VG (Reply 64):
That’s sounds like an implied justification to me. You obviously think differently.
Be interested to see what reaction this gets in the US republican race for President.And here is the start. This could be the decisive topic in their choice.
And here is the start. This could be the decisive topic in their choice.We can always rely on the orange ogre to say the wrong thing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67101887
We can always rely on the orange ogre to say the wrong thing.There's always been a split on the US right between their isolationism and their support for the Israeli govt which has complex roots. I think DeSantis and Pence are in the mainstream for the party but Trump has the ability to unite 2 different strains of opinion in the party on this, including the ones that want to see Armageddon.
If someone said as a warning, "given that some people are much less restrained in the face of oppression than others, we can expect an extreme reaction from Hamas at some point" that would be in no way justifying such reactions; it is Hamas that thinks its actions are justified, not the person issuing the warning.Israel's increased collective punishment of civilians since 2019 - killing civilians including children with air strikes, increased restrictions on travel by Palestinians from the open air prison of Gaza, restricting electricity and food and medicines plus demolishing Palestinian homes in the West Bank and stealing more land and expanding settlements was going to provoke an extreme reaction from one or more militant groups.
Israel-Gaza clash: Why Hamas chose restraint https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50458141The last paragraph in the article predicts, "But if the situation doesn't improve, it's only a matter of time before the next escalation will happen."
Israel's increased collective punishment of civilians since 2019 - killing civilians including children with air strikes, increased restrictions on travel by Palestinians from the open air prison of Gaza, restricting electricity and food and medicines plus demolishing Palestinian homes in the West Bank and stealing more land and expanding settlements was going to provoke an extreme reaction from one or more militant groups.
Israel-Gaza clash: Why Hamas chose restraint https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50458141
Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, expected Arab terrorism in response to Israel stealing Arab land. To paraphrase Ben Gurion's words - steal land, expect terrorism in response but dead Israelis is a price worth paying to secure Zionist goals.
Of course posters with a colonial mindset like NS, or political opportunists in the Tory and Labour parties will be outraged by the idea that colonists could be massacred by the natives for stealing their land and will absolve the colonists of responsibility for the massacre.
Given what has happened throughout history, non-racists are not that surprised by Hamas murdering civilians, and condemn the Israeli government and Hamas for the murder of the Israeli citizens.
I see many supporters of Israel are lying on TV and on LBC - they seem to have been given a script to follow to push their propaganda - some are still repeating the lies about babies being beheaded even though this claim has been discredited and then continuing with a rehearsed script of further lies to justify their actions.
When asked why Israel was breaking international law and cutting off water, food and electricity to an entire civilian population they seem to admit that breaking international law can be justified against an evil enemy. That's the same argument that Hamas uses - so Israel is just as bad as Hamas, except Israel kills more civilians than Hamas does.
What do you think is the solution then? How are we going to end all the killing?Before I give my opinion on steps Israelis and Palestinians can take to end the cycle of violence, just checking - presumably we are both in agreement that there are alternatives to responding to terrorism with terrorism, since History shows across all countries that terrorism just leads to a continued cycle of violence?
Before I give my opinion on steps Israelis and Palestinians can take to end the cycle of violence, just checking - presumably we are both in agreement that there are alternatives to responding to terrorism with terrorism, since History shows across all countries that terrorism just leads to a continued cycle of violence?
Presumably therefore you are not suggesting that Hamas terrorism against Israeli citizens should even be entertained by the international community as a possible solution to Israeli government terrorism, and presumably you are also not suggesting that Israeli government terrorism against Palestinian civilians should be entertained by the international community as a possible solution to Hamas terrorism?
IMO genocide rarely works as a solution, whether it is genocide by the Israeli government or Hamas. I can't believe I am actually having to type that out on here but given the statements various politicians have kept coming out with this past week in response to Israel's siege of Gaza and collective punishment of civilians (including children and babies) through airstrikes of civilian high rise buildings, hospitals, people escaping on trucks etc, I needed to check whether you actually thought that Israeli government terrorism could be a potential solution.
I'm very pessimistic about this situation. I believe Hamas will never relinquish its goal of erasing Israel from the map and I believe that Israel will always use violence to respond to the terrorism of Hamas. This only ends if Israel is destroyed or Hamas loses most of its support. I think the latter happens only if Israel finds a way to persuade Palestinians that they are better off living peacefully with Israel. I don't know how to achieve that.Surely here you are mirroring Gabriella's position by having Israel only reacting to Hamas terrorism?
I want the violence on both sides to stop. But I think some of your language is questionable. Hamas's actions are not a response to "Israeli government terrorism". They aren't doing what they are doing because Israel keeps trying to kill them. They are doing it because Israel exists and they don't want it to.
I asked you what your solution is. I think it's only fair to admit I do not have one, at least not one that avoids a lot more deaths. The cycle of violence has got to be broken but that means asking either Hamas to give up on its guiding principle that it holds with religious fervour or asking Israel not to retaliate when Hamas terrorists kill its citizens.
Surely here you are mirroring Gabriella's position by having Israel only reacting to Hamas terrorism?
Israel is "only" reacting to Hamas' terrorism, in this instance. This is a separate issue to the one of the occupied lands on the West Bank.But surely Hamas then argues it's reacting to Israeli conduct in the West Bank? Also, is it just 'retaliation' or is it in itself a war crime?
I'm very pessimistic about this situation. I believe Hamas will never relinquish its goal of erasing Israel from the map and I believe that Israel will always use violence to respond to the terrorism of Hamas. This only ends if Israel is destroyed or Hamas loses most of its support. I think the latter happens only if Israel finds a way to persuade Palestinians that they are better off living peacefully with Israel. I don't know how to achieve that.Do you want a solution that is morally right i.e. it is consistent regardless of race and has been applied to many refugees across the world under international law, or are you looking for a solution that favours the Israelis and discriminates against Palestinians because you think Israel is not required to follow international law or be held to the same standards as other countries?
I want the violence on both sides to stop. But I think some of your language is questionable. Hamas's actions are not a response to "Israeli government terrorism". They aren't doing what they are doing because Israel keeps trying to kill them. They are doing it because Israel exists and they don't want it to.
I asked you what your solution is. I think it's only fair to admit I do not have one, at least not one that avoids a lot more deaths. The cycle of violence has got to be broken but that means asking either Hamas to give up on its guiding principle that it holds with religious fervour or asking Israel not to retaliate when Hamas terrorists kill its citizens.
Surely here you are mirroring Gabriella's position by having Israel only reacting to Hamas terrorism?Remind me again - what has your addled brain asserted as my position now? Just so I know. Last time apparently (according to you) my position was that murdering babies was justified. Umm.. let me guess - is my position now (according to you) that I want to give Hamas a Nobel Peace Price for not murdering more Jews than they already did?
Remind me again - what has your addled brain asserted as my position now? Just so I know. Last time apparently (according to you) my position was that murdering babies was justified. Umm.. let me guess - is my position now (according to you) that I want to give Hamas a Nobel Peace Price for not murdering more Jews than they already did?I was referring to your position as portrayed in the jeremyp's post to which I was replying. Your bias is getting in the way of your comprehension.
I was referring to your position as portrayed in the jeremyp's post to which I was replying. Your bias is getting in the way of your comprehension.That's hypocritical given your own bias and poor comprehension skills. Instead of being evasive or disingenuous, try just answering the question you were asked. What position is it that you think I hold?
That's hypocritical given your own bias and poor comprehension skills. Instead of being evasive or disingenuous, try just answering the question you were asked. What position is it that you think I hold?I've explained the context. Your ad hominems are irrelevant, both here, and to those suffering in Gaza.
I've explained the context. Your ad hominems are irrelevant, both here, and to those suffering in Gaza.Evasion noted. Are you pretending you are not biased?
What position is it that you think I hold?I personally don't know what position you hold.
Patrick Kielty on The Late Late Show👍👍
https://youtu.be/zpYr3o10mmY?si=MlBNMvazKYNCCA6e (https://youtu.be/zpYr3o10mmY?si=MlBNMvazKYNCCA6e)
I personally don't know what position you hold.Well let's see - the obvious one is that peace is impossible without justice and restitution as required by international law. If you kill or injure civilians by shooting them, burning them, dismembering them, decapitating them either close-up like Hamas or from a distance like Israel or by forcing them off their land or collectively punishing them by starving them, and cutting off water and electricity you are committing acts of terrorism, breaking international law and should be brought to justice. If perpetrators are not held to account there is no reason for the violence to end. So use the intelligence services and technology and soldiers to capture Hamas terrorists and put them on trial; and use travel restrictions, international arrest warrants and cut off funding for arms and settlements to hold members of the Israeli government and the IDF accountable for their terrorism against civilians. George Bush Snr managed to halt settlement building and bring Israel to the negotiating table https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-lonely-little-george-h-w-bush-changed-the-us-israel-relationship/
I also don't know what solution you would propose to solve, as much as it could possibly be solved, the ending of the cycle of violence.
Could you enlighten?
Both Sunak and Starmer's rhetoric here seems to absolve Israel for any responsibility for their actions.Andrea Leadsom on LBC last night: (https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/cross-question-with-iain-dale-16-10-watch-again/) no evidence of war crimes by Israel.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67126316
After all, there are only 2 options available - diplomacy or a cycle of violence
Are those your proposed solution(s)?
Andrea Leadsom on LBC last night: (https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/cross-question-with-iain-dale-16-10-watch-again/) no evidence of war crimes by Israel.I might want someone more reliably truthful than Leadsom to comment but the blockade is a war crime.
I might want someone more reliably truthful than Leadsom to comment but the blockade is a war crime.I agree. I couldn't believe she said that (6:25 minutes into the discussion).
Well let's see - the obvious one is that peace is impossible without justice and restitution as required by international law....Is that obvious? To take one example close by, that's not the process used for the move to peace in Northern Ireland.
But surely Hamas then argues it's reacting to Israeli conduct in the West Bank?No. Hamas argues Israel shouldn't exist. Their problem is not what Israel is doing but the fact that it is a secular state in the Holy Land.
Do you want a solution that is morally right i.e. it is consistent regardless of race and has been applied to many refugees across the world under international law,That would be great, but I can't see it happening.
or are you looking for a solution that favours the Israelis and discriminates against Palestinians because you think Israel is not required to follow international law or be held to the same standards as other countries?
I've no idea how JP makes the arbitrary distinctions that Hamas indiscriminately punishing civilians is terrorism but when Israel does it, it isn't terrorism just because Israel pays lip service to not wanting to hurt civilians while simultaneously indiscriminately bombing civilian areas.
No. Hamas argues Israel shouldn't exist. Their problem is not what Israel is doing but the fact that it is a secular state in the Holy Land.False dichotomy. Hamas has and does argue that its actions are provoked by Israel's.
It's not arbitrary. Hamas is a terrorist organisation that targets civilians. Israel is a nation state that targets terrorists but doesn't care when Palestinian civilians are in the way. They commit war crimes but that doesn't make them terrorists. Your use of the language is deliberately emotive and it doesn't help people to evaluate the situation.Does war crimes vs terrorism make any difference to the children who are murdered by both/either?
That would be great, but I can't see it happening.if it wouldn't work, it's not realistic.
A solution that stops all the killing from both sides would be a start, I think.
I can think of one realistic option, but I don't think it would work.
Have you got a solution? It's OK to say no. I don't think there is a workable one.
That would be great, but I can't see it happening.I'm not very optimistic either. There may be a temporary patch applied but the festering will probably continue. You wouldn't think they were worshiping the same God. I suspect that Russia is happy that the spotlight has been distracted away from Ukraine. With expanding world populations and more and more sophisticated weapons of mass destruction I suspect that we can expect more and more indiscriminate deaths and destruction.
A solution that stops all the killing from both sides would be a start, I think.
I can think of one realistic option, but I don't think it would work.
Have you got a solution? It's OK to say no. I don't think there is a workable one.
False dichotomy. Hamas has and does argue that its actions are provoked by Israel's.Indeed. And I was rather surprised to hear Hanan Ashrawi, whom I had always thought took a measured view, giving the impression that she thought that Israel's actions had been entirely at fault for decades. I was very surprised to hear not one condemnation of the recent attack by Hamas, which most people would think was barbaric and quite obviously mobilized Israel to go to war (their methods in doing this look like being even more barbaric than those of Hamas, but that doesn't alter the original trigger event).
Is that obvious? To take one example close by, that's not the process used for the move to peace in Northern Ireland.I was thinking more of the example of restitution of property to Jews that was confiscated during the Holocaust - we have a situation where Jewish people faced theft and looting of their land and property by Europeans during the Holocaust so they thought the solution was to immediately turn around and steal and loot the property of Palestinians and inflict ethnic cleansing on them immediately after the war ended. A classic case of brutalised people continuing the violence by inflicting abuse on others.
I was thinking more of the example of restitution of property to Jews that was confiscated during the Holocaust - we have a situation where Jewish people faced theft and looting of their land and property by Europeans during the Holocaust so they thought the solution was to immediately turn around and steal and loot the property of Palestinians and inflict ethnic cleansing on them immediately after the war ended. A classic case of brutalised people continuing the violence by inflicting abuse on others.Are you saying that when you said it was 'impossible', it was merely you expressing an opinion about what you think in this specific circumstance. I was pointing out that a peace has happened without it. That is in no sense claiming that the 2 situations are exactly the same.
I would say the difference in NI is that confiscation by Protestant English of land owned by Catholics happened in the 1600s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland, whereas land lost by Palestinians happened only 75 years ago and there is significant documentation of the places they lost - i.e. the Palestinian situation is more like the situation for Jews under the Nazis and partial restitution of property stolen from Jews during the Holocaust. Though given the situation of Jews moving back to Palestine and stealing land to restore the state of Israel after being expelled 2000 years ago by the Romans, maybe the Arabs still have time for restitution ::).
Justice in the NI peace process was power-sharing between the parties in conflict, so again I don't think peace can be achieved without Palestinian autonomy, which requires dismantling Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The areas given to Palestinian control are little islands dotted around the West Bank so it is impossible to form a Palestinian state. That needs to change - without justice there can't be peace. https://www.btselem.org/planning_and_building
Similarities between NI and the Palestinian situation and actually most of these conflicts where there is a violent state response to people aspiring for equality followed by a military occupying force of a civilian population, is that a rationale for terrorism against the occupiers develops due to state repression and brutalisation of civilians.
No. Hamas argues Israel shouldn't exist. Their problem is not what Israel is doing but the fact that it is a secular state in the Holy Land.Nope - your ignorance is astounding given the amount of available information on the internet.
That would be great, but I can't see it happening.Which is what?
A solution that stops all the killing from both sides would be a start, I think.
I can think of one realistic option, but I don't think it would work.
Have you got a solution? It's OK to say no. I don't think there is a workable one.Yes. There have been lots of conflicts in the world and eventually some measure of peace - any international response doesn't need to perfect. The international community acted decisively in relation to Russia and the result is by no means perfect and we certainly don't have peace but it's better than the alternative.
Ffs!
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/at-least-500-people-killed-in-hospital-bombing-in-gaza-palestinian-officials-claim/ar-AA1inmIj
It's not arbitrary. Hamas is a terrorist organisation that targets civilians. Israel is a nation state that targets terrorists but doesn't care when Palestinian civilians are in the way. They commit war crimes but that doesn't make them terrorists. Your use of the language is deliberately emotive and it doesn't help people to evaluate the situation.I am using language as it is used in international law - if you feel emotional about the word "terrorism" by the Israeli state, I guess that means you're human and have empathy, which is a useful thing to have when evaluating situations of armed conflict. So I disagree that it doesn't help people evaluate situations.
Are you saying that when you said it was 'impossible', it was merely you expressing an opinion about what you think in this specific circumstance. I was pointing out that a peace has happened without it. That is in no sense claiming that the 2 situations are exactly the same.Of course it was this specific situation since there isn't a one-size-fits-all plan for peace in all conflicts. It obviously depends on the specific circumstances and causes of each conflict.
Of course it was this specific situation since there isn't a one-size-fits-all plan for peace in all conflicts. It obviously depends on the specific circumstances and causes of each conflict...
Ah, I see. It would appear that in order to give ypur desire for what you want to happen, you attempted it to give it a patina of objectivity by writing 'is that peace is impossible without justice and restitution as required by international law', and then going on to list what you would demand. It would be possible to get a mirrored answer for someone partisan to Israel's demands, and so neither seems realistic as a solution.Well of course it is my opinion. There isn't some objective solution, standard or formula on how to achieve peace in the real world. A realistic solution is one that the international community can persuade both sides to accept and abide by, and no one has a crystal ball to know whether that solution will be derailed in the future because it is dependent on the future actions of future parties in the conflict e.g the NI peace process did not envisage a Brexit.
I doubt that anyone could detail a settlement that would be something that would succeed as such a thing cpuld only come about through a complex of compromises that is ever changing based on events. Until both sides are willing to put the safety of people above the satisfaction of past grievances, i fear that it will not happen.
What do you think is the solution then? How are we going to end all the killing?
Before I give my opinion on steps Israelis and Palestinians can take to end the cycle of violence...
Do you want a solution that is morally right i.e. it is consistent regardless of race and has been applied to many refugees across the world under international law, or are you looking for a solution that favours the Israelis and discriminates against Palestinians because you think Israel is not required to follow international law or be held to the same standards as other countries?
I personally don't know what position you hold.
I also don't know what solution you would propose to solve, as much as it could possibly be solved, the ending of the cycle of violence.
Could you enlighten?
False dichotomy. Hamas has and does argue that its actions are provoked by Israel's.
Nope - your ignorance is astounding given the amount of available information on the internet.The Hamas charter is available on the Internet. It says exactly what I claim their motives are.
I am using language as it is used in international law - if you feel emotional about the word "terrorism" by the Israeli state, I guess that means you're human and have empathy, which is a useful thing to have when evaluating situations of armed conflict. So I disagree that it doesn't help people evaluate situations.International law does not automatically designate states as terrorist if they have committed war crimes.
Israel denying responsibility
https://www.nsnews.com/world-news/israel-denies-involvement-in-gaza-hospital-blast-says-explosion-caused-by-palestinian-rocket-7693430
The point is that, if Israel stopped what it is doing to defend itself, it wouldn't be satisfactory for Hamas. They want Israel gone and they say the only way to do this is Jihad.'Defend itself' does not equal 'war crimes'. If you want to complain about people using 'emotive' language, playing down Israel's actions is disingenuous.
'Defend itself' does not equal 'war crimes'. If you want to complain about people using 'emotive' language, playing down Israel's actions is disingenuous.
"Defending itself" is not factually wrong. "Terrorist state" is factually wrong.Using terrorism would not be factually wrong. You and Gabriella can continue your approach of 'they started it'. It seems likely to continue to have children being murdered while you indulge in a pointless blame game.
Using terrorism would not be factually wrong.Yes it would. You can claim Israel has committed war crimes but it is factually wrong to call them terrorism.
You and Gabriella can continue your approach of 'they started it'. It seems likely to continue to have children being murdered while you indulge in a pointless blame game.
Yes it would. You can claim Israel has committed war crimes but it is factually wrong to call them terrorism.Am I indulging in a blame game? The difference is that I don't think you get to a who started it here. Both the Hamas terrorist attacks and the Israeli war crimes ars heinous but the solution won't be about that. If you stick to your and Gabriella's mirror position, you'll just keep the slaughter going.
Why do you say "you"? You are indulging in it too. But it doesn't matter because none of us have a solution and we can't stop what is happening. If there was something we could actually do, then it would be wrong of us to argue about who started it instead of doing the thing, but I don't have a solution and nobody else here has put one forward.
On the other hand, any successful solution will take into account who started it and why.
The Hamas charter is available on the Internet. It says exactly what I claim their motives are.We covered this in reply #20 on this thread. Your own link to the Hamas charter said:
They have rejected several peace deals over the years, probably because they all involved Israel continuing to exist.
They gained power in Gaza by winning elections in 2006 and then abolished elections.You seem to have left out quite a sizeable chunk of information in that assertion.
These are not nice people and you shouldn't be defending them.How does not discussing it help because I can just say the same to you - the right-wing nationalist Israeli government are not nice people and you shouldn't be defending them. There was mass civil protest against Netanyahu just before the latest Hamas terrorist attack.
Am I indulging in a blame game? The difference is that I don't think you get to a who started it here. Both the Hamas terrorist attacks and the Israeli war crimes ars heinous but the solution won't be about that. If you stick to your and Gabriella's mirror position, you'll just keep the slaughter going.
As already covered in reply to Gabriella, the peace we have in Northern Ireland has only come about by not seeking recriminations and blame.I think there are a number of reasons why Northern Ireland peace came about. It required both sides to understand that the violence would never solve anything and it would stop if everybody just made a few concessions. Hamas has never got to that realisation. There have been a number of attempted peace settlements and Hamas has always rejected them. I'm not saying it won't work at some point in the future, but Israel isn't the problem at the moment.
As to your diffentiation between terrorism and war crines, tell what the substantive difference is to people who are being starved because of Israel's actions?
Hamas wants Israel erased from the face of the Earth. What's your solution to that?I'll leave you and Gabriella to continue with but my side murders children in the 'good way' approach which will merely ensure the continued murdering of children.
I think there are a number of reasons why Northern Ireland peace came about. It required both sides to understand that the violence would never solve anything and it would stop if everybody just made a few concessions. Hamas has never got to that realisation. There have been a number of attempted peace settlements and Hamas has always rejected them. I'm not saying it won't work at some point in the future, but Israel isn't the problem at the moment.
Hamas and Israel are not equivalently awful. Hamas deliberately targets civilian communities. Israel does not, except when Hamas terrorists are concealing themselves in them. Israel tries to justify its actions by claiming they are defending their country against proper that murder their citizens. Hamas tried to justify its actions by claiming Israel should not exist.
Both sides are not the same.
International law does not automatically designate states as terrorist if they have committed war crimes.I did not say Israel has been designated a terrorist state by international law, since there is no agreed upon definition of terrorism in international law as one person's terrorism is someone else's act to achieve de-colonisation / freedom from state repression.
Israel is not a terrorist state.
I'll leave you and Gabriella to continue with but my side murders children in the 'good way' approach which will merely ensure the continued murdering of children.Who are my side in any of this? You make assertions without linking to evidence of me supporting Hamas or Israeli terrorism. Your assertion is really odd coming from someone who stated on here that it was ok to murder babies.
(And before anyone wants to question my sobriety for that interpretation, stone cold sober looking for bottles of love)
Hamas wants Israel erased from the face of the Earth. What's your solution to that?Evidence for your belief? We covered this in reply #20 on this thread. Your own link to the Hamas charter said:
I think there are a number of reasons why Northern Ireland peace came about. It required both sides to understand that the violence would never solve anything and it would stop if everybody just made a few concessions. Hamas has never got to that realisation.Your own link to the Hamas charter said:
There have been a number of attempted peace settlements and Hamas has always rejected them. I'm not saying it won't work at some point in the future, but Israel isn't the problem at the moment.You haven't addressed any of the evidence on here that undermines your belief and you haven't presented evidence to support your belief. I get you really, really want to believe that Israel is not the problem but some evidence to support that belief that Israel is not the problem would be nice.
Hamas and Israel are not equivalently awful. Hamas deliberately targets civilian communities. Israel does not, except when Hamas terrorists are concealing themselves in them. Israel tries to justify its actions by claiming they are defending their country against proper that murder their citizens. Hamas tried to justify its actions by claiming Israel should not exist.Given the amount of murdering of Palestinian civilians that Israel was doing before Hamas even came into existence, the "defending itself" argument doesn't work. Israel has been deliberately targeting civilians from the time it ethnically cleansed Palestinian civilians who were the wrong faith/ race from their villages and land as part of the creation of its Jewish state.
Both sides are not the same.
Your assertion is really odd coming from someone who stated on here that it was ok to murder babies.
VG,BHS - and why are you lying about me lying?
Why are you still lying about that?
BHS - and why are you lying about me lying?
VG,Why are you still lying about not lying?
I'm not. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise though by telling us where he advocated murdering babies.
A quick question, which I can probably Google - Does Hamas aim to eradicate Jews or just reclaim Palestine from them?Based on JP's link Hamas accepts a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, it does not recognise the state of Israel, it does not seek to eradicate the Jews and does not see this as a religious conflict but it is against the political goal of Zionism on the basis that Zionism deprived Arabs in Palestine of their right to self-determination, required Arab ethnic cleansing to achieve a Jewish state, and perpetuates discriminatory laws within Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories where Arabs are treated worse than Jewish Israelis.
Am I indulging in a blame game? The difference is that I don't think you get to a who started it here. Both the Hamas terrorist attacks and the Israeli war crimes ars heinous but the solution won't be about that. If you stick to your and Gabriella's mirror position, you'll just keep the slaughter going.Sounds like you are indulging in the blame game here, since apparently JP and me arguing on a forum will, according to you, keep the slaughter going. In that case I think this blame game attitude of yours on this forum while never managing to present any evidence for your assertions is also keeping the slaughter of Palestinian and Israeli civilians going. So now what?
As already covered in reply to Gabriella, the peace we have in Northern Ireland has only come about by not seeking recriminations and blame.And as I responded, there was a requirement for justice in NI through the establishment of a mechanism of power-sharing and autonomy and free movement and elections. In Palestine the justice requirement is a viable contiguous Palestinian state which would require the dismantling of Israeli settlements. Restitution would be the Right of Return for refugees, which is a right protected under international law. There were no refugees in NI like in Palestine as this was not a feature of the conflict in NI.
Why are you still lying about not lying?
Feel free to answer all the questions and points I put to you on this thread if you want a response to this. I'm not wasting time answering your points while you ignore mine.
VG,Again - why are you still lying to us?
Again, if you think you're not lying about what NS said then it should be simple matter for you to show us where he advocated murdering babies.
Why can't you?
Your "questions and points" are your standard playbook when you get something arse-backwards. Rather than address the explanation for why you got something arse-backwards, instead you indulge in ever more convoluted diversions and prevarications.
It's very simple - either show us where NS advocated murdering babies or, when you can't do that (and you can't because he hasn't done that at all), withdraw the comment and apologise for making it.
Based on JP's link Hamas accepts a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, it does not recognise the state of Israel, it does not seek to eradicate the Jews and does not see this as a religious conflict but it is against the political goal of Zionism on the basis that Zionism deprived Arabs in Palestine of their right to self-determination, required Arab ethnic cleansing to achieve a Jewish state, and perpetuates discriminatory laws within Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories where Arabs are treated worse than Jewish Israelis.Thanks Gabriella.
This link elaborates on JP's link https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/5/2/hamas-accepts-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders
Again - why are you still lying to us?No, you are the one who is lying. And less of the 'us' - I don't know who you think you are speaking for.
It's very simple - when you address the points made to you instead of you lying to us, being evasive and making assertions that you can't support with evidence - something you have in common with NS, and when you and NS withdraw your lies and apologise, I will be happy to show you again where NS said it was ok to kill babies.
No, you are the one who is lying. And less of the 'us' - I don't know who you think you are speaking for.Yes BHS is lying about me lying. Why are you also lying about me lying?
Again - why are you still lying to us?
It's very simple - when you address the points made to you instead of you lying to us, being evasive and making assertions that you can't support with evidence - something you have in common with NS, and when you and NS withdraw your lies and apologise,…
I will be happy to show you again where NS said it was ok to kill babies.
Based on JP's link Hamas accepts a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, it does not recognise the state of Israel, it does not seek to eradicate the Jews and does not see this as a religious conflict but it is against the political goal of Zionism on the basis that Zionism deprived Arabs in Palestine of their right to self-determination, required Arab ethnic cleansing to achieve a Jewish state, and perpetuates discriminatory laws within Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories where Arabs are treated worse than Jewish Israelis.You mention Zionism. How significant a role do Christian Zionists play in the Western support of Israel? These are radical protestants who believe in the future conversion of Israel to Christianity and that the formation of Israel in 1948 fulfilled Old Testament prophecy.
This link elaborates on JP's link https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/5/2/hamas-accepts-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders
Yes BHS is lying about me lying. Why are you also lying about me lying?
I don’t know why BHS claims to speak for ‘us’ either.
Maybe he’s insecure about the points he’s trying to make…
… and needs to pretend he has the support of the forum.
But I figured if that’s the convention on here to say ‘us’ I’d go along with it to be sociable seeing as we’re all such good friends on here Dicky
BHS - take note - apparently Dicky doesn’t like posters saying they’re speaking for ‘us’
VG,See my reply #182
And another item from your playbook is to respond to any criticism by just making the same criticism back regardless of the facts (the tu quoque fallacy).
It’s very simple: you accused (several times) NS of advocating the murder of babies. He didn’t do that. Your choice therefore is to withdraw and apologise, or to justify the claim with a citation.
So far, you’ve managed to do neither.
“Again”?
In any case, why don’t you just to do that then?
You mention Zionism. How significant a role do Christian Zionists play in the Western support of Israel? These are radical protestants who believe in the future conversion of Israel to Christianity and that the formation of Israel in 1948 fulfilled Old Testament prophecy.I hadn't thought about them and hadn't looked into the role of Christian Zionists in this particular round of the conflict but I agree they seemed to have influence over Trump and were very supportive of Israel and did not favour a 2-state solution because they thought all the land should be part of the state of Israel. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/16/mike-pompeo-israel-biblical-claim-palestine-not-occupying
My gut feeling about the 'solution' is that the Israelis should make restitution to the displaced Palestinians and allow them to integrate among them in Israel. I don't think allowing the Israelis to have their own state exclusive of the Palestinians works.My gut feeling is the Zionists were expecting this level of opposition to having a Jewish state because they always knew a deep attachment to the land is something they share with the Arabs. At least that's what I infer from the quotes from the first PM of Israel, Ben Gurion.
Yes BHS is lying about me lying. Why are you also lying about me lying?
I don’t know why BHS claims to speak for ‘us’ either. Maybe he’s insecure about the points he’s trying to make and needs to pretend he has the support of the forum. But I figured if that’s the convention on here to say ‘us’ I’d go along with it to be sociable seeing as we’re all such good friends on here Dicky :)
BHS - take note - apparently Dicky doesn’t like posters saying they’re speaking for ‘us’
Maybe he’s insecure about the points he’s trying to make and needs to pretend he has the support of the forum
Some small good news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67142031
I hadn't thought about them and hadn't looked into the role of Christian Zionists in this particular round of the conflict but I agree they seemed to have influence over Trump ...
A quick question, which I can probably Google - Does Hamas aim to eradicate Jews or just reclaim Palestine from them?
'Omid Djalili show cancelled over 'personal threats over Israel situation''As a Ba'hai, he's a bit like Treebeard the Ent, isn't he?
Hmmm....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-67162627
As a Ba'hai, he's a bit like Treebeard the Ent, isn't he?I fear that Dundee United fans may be getting threats
Small and very very slowRidiculously slow and very little
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67156084
There could be a solution to this.That would not solve the continuing injustice of Israel's theft of Palestinian land, which is at the root of all this.
I know of Christian communities in the middle east which comprise Muslims and Jews who have converted to Christianity and live harmoniously together. I believe turning to Jesus and sincerely following His teachings is the only feasible solution to conflicts such as this. To adopt Christ's teaching of "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. [Luke 6:27-28]" instead of "kill the infidels" or "an eye for an eye" would be the only way.
There could be a solution to this.Is that like the Christians who carried out the Holocaust?
I know of Christian communities in the middle east which comprise Muslims and Jews who have converted to Christianity and live harmoniously together. I believe turning to Jesus and sincerely following His teachings is the only feasible solution to conflicts such as this. To adopt Christ's teaching of "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. [Luke 6:27-28]" instead of "kill the infidels" or "an eye for an eye" would be the only way.
There could be a solution to this.
I know of Christian communities in the middle east which comprise Muslims and Jews who have converted to Christianity and live harmoniously together. I believe turning to Jesus and sincerely following His teachings is the only feasible solution to conflicts such as this. To adopt Christ's teaching of "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. [Luke 6:27-28]" instead of "kill the infidels" or "an eye for an eye" would be the only way.
Facile wishful thinking.The 'thinking' bit may be inaccurate
Is the sarcasm really necessary?Yes.
I'm not lying about you lying. If BHS used 'us', he's quite entitled too, since he was supporting NS. That makes two, and as I remember my English grammar, that makes a plural, and 'us' is entirely appropriate.Or you're the fool who brought up the use of the word 'us' in the first place, which I then responded to. Yes my responses to you and BHS were facetious as your points were trivial.
Irony meters explode all round.
You might make more friends (if that concerns you) if you occasionally conceded that you were wrong. You're trivialising a serious thread, and I'm a fool for rising to your bait, by effectively doing the same. See, I can admit my faults.
That would not solve the continuing injustice of Israel's theft of Palestinian land, which is at the root of all this.Are you talking about recent theft or that of 1948? Historical theft is usually come to terms with by later generations .
Or you're the fool who brought up the use of the word 'us' in the first place, which I then responded to. Yes my responses to you and BHS were facetious as your points were trivial.Yadda Yadda Yadda
Hopefully BHS's clarification in reply #190 has put your mind at rest that his (and therefore my) use of "us" is not claiming to speak for the forum . I was just using his terminology. And I have conceded when I think I am wrong on here, I just don't concede when you think I am wrong. So no I don't want to change anything about myself on here to make friends with you Dicky - I don't know you so why would I want to be friends with you? We're all just having a discussion. We don't need to be friends to have a discussion.
We'll agree to disagree about which posters are lying on this thread as it's more relevant to the issue of Hamas and Israel to identify when they are both lying, which they both seem to do frequently. Let's focus on those lies.
Are you talking about recent theft or that of 1948? Historical theft is usually come to terms with by later generations .I agree with you about Israeli and Palestinian children going to the same schools. Despite the Holocaust by the Europeans I see no reason why there needed to be a separate Jewish state in Palestine, since there hadn't been a Holocaust by the Arabs against the Jews - it was very much a European problem and it was the Europeans who couldn't be trusted to not carry out slaughter on an industrial scale, not the Arabs.
If the current theft stopped it would definitely help. I'd like to live to see Palestinian and Israeli children going to the same schools. The question is can Israel go into Gaza without the Arab nations getting involved? If not, hopefully Israel will realise and halt plans to do so. The guilty Hamas people (and Israelis who retaliated) can be brought to justice in time, or there could be amnesty. (Edit, once Biden is gone)
And bad news.It seems strange when I hear people justify the bombing of densely packed civilian areas in Gaza by saying "but what was Israel supposed to do after Hamas attacked them - they couldn't do nothing, they had to react and that's why it's ok to bomb unarmed civilians."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67173344
It seems strange when I hear people justify the bombing of densely packed civilian areas in Gaza by saying "but what was Israel supposed to do after Hamas attacked them - they couldn't do nothing, they had to react and that's why it's ok to bomb unarmed civilians."I don't disagree with your sentiment but isn't the reasoning here that in a war carried out with bombs then civilians are not intended victims but are 'collateral' in that scary euphemism? Shooting a civilian, the intention is to kill the civilian.
Because they seem to be saying that when Palestinians are faced with this IDF and Israeli settler violence, if a country would arm the Palestinians with missiles and planes, like the US and UK arm Israel, then it is perfectly reasonable if the Palestinians used the planes and missiles to bomb illegal settlements and to bomb cities in Israel, like Israel is bombing Gaza.
It's a very odd line of argument to me - killing unarmed civilians including women and children by bombing cities is reasonable but killing unarmed civilians including women and children by shooting them as Hamas did is not. But no one has yet provided a reasoned argument to justify why bombing civilians is more morally palatable than shooting civilians.
I don't disagree with your sentiment but isn't the reasoning here that in a war carried out with bombs then civilians are not intended victims but are 'collateral' in that scary euphemism? Shooting a civilian, the intention is to kill the civilian.Of course there is a difference between shooting civilians deliberately and accidentally when trying to hit the enemy. But at some point in the latter case the shooters must become aware that they have been killing innocent people, from which point onward if they continue, they become guilty of murder and there is no difference between them and the original enemy murderers.
I don't disagree with your sentiment but isn't the reasoning here that in a war carried out with bombs then civilians are not intended victims but are 'collateral' in that scary euphemism? Shooting a civilian, the intention is to kill the civilian.Given the people in Israel's kibbutz/ settlements / communities are well-armed, and given women and young people serve in the IDF, militants who storm a settlement as part of their resistance against Israel's land theft and brutal repression would presumably need to mow civilians down with machine gunfire and grenades as they cannot see who is inside a building or distinguish between civilians who are trying to kill them and those who aren't.
Given the people in Israel's kibbutz/ settlements / communities are well-armed, and given women and young people serve in the IDF, militants who storm a settlement as part of their resistance against Israel's land theft and brutal repression would presumably need to mow civilians down with machine gunfire and grenades as they cannot see who is inside a building or distinguish between civilians who are trying to kill them and those who aren't.You seem to be suggesting that every one shot by 'militants' is in a some form of fire fight. We're back at you justifying murder of children again. Oddly your rhetoric reminds me of Netanyahu.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/10/israeli-woman-25-hailed-as-hero-for-killing-terrorists-leading-security-team-at-kibbutz/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67089113
The militants don't have the ability to only pick out armed targets in the chaos of an attack on a settlement where people are trying to kill them so they would carry out indiscriminate gunfire and throw grenades, much like the rationale offered as to why unarmed civilians and children are killed by bombing campaigns. If people want to give the militants missiles and planes instead (and defensive technology to protect the planes from missiles trying to destroy them on the ground) I am sure the militants would be happy to use them to indiscriminately bomb armed and unarmed Israelis (like Israel is doing to the Palestinians) rather than just shoot them - you could kill a lot more people more quickly with missiles.
So that sounds to me like an artificial delineation by the people with the bombs to try to absolve themselves of moral responsibility. Hence lots of people don't appear to find the attempted distinction convincing.
Israel and their supporters can certainly try that line but the amount of anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian feeling around the world is possibly because people aren't fooled and can see the hypocrisy, although Israel tries to silence criticism by saying it is driven by antisemitism.
My impression is that most people don't despise Israel because they dislike Jews, they despise Israel because of its policies towards Palestinians from the time the Zionist project was put in motion over the objections of the Arabs being colonised, following European savagery to Jews. The same way people despised the Afrikaans leadership in South Africa during apartheid because of policies enacted and brutality towards a particular race.
At this point judging from the mass anti-Israel protests and waving of Palestinian flags, it seems like a lot of people would rather be called antisemitic than have a troubled conscience by not speaking up against Israel's brutal bombing of Palestinian civilians and its siege of Gaza.
If you are bombing in a civilian area and the militants are hidden then possibly it reminds people of the bombing of Vietnamese villages to kill Vietcong.
The US Air Force also claimed they had precision weapons and organised a bombing campaign of Northern Vietnam from 1965-1972. The aim was to destroy military and industrial targets in the north and hit strategic targets in Vietnamese cities. The north also had little industry to destroy. A great deal of the military infrastructure was underground or in caves. during the Vietnam war.
The US lost popular support and faced mass demonstrations against their conduct in Vietnam. This offensive resulted in an increase in volunteers for the Vietcong.
Israel's bombing campaign is just creating more support and recruitment for militants fighting Israel. Presumably that's what Israel wants because it will get more arms and funding from the US as a result.
You seem to be suggesting that every one shot by 'militants' is in a some form of fire fight. We're back at you justifying murder of children again. Oddly your rhetoric reminds me of Netanyahu.No we're not - we're back at your poor comprehension and bias.
No we're not - we're back at your poor comprehension and bias.I 'comprehended' your deliberate use of the word 'miliitant'. That you did that illustrates you justifying the murder of children. Thank you for higlighting that you are Bibi are two cheeks of the same arse.
What we're actually back at is me stating the flip side of Netanyahu's argument from the militant perspective to show how if Netanyahu's argument for indiscriminate violence against unarmed civilians works then so does the militants' argument for indiscriminate violence against unarmed civilians. Therefore I don't agree that the "what is Israel supposed to do" argument works.
How you got from that to me justifying murder of children is just you gaslighting. And it was you that stated that murdering children was ok on here, not me.
I deliberately used the word 'militant' because I didn't call the IDF or the settlers "terrorists" either. Interesting how you only picked up on the word 'militant' - it just shows your anti-Palestinian bias.
I 'comprehended' your deliberate use of the word 'miliitant'. That you did that illustrates you justifying the murder of children. Thank you for higlighting that you are Bibi are two cheeks of the same arse.Again no it doesn't and you were the person who stated on here it was ok to kill children, not me.
Again no it doesn't and you were the person who stated on here it was ok to kill children, not me.Given your earlier post about 'militants' only killing people in fire fights, your 'logic' justifies the actions of the Israelis at Kibbutz Be'Eri. Your resemblance to Netanyahu is becoming uncanny.
Given I have been describing Hamas as terrorists, I deliberately used 'militant' here to see if someone would only pick up on the word 'militant' due to anti-Palestinian bias. Thank you for highlighting your anti-Palestinian bias by picking up on the word militant and demonstrating that you are Netanyahu's brother from another mother.
What I was demonstrating is that militants can mirror Netanyahu's argument "what is Israel supposed to do". If militants storm an armed settlement, indiscriminate shooting and grenade throwing to cause maximum chaos is an effective way of getting in and out while trying not to get killed - lessens militant casualties. Which is the same reason for aerial bombing by the Israelis - less Israeli casualties.
And as Yasmin Porat, an Israeli survivor from the recent attack on Kibbutz Be’eri near the Gaza boundary, said - Israeli forces killed their own civilians while combating Palestinian fighters.
Given your earlier post about 'militants' only killing people in fire fights, your 'logic' justifies the actions of the Israelis at Kibbutz Be'Eri. Your resemblance to Netanyahu is becoming uncanny.I didn't make a post about militants only killing people in firefights - that's your interpretation of my post based on your anti-Palestinian bias.
I didn't make a post about militants only killing people in firefights - that's your interpretation of my post based on your anti-Palestinian bias.I fully agree that anyone supporting indiscriminate violence is at fault. Are you suggesting that all use of guns and bombs is indiscriminate violence?
What I did say was "The militants don't have the ability to only pick out armed targets in the chaos of an attack on a settlement where people are trying to kill them so they would carry out indiscriminate gunfire and throw grenades, much like the rationale offered as to why unarmed civilians and children are killed by bombing campaigns."
Given I am not storming a settlement nor am I a militant nor am I a member of the IDF, the above arguments put forward by militants and the IDF for indiscriminate violence and killing civilians is not an argument made by me.
Neither do I make the argument that has been put forward by both sides that the civilian populations in Israel and Palestine voted for their leaders so they deserve the indiscriminate violence against them. I am happy to discuss those arguments though on a Message Board...which was set up for discussion of various arguments.
Your obsession with me personally as opposed to the argument made by either side, which is what I am analysing, is making you look foolish and unhinged - much like Netanyahu. You have a wife - go fight with her if you're in the mood to fight with an individual - at least you actually know her.
Getting back to the argument made , and NS please try not to obsessively make this about me, I cannot see how the argument for indiscriminate violence works for Israel or the Palestinians. They both seem the same argument - guns, bombs, not seeing the difference. Any views that don't involve obsessing about me personally?
I fully agree that anyone supporting indiscriminate violence is at fault. Are you suggesting that all use of guns and bombs is indiscriminate violence?And to be clear, I'm not a fan of discriminate violence either.
Are you suggesting that all use of guns and bombs is indiscriminate violence?Again, for the hard of understanding, I am suggesting that indiscriminate violence in civilian areas by guns and bombs in order to inflict damage on the enemy is the same i.e. shooting and throwing grenades indiscriminately in settlements and bombing indiscriminately in civilian areas is the same.
I would suggest that it is the emotional drivers (e.g. desire and fear) behind the arguments that need resolving if at all possible bearing in mind that the history of mankind seems to indicate that their suppression is just delayed expression.
I am suggesting that the arguments made by militants and IDF for collectively punishing civilians are the same.
Utterly depressing.Like I said - not seeing the difference between Israel's terrorism and that of Hamas, just because the Israelis use missiles to terrorise civilians and Hamas uses guns and grenades. Both sides are trying to collectively punish civilians for what their elected leaders do. Israel seems to be doing it on a much more industrial scale - obviously learnt from the Jewish experience at the hands of Europe that there are more efficient ways of killing large numbers of civilians than shooting them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67186181
He should have known better. No-one is allowed to criticise Israel - everyone knows that.Is this in the same way no one is allowed to discuss immigration?
You say ceasefire but I couldn't possibly advocate for that, much better to have a humanitarian pause.More splitters
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67223796
Chilling warning about the true nature of Hamas from the son of a Hamas leader who has defected and become a Christian:In the video it highlights what Hamas were 'willing to do to Holocaust victims'. I wonder what the primary religion of those who carried out the Holocaust was? Could you help me out on that, Alan? I mean I'd like to just make sure in my mind that while children are dying, in part because of religious exceptionalism, you weren't just indulging in a spot of undeserved religious exceptionalism of your own.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMCC2ihCowg
Chilling warning about the true nature of Hamas from the son of a Hamas leader who has defected and become a Christian:It's Fox News, so I suppose it must be true. ::)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMCC2ihCowg
In the video it highlights what Hamas were 'willing to do to Holocaust victims'. I wonder what the primary religion of those who carried out the Holocaust was? Could you help me out on that, Alan? I mean I'd like to just make sure in my mind that while children are dying, in part because of religious exceptionalism, you weren't just indulging in a spot of undeserved religious exceptionalism of your own.Perpetrators of the Holocaust certainly could not claim to be following the teachings of Jesus. Hamas, however, do claim to be following the teachings of the Koran.
Perpetrators of the Holocaust certainly could not claim to be following the teachings of Jesus. Hamas, however, do claim to be following the teachings of the Koran.But many perpetrators of the Holocaust did claim to be following the teachings of Christ. Your post makes no sense.
Perpetrators of the Holocaust certainly could not claim to be following the teachings of Jesus. Hamas, however, do claim to be following the teachings of the Koran.
Extracted from "Voice for Justice"and again Christians were instrumental in the Holocaust abd the attempt to wipe out the Jews. . Your religious exceptionalism is both ahistorical and hypocritical. You use the same rhetoric as Hamas.We must not allow thisBetween 1941 and 1945, in what was described by the Nazis as ‘the final solution to the Jewish problem’, the world witnessed the systematic slaughter of over 6,000,000 Jews – men, women and children, all condemned indiscriminately to what were at the time euphemistically called ‘labour camps’, but in reality were simply ‘death camps’. The aim was literally to wipe out all Jews across Europe, for the simple reason that, to Hitler and his fellow Nazis, the Jewish race was subhuman and evil.
evil to spread
This was genocide on an unimaginable scale and in the aftermath of WW2, when the full horror of the Concentration Camps was exposed, the world vowed that such atrocities would never happen again. On 3 September 1953, The European Convention on Human Rights, designed to protect fundamental human freedoms, such as the right to life, freedom of belief, and protection from discrimination, torture, the death penalty, etc, came into force (https://www.echr.coe.int/european-convention-on-human-rights). It has remained in force for the last 70 years, as we have continued to celebrate and defend those freedoms – yet now, almost unbelievably, we are seeing that same spirit, aimed at the total annihilation of the Jews, once again manifesting on our streets.
On 7 October, the world was sickened by news of the murderous, surprise attack launched by Hamas on Israel. 1,400 died in that raid, in the main civilians simply going about their daily lives, while some 230 were kidnapped and taken back to Gaza – seemingly, as bargaining chips designed to prevent retaliation. The attack was a declaration of war by terrorists, whose stated aim is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth (https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-hamas#:~:text=In%201988%2C%20Hamas%20published%20its,Islamic%
20society%20in%20historic%20Palestine).
Since that time, as Israel has sought to counter the threat of Hamas and fighting has broken out in the Gaza strip and beyond, there has been global outcry on the part of those sympathetic to the Palestinian cause for an immediate cessation to hostilities. By which it is meant, in practice, that Hamas will remain free to pursue its murderous campaign, but that Israel must not retaliate.
Let us, however, consider – from the start, Hamas have shown themselves prepared to sacrifice the Palestinian people in pursuit of their stated aim to destroy Israel. To this end, they have hidden their weapons and infrastructure amongst the civilian population, ruthlessly exploiting men, women, children, and the sick, in order to deter retaliation. Thus, rockets, used to rain down terror on Israel, have been cold-bloodedly hidden in schools and hospitals, so that if Israel dares try and eliminate them, it can be castigated for targeting civilians and breaking the rules of war.
Let us make no mistake, the goal of Islamist terror groups is not limited to Israel, but extends to the destruction of all Jewish people across the world. And, with calls for jihad and intifada ringing out from the so-called ‘peace marches’, those poisonous tendrils are now taking root in our own streets.
In all conscience we cannot, and must not, permit this.
It is entirely right that Israel take appropriate and proportionate action to defend itself from threat, and those who are genuine in their calls for peace should, first and foremost, be condemning not them, but Hamas – for the good of both Jews and Palestinians alike. For genuine peace, protestors should be calling for the condemnation and removal of all terrorists from Gaza and the Palestinian territories. Because only then will the civilian population of both States be able to live in peace.
Likewise, so-called pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the UK should, in the first instance, be condemning Hamas, not Israel – castigating the terrorists for their harsh and uncaring exploitation of those who cannot defend themselves. As it is, calling for violent holy war callously disregards the ordinary citizens of Gaza and simply exposes the murderous hatred towards Israel, and indeed the West as a whole, that exists amongst some sections of society and that turns such demonstrations – as Suella Braverman has so bravely and accurately said – into hate marches, designed to foment violence and war (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/30/uk-ministers-cobra-meeting-terrorism-threat-israel-hamas-conflict-suella-braverman).
The suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza is unquestionably appalling and all must want it to end. But the war, deliberately provoked and engineered by Hamas, does not and cannot justify the rise in anti-Semitism now evident of our streets, and indeed across the whole world. We are seeing the resurrection of an ancient evil, and the murderous spirit so evident in the death camps must not be allowed once again to take root in our streets. England resisted such evil in WW2, and we must resist it now.
There is compelling evidence that the campaign of protest against Israel in the UK is being manipulated by terror networks linked to Iran, shamelessly manipulating the truth in order to support their preferred narrative of Israeli oppression (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/iran-agents-uk-pro-palestine-protests-9f8pst6vf).
It is unquestionably this that has led to the horrifying rise in anti-semitic attacks over the last month, with hate crimes against Jews reportedly increasing by a staggering 1,350%. The situation has indeed become so bad that many Jews in the UK are now afraid to venture out on the streets.
At every level, this is unacceptable. The authorities must act without delay to stop all demonstrations that incite hatred against the Jews, and those that advocate and endorse such behaviour must be held accountable before the law. [/i]
and again Christians were instrumental in the Holocaust abd the attempt to wipe out the Jews. . Your religious exceptionalism is both ahistorical and hypocritical. You use the same rhetoric as Hamas.And it should of course be noted that the Christians that were Nazis helped in the murder of homosexuals in the camps, inspired by the idea that gay people were not eqyal, and that Voices for Justice also campaign for homisexual relationships to be discriminated against. You are using the murders by Hamas to foment your own petty hatreds, Alan.
and again Christians were instrumental in the Holocaust abd the attempt to wipe out the Jews. . Your religious exceptionalism is both ahistorical and hypocritical. You use the same rhetoric as Hamas.The perpetrators of the holocaust were certainly not following the teachings of Jesus, so you can in no way associate the evil of the holocaust with Christianity.
The perpetrators of the holocaust were certainly not following the teachings of Jesus, so you can in no way associate the evil of the holocaust with Christianity.And I know many Muslims who would say that about Hamas. But since you don't think their position is valid, you cannot justify your own. And that's leaving aside the No True Scotsman fallacy you used.
And that's leaving aside the No True Scotsman fallacy you used.Whose teaching do true Scotsmen follow?
Whose teaching do true Scotsmen follow?Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
And I know many Muslims who would say that about Hamas. But since you don't think their position is valid, you cannot justify your own. And that's leaving aside the No True Scotsman fallacy you used.You missed the point.
You missed the point.
Hamas can claim to be following the written words in the Koran - "kill the infidels"
The teaching of Jesus in contrast - "Love your enemies"
I don't think AB is guilty of the NTS fallacy, because he provided an objective standard by which someone can be judged to be, or not to be, a Christian: the teachings and actions of Christ.
You've also ignored that you are using the No True Scotsman fallacy.
I don't think AB is guilty of the NTS fallacy, because he provided an objective standard by which someone can be judged to be, or not to be, a Christian: the teachings and actions of Christ.That isn't objective. It may be almost the definition of subjective.
In context he is talking about division, in particular between members of the same family. The sword is a metaphor for that, it doesn't mean Jesus came to bring war.
'Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.'
The problem is Alan that it's other Christians that seem to disagree with you.
You've also ignored that you are using the No True Scotsman fallacy.
In context he is talking about division, in particular between members of the same family. The sword is a metaphor for that, it doesn't mean Jesus came to bring war.That's your interpretation. Just as some Muslims interpret the Quran differently from Alan Burns.
That's your interpretation. Just as some Muslims interpret the Quran differently from Alan Burns.It's not hard to get the right interpretation in both cases.
It's not hard to get the right interpretation in both cases.Which is what the Christians and the Muslims who disagree with you would say.
It's not hard to get the right interpretation in both cases.True - in the context of all Jesus's other reported sayings and actions, it is inconceivable that he was inciting anyone to violence.
True - in the context of all Jesus's other reported sayings and actions, it is inconceivable that he was inciting anyone to violence.And yet many Christians conceive it
Extracted from "Voice for Justice"Opposing policies of the Israeli government that are against international law and calling for a ceasefire and highlighting that Israel's actions are terrorism, which was the point of the protests, is not anti-semitism nor is it inciting hatred against the Jews. I came across quite a few Jewish people on the protest marches. Some of the Jewish people were calling out "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". Some of the non-Jewish people on the protest marches did not support that sentiment and did not shout that slogan.We must not allow thisBetween 1941 and 1945, in what was described by the Nazis as ‘the final solution to the Jewish problem’, the world witnessed the systematic slaughter of over 6,000,000 Jews – men, women and children, all condemned indiscriminately to what were at the time euphemistically called ‘labour camps’, but in reality were simply ‘death camps’. The aim was literally to wipe out all Jews across Europe, for the simple reason that, to Hitler and his fellow Nazis, the Jewish race was subhuman and evil.
evil to spread
This was genocide on an unimaginable scale and in the aftermath of WW2, when the full horror of the Concentration Camps was exposed, the world vowed that such atrocities would never happen again. On 3 September 1953, The European Convention on Human Rights, designed to protect fundamental human freedoms, such as the right to life, freedom of belief, and protection from discrimination, torture, the death penalty, etc, came into force (https://www.echr.coe.int/european-convention-on-human-rights). It has remained in force for the last 70 years, as we have continued to celebrate and defend those freedoms – yet now, almost unbelievably, we are seeing that same spirit, aimed at the total annihilation of the Jews, once again manifesting on our streets.
On 7 October, the world was sickened by news of the murderous, surprise attack launched by Hamas on Israel. 1,400 died in that raid, in the main civilians simply going about their daily lives, while some 230 were kidnapped and taken back to Gaza – seemingly, as bargaining chips designed to prevent retaliation. The attack was a declaration of war by terrorists, whose stated aim is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth (https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-hamas#:~:text=In%201988%2C%20Hamas%20published%20its,Islamic%
20society%20in%20historic%20Palestine).
Since that time, as Israel has sought to counter the threat of Hamas and fighting has broken out in the Gaza strip and beyond, there has been global outcry on the part of those sympathetic to the Palestinian cause for an immediate cessation to hostilities. By which it is meant, in practice, that Hamas will remain free to pursue its murderous campaign, but that Israel must not retaliate.
Let us, however, consider – from the start, Hamas have shown themselves prepared to sacrifice the Palestinian people in pursuit of their stated aim to destroy Israel. To this end, they have hidden their weapons and infrastructure amongst the civilian population, ruthlessly exploiting men, women, children, and the sick, in order to deter retaliation. Thus, rockets, used to rain down terror on Israel, have been cold-bloodedly hidden in schools and hospitals, so that if Israel dares try and eliminate them, it can be castigated for targeting civilians and breaking the rules of war.
Let us make no mistake, the goal of Islamist terror groups is not limited to Israel, but extends to the destruction of all Jewish people across the world. And, with calls for jihad and intifada ringing out from the so-called ‘peace marches’, those poisonous tendrils are now taking root in our own streets.
In all conscience we cannot, and must not, permit this.
It is entirely right that Israel take appropriate and proportionate action to defend itself from threat, and those who are genuine in their calls for peace should, first and foremost, be condemning not them, but Hamas – for the good of both Jews and Palestinians alike. For genuine peace, protestors should be calling for the condemnation and removal of all terrorists from Gaza and the Palestinian territories. Because only then will the civilian population of both States be able to live in peace.
Likewise, so-called pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the UK should, in the first instance, be condemning Hamas, not Israel – castigating the terrorists for their harsh and uncaring exploitation of those who cannot defend themselves. As it is, calling for violent holy war callously disregards the ordinary citizens of Gaza and simply exposes the murderous hatred towards Israel, and indeed the West as a whole, that exists amongst some sections of society and that turns such demonstrations – as Suella Braverman has so bravely and accurately said – into hate marches, designed to foment violence and war (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/30/uk-ministers-cobra-meeting-terrorism-threat-israel-hamas-conflict-suella-braverman).
The suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza is unquestionably appalling and all must want it to end. But the war, deliberately provoked and engineered by Hamas, does not and cannot justify the rise in anti-Semitism now evident of our streets, and indeed across the whole world. We are seeing the resurrection of an ancient evil, and the murderous spirit so evident in the death camps must not be allowed once again to take root in our streets. England resisted such evil in WW2, and we must resist it now.
There is compelling evidence that the campaign of protest against Israel in the UK is being manipulated by terror networks linked to Iran, shamelessly manipulating the truth in order to support their preferred narrative of Israeli oppression (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/iran-agents-uk-pro-palestine-protests-9f8pst6vf).
It is unquestionably this that has led to the horrifying rise in anti-semitic attacks over the last month, with hate crimes against Jews reportedly increasing by a staggering 1,350%. The situation has indeed become so bad that many Jews in the UK are now afraid to venture out on the streets.
At every level, this is unacceptable. The authorities must act without delay to stop all demonstrations that incite hatred against the Jews, and those that advocate and endorse such behaviour must be held accountable before the law.
You missed the point.Does that mean that the teachings of Jesus are that Christians should love Hamas as opposed to trying to inflict violence on Hamas?
Hamas can claim to be following the written words in the Koran - "kill the infidels"
The teaching of Jesus in contrast - "Love your enemies"
Link to check how your MP voted on the SNP motion. I had, up till I looked at the graphic, managed to forget there is a Reclaim MP.I was going to post that link as well, but you beat me to it. My Brexity twat of a Tory MP, Sir Mike Penning (he was knighted as a consolation prize when he was sacked as Armed Forces minister) predictably voted against.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67438901
'Don't mention the genocide'If Hamas had not killed all those Israelis on 7 October I doubt we would be talking about any of it - it took terrorism to generate interest in Israel's expansionist policies and oppression of the Palestinians, supported by US money, arms and veto power in the UN.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67494374
If Hamas had not killed all those Israelis on 7 October I doubt we would be talking about any of it - it took terrorism to generate interest in Israel's expansionist policies and oppression of the Palestinians, supported by US money, arms and veto power in the UN.
....
Rector of St Andrews Uni urged to apologise for talking about 'genocide'. I await the counter urging.Fucking thought-police.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-67529665
Fucking thought-police.Just like the Labour Party
Just like the Labour PartyI'm not very enamoured of the LP atm, and will only vote for them at the next election for tactical reasons.
Too many taking sides in this conflict miss the true nature of Hamas – and Netanyahuhttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/17/hamas-benjamin-netanyahu-ceasefire
..
Know thine enemy – and know thine ally, too. Too many of those pushing for one outcome or another in the war between Israel and Hamas misjudge the parties involved.
I read this shortly after it was published and wasn't sure if I should post it here.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/17/hamas-benjamin-netanyahu-ceasefire
You seem to be suggesting that people who would support the Palestinian cause such as Barrera need to be prompted to do so by acts of terror?While you indulge your interpretations of what you think I seem to be suggesting or justifying, I prefer to discuss the political observations I made. This being the Politics and Current Affairs board.
You also seem to be justifying the murders by Hamas here?
While you indulge your interpretations of what you think I seem to be suggesting or justifying, I prefer to discuss the political observations I made. This being the Politics and Current Affairs board.i asked a couple of questions specifically about the 'political observations' you made. For what ever reason you seem unwilling to answer.
...
i asked a couple of questions specifically about the 'political observations' you made. For what ever reason you seem unwilling to answer.And you're still indulging your fantasy interpretations for whatever reason.
And you're still indulging your fantasy interpretations for whatever reason.In what way is asking 2 questions about what you posted making 'random generalisations' about you?
Maybe in your response try quoting and addressing the specific points I have made about Hamas or the Israeli government. Your random generalisations about me personally rather than discussing the Israeli government, Hamas, politicians, international bodies, the media etc are starting to seem a little creepy.
In what way is asking 2 questions about what you posted making 'random generalisations' about you?Maybe in your response try quoting and addressing the specific points I have made about Hamas or the Israeli government.
Was knowledge of the Hamas murders used to make money?Sounds like conspiratorial bullshit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67628380
Sounds like conspiratorial bullshit.Why? If I was involved in running a terrorist organisation about to carry put a huge attack that I thought might affect certain markets, it would seem rational to make some money to support the cause at the same time.
Why? If I was involved in running a terrorist organisation about to carry put a huge attack that I thought might affect certain markets, it would seem rational to make some money to support the cause at the same time.That doesn't seem to be the way terrorists think. No-one did anything like that for 9/11; at any rate I've never heard it suggested. Islamic terrorists, I think, tend to be quite puritanical, and would probably have nothing to do with Western money-markets. After all, Islam forbids usury, which is foundational to the system.
That doesn't seem to be the way terrorists think. No-one did anything like that for 9/11; at any rate I've never heard it suggested. Islamic terrorists, I think, tend to be quite puritanical, and would probably have nothing to do with Western money-markets. After all, Islam forbids usury, which is foundational to the system.
I don't think terrorists have elastic morals; Islamist ones, at any rate, seem to have seriously perverted but very rigid morals.
As for Islamic involvement in finance, The major Islamic countries go to great lengths to make their banking and finance sharia-compliant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking_and_finance
Support for Hamas grows among Palestinians in West BankUnfortunately, that sounds at lot less surprising.
Headline Unfortunately, that sounds at lot less surprising.
Headline Unfortunately, that sounds at lot less surprising.Also not particularly surprising is the support for Israeli government terrorism against Palestinian civilians by warmongers in the US and UK government. Terrorists fighting terrorists. Except Israeli terrorists get better funding for propaganda and weapons.
I don't think terrorists have elastic morals; Islamist ones, at any rate, seem to have seriously perverted but very rigid morals.Not sure where you got that idea that they have rigid morals. Like most people they may be rigid about a select few rules such as praying or belief in Allah but pretty lax about others eg drinking, taking drugs, killing people to pursue a political agenda. Islamic Terrorists are much like other people who kill for a cause or a mission - eg armed forces - so no different to the IDF for example- they are trained to complete a job. If it’s perverse to kill and terrorise people for political reasons- it seems to be a widespread perversion shared by most governments and armed forces. Why is it perverse if terrorists do it but not if governments do it?
As for Islamic involvement in finance, The major Islamic countries go to great lengths to make their banking and finance sharia-compliant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking_and_finance
'Layla Moran's family among hundreds trapped in Gaza church'More on those trapped. I find them being referred to as 'Gazans' in the headline interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67736723
The peace on earth thing going really really wellNo, really it is
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67820866
The title of this thread is a bit dated now, so may I suggest it be changed to "The War in Gaza", or something similar?Moderator We've had a discussion, and feel that the original title reflects the circumstances at the time of the creation of the thread, and that everyone is aware what has changed and what the thread covers so do not see a need to change the title.
This report of attacks on Damascus may have to be moved as it's not clear exactly which ongoing strife it's linked to but the Israel vs others seems most likely. Happy days!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68040493
'Hamas attack: US pauses UNRWA funding over claims of staff involvement'UK pauses funding as well
If this is true, it's goung to screw up UNRWA around the world, and puts the UN in an impossible position.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68104203
'Western officials in protest over Israel Gaza policy' - not sure of this is just something that has happened before but on a smaller scale, though it seens not. It feels odd that this is the one that has triggered it, as opposed to say the 2nd Iraq War.As I and many others have observed before - the Hamas attack on 7th October did not take place in a vacuum. When political solutions seem impossible to people in Palestine because the policies of foreign governments are complicit in enabling the violent apartheid, racist, ethnic cleansing policies of an extreme nationalist Israeli government, there will be many oppressed people who will support violence to overthrow decades of that oppression against them. I'm surprised anyone is surprised that the recent Hamas terrorism happened. Israel's disproportionate response against unarmed Palestinian civilians, including a large proportion of children, will result in more support for terrorism against Israel / Zionists.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68177357
As I and many others have observed before - the Hamas attack on 7th October did not take place in a vacuum. When political solutions seem impossible to people in Palestine because the policies of foreign governments are complicit in enabling the violent apartheid, racist, ethnic cleansing policies of an extreme nationalist Israeli government, there will be many oppressed people who will support violence to overthrow decades of that oppression against them. I'm surprised anyone is surprised that the recent Hamas terrorism happened. Israel's disproportionate response against unarmed Palestinian civilians, including a large proportion of children, will result in more support for terrorism against Israel / Zionists.Is anyone surprised by the Hamas murders other thsn in terms of the scale?
I am reminded of the moral dilemmas about the use of terrorism depicted in the recent film Oppenheimer - and they could apply to Hamas /the Palestinians as much as they could apply to Netanyahu's government/ the Israelis.
In the film, Oppenheimer views the atomic bomb he helped build as a terror weapon, as one of its main purposes was to terrify people rather than for tactical advantage (unless you consider terrifying people as a tactical advantage). When there were objections to using this level of indiscriminate bombing on the Japanese people, Oppenheimer's response is to say, “Look, we use this thing, and we’ll never have to use it again. Because it’s so horrible. This will be the end of the war. People will see how terrible these weapons are, and so they won’t use them again.”
Oppenheimer is shown as having pragmatic reasons to help build the bomb, because he knows the Nazis have an 18 month head-start on building their own bomb, and the Nazis are exterminating Jews (his people) in Europe. He decides that as terrible as the bomb is, it is necessary for the US to have it and use it first, before the Nazis acquire the capability of an Atomic bomb. Existentialist threats are used as a justification for abandoning moral qualms about indiscriminate bombing and killing of unarmed civilians, including women and children.
From the Palestinian perspective, the Palestinians have for decades been without a state and face a daily life of mass poverty, loss of homes, livelihoods and personal freedoms, subject to arbitrary IDF kidnappings in Gaza and the West Bank, held in Israeli prisons and denied personal autonomy. It doesn't surprise me that enduring this constant humiliation under Israeli military control feels to them like they face an existentialist threat to their ethnic identity, personal safety, freedom and dignity, and the response by some to this humiliation are acts of terrorism. Israel's feelings of facing an existentialist threat to their ethnic identity caused by the Nazi's Holocaust and the on-going opposition to an apartheid Jewish state that discriminates to favour Jews, are used to justify Israel's acts of terrorism and disproportionate violence , despite Israel having the superior military and economic advantage of billions of dollars of aid from the US and political support from the West over the decades.
Oppenheimer's friend, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Isidor Rabi, despite being a fellow Jew during the time of the Nazi persecution, refuses to help build an Atomic weapon as he says “The bombs fall on the just and the unjust alike,”
Israel's current strategy seems similar to Oppenheimer's terrorism argument for dropping the atomic bomb. Given the number of Palestinian civilians killed over the years due to Israel's disproportionate response to any threats, Israel is the bigger user of terrorism and Hamas terrorism seems small in comparison.
Is anyone surprised by the Hamas murders other thsn in terms of the scale?Presumably everyone is wondering why the sensor-equipped, 20-foot-tall fence, with hundreds of cameras and automated machine gun fire when sensors are tripped didn't prevent Hamas entering Israel or allow the IDF to react more quickly to the Hamas breach of the "Iron Wall" in multiple locations.
And now the Eurovision rowJudging by the leaked lyrics, it should in any case be banned for pretentiousness and illiteracy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68379762
Judging by the leaked lyrics, it should in any case be banned for pretentiousness and illiteracy.Slightly disappointed it wasn't Boom Bang A Bang
Slightly disappomted it wasn't Boom Bang A BangQuite. Bring back the boom bang-a-bang/ oompah oompah/ tiddle iddle pom days, I say.
Quite. Bring back the boom bang-a-bang/ oompah oompah/ tiddle iddle pom days, I say.Unlikely to be A Little Peace.
Unlikely to be A Little Peace.Though I suppose the question is whether any one will be able to sing about who was defeated and who won the war, though I doubt there will be those who feel like they win when they lose
Judging by the leaked lyrics, it should in any case be banned for pretentiousness and illiteracy.Having now read the complete lyrics, I must say that although they are rubbish artistically, I don't think it should be banned. The only conceivable reference too the Hamas attack that I can see is "October". but that's much too vague and general to justify a ban. Rain is not unknown in October!
Having now read the complete lyrics, I must say that although they are rubbish artistically, I don't think it should be banned. The only conceivable reference too the Hamas attack that I can see is "October". but that's much too vague and general to justify a ban. Rain is not unknown in October!Israel getting their retaliation in first
Charlotte Church and The Powers That Be.Good for CC! I always did like her; now I like her even more. The slogan's most obvious meaning is a call for equal right for Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories. It is not intrinsically antisemitic, though if it's interpreted as a call for a new,, secular, democratic state with equal right for all religions and ethnicities to replace Israel and the occupied territories, that's also fine with me - I've long believed in it, though I grudgingly accept that the two-state solution is the best that has any chance of happening. As you will notice, I've changed my personal message as a tiny act of solidarity with CC and Labour MP Andy McDonald, who had the whip removed for using the phrase.
I think it's possible to understand that 'From the River to the Sea' may have, and be taken to have diffetent meani gs, and that those who object to it should not simply be dismissed. I'd also think that it's possible to read the comment from Church below very similarly to the readings of Anderson and Braverman, and think that they were being Islamophobic, and Church is being anti-semitic.
"It was a beautiful, beautiful event. But unfortunately the powers that be can't have that. [They] can't have such a powerful symbol of resistance as what we worked towards on Saturday."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68404269
Good for CC! I always did like her; now I like her even more. The slogan's most obvious meaning is a call for equal right for Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories. It is not intrinsically antisemitic, though if it's interpreted as a call for a new,, secular, democratic state with equal right for all religions and ethnicities to replace Israel and the occupied territories, that's also fine with me - I've long believed in it, though I grudgingly accept that the two-state solution is the best that has any chance of happening. As you will notice, I've changed my personal message as a tiny act of solidarity with CC and Labour MP Andy McDonald, who had the whip removed for using the phrase.I think ignoring that anti semitism has often been based on the idea of a Jewish conspiracy which would allow them to be characterised as 'the powers that be' is at best stupidity.
And while the suffering goes on in Gaza, the House of Commons makes this all about themselves.And the mess continues
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68368320
The slogan's most obvious meaning is a call for equal right for Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories.
Absolute nonsense. "From the river (Jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean), Palestine will be free" means no Jewish state in the Levant. It is a call to genocide. That's why Charlotte Church was wrong to use it.I think that that's the perception by some. I don't think it can be stated as a fact that that is its meaning. It certainly wasn't the intention of Church and those using it, though I think they were at least stupid not to understand the complexities of the situation.
Absolute nonsense. "From the river (Jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean), Palestine will be free" means no Jewish state in the Levant. It is a call to genocide. That's why Charlotte Church was wrong to use it.Absolute nonsense yourself. Getting rid of Israel as currently constituted and replacing it with a secular democratic state with equal right for all would be a good thing, and has nothing too do with genocide. There is no mention or implication of killing or displacing Jewish Israelis.
Absolute nonsense yourself. Getting rid of Israel as currently constituted and replacing it with a secular democratic state with equal right for all would be a good thing, and has nothing too do with genocide. There is no mention or implication of killing or displacing Jewish Israelis.There's no mention in it of 'Getting rid of Israel as currently constituted and replacing it with a secular democratic state with equal right for all' either.
There's no mention in it of 'Getting rid of Israel as currently constituted and replacing it with a secular democratic state with equal right for all' either.It's a valid interpretation, which genocide isn't. All it specifically says is that all Palestinians in Israel and the illegally occupied territories should be free. How can any reasonable person object to that?
It's a valid interpretation, which genocide isn't. All it specifically says is that all Palestinians in Israel and the illegally occupied territories should be free. How can any reasonable person object to that?And those who perceive it as a threat would say the opposite to you.
And those who perceive it as a threat would say the opposite to you.Those who perceive it as a threat are wrong. How can a call for freedom for an oppressed group be perceived as threatening?
Those who perceive it as a threat are wrong.Why are you right, and why are they wrong?
Why are you right, and why are they wrong?See addition to my post above yours. What's threatening about calling for freedom for the oppressed?
See addition to my post above yours. What's threatening about calling for freedom for the oppressed?That's you saying your perception is right because it matches your perception. The phrase has a long and varied history. It's use by Hamas, never mind when Likud used it, would I suggest in the current climate mean that a blanket claim of it just being about it just being about fluffy bunnies is disingenuous.
That's you saying your perception is right because it matches your perception. The phrase has a long and varied history. It's use by Hamas, never mind when Likud used it, would I suggest in the current climate mean that a blanket claim of it just being about it just being about fluffy bunnies is disingenuous.No, it's me saying my perception is right because it matches the actual words.
No, it's me saying my perception is right because it matches the actual words.The actual words being discussed are 'From the river to the see' - I would suggest that those are pretty open to interpretation.
What's open to interpretation about that? The river is the Jordan, the sea is the Mediterranean, and the land between is Israel and the illegally-occupied territories.Well, you interpreted it as 'Getting rid of Israel as currently constituted and replacing it with a secular democratic state with equal right for all' which seems an impressive leap to me.
I think that that's the perception by some. I don't think it can be stated as a fact that that is its meaning. It certainly wasn't the intention of Church and those using it, though I think they were at least stupid not to understand the complexities of the situation.
Absolute nonsense yourself. Getting rid of Israel as currently constituted and replacing it with a secular democratic state with equal right for all would be a good thing, and has nothing too do with genocide. There is no mention or implication of killing or displacing Jewish Israelis.Israel is already a secular democratic state with equal rights for all of its citizens. The Palestinians who live in Israel have the same rights as everybody else.
Of course that's its meaning.I don't think they do but if that's its sole meaning why did Likud use it?
Obviously, I don't think that Charlotte Church believed it, but then a lot of people really don't understand the realities of Middle Eastern politics.
Israel is already a secular democratic state with equal rights for all of its citizens. The Palestinians who live in Israel have the same rights as everybody else.And yet the phrase predates Hamas's usage of it.
Hamas wants to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic theocracy. That's what "from the river to the sea" means.
Israel is already a secular democratic state with equal rights for all of its citizens. The Palestinians who live in Israel have the same rights as everybody else.Tell that to the refugees and the victims of house demolitions.
It means what it says. Hamas do not have exclusive interpretatory rights.
Hamas wants to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic theocracy. That's what "from the river to the sea" means.
Tell that to the refugees and the victims of house demolitions.It means what it says. Hamas do not have exclusive interpretatory rights.So it's just you with the interpretatory rights?
So it's just you with the interpretatory rights?Don't be silly. Interpretation is open to anyone, as long as they interpret what's actually there, and don't invent meanings that are not justified by the words.
Don't be silly. Interpretation is open to anyone, as long as they interpret what's actually there, and don't invent meanings that are not justified by the words.
That would be a valid route to Palestinian freedom. Jeremyp's "Islamic theocracy" wouldn't. not least because a significant minority of Palestinians are Christians, but also because no-one is free under a theocracy.
Like 'Getting rid of Israel as currently constituted and replacing it with a secular democratic state with equal right for all'?
That would be a valid route to Palestinian freedom. Jeremyp's "Islamic theocracy" wouldn't. not least because a significant minority of Palestinians are Christians, but also because no-one is free under a theocracy.But not it seems to me an interpretation of the phrase 'From the river to the sea' unless you allow that other interpretations such as those who perceive it as a threat because of Hamas's use of it are as valid . And surely it's Hamas's Islamic theocracy rather than jeremyp's?
But not it seems to me an interpretation of the phrase 'From the river to the sea' unless you allow that other interpretations such as those who perceive it as a threat because of Hamas's use of it are as valid . And surely it's Hamas's Islamic theocracy rather than jeremyp's?There's nothing threatening about the basic phrase. Claiming to feel threatened or offended by some harmless political slogan is a tiresome political trick as old as the hills.
There's nothing threatening about the basic phrase. Claiming to feel threatened or offended by some harmless political slogan is a tiresome political trick as old as the hills.If it is used by Hamas to threaten, in what sense is it a harmless political slogan? Dismissing peopke's concerns about political slogans when they are threatening is also as old as the hills. And by calling it harmless you're just begging the question.
There's nothing threatening about the basic phrase. Claiming to feel threatened or offended by some harmless political slogan is a tiresome political trick as old as the hills.
I've heard at least one German nationalist (living here) say that the old opening of their anthem "Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles" has continually been misinterpreted, and simply means that Germany should simply be first in a German's thoughts, not that they should laud it over other countries and set about invading them again. Well, that was what he first told me. A few year's later, I really probed his thoughts, and it turns out he is a rabid racist and Nazi. I'm very glad that the modern German regimes have long since excised this verse from the anthem.
Israel is already a secular democratic state with equal rights for all of its citizens. The Palestinians who live in Israel have the same rights as everybody else.Not according to Israel and its Supreme Court, which confirms that it was founded as a Jewish democratic state. Israel enshrined in law that “the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish People.” Israel seems to have aligned its constitution with the constitutional values of Pakistan, Sri Lanka and other ethno-religious nationalist states. https://www.lawandisrael.org/library/topical/israel-law/selected-world-constitutions/
Hamas wants to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic theocracy. That's what "from the river to the sea" means.Even if that is the meaning of the phrase according to some members of Hamas, no one has ownership of the phrase "from the river to the sea". Other people can use it as they see fit.
That may be what Hamas means, but it isn't necessarily what the phrase means, as the Accountant says above. You are committing the intentional fallacy - the assumption that what the author intended is determinative of meaning. In fact, texts mean what they say, which may be very different from what the author intended.
Hamas wants to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic theocracy. That's what "from the river to the sea" means.
That may be what Hamas means, but it isn't necessarily what the phrase means, as the Accountant says above. You are committing the intentional fallacy - the assumption that what the author intended is determinative of meaning. In fact, texts mean what they say, which may be very different from what the author intended.Texts don't mean anything bereft of those creating them or those interpreting them. The idea that meaning exists pure removed from subjective usage is laughable.
https://literariness.org/2016/03/17/intentional-fallacy/
Texts don't mean anything bereft of those creating them or those interpreting them. The idea that meaning exists pure removed from subjective usage is laughable.I didn't say that. What I said was that texts are autonomous, their meaning not limited to the author's intentions. Google "Barth death of the author".
I didn't say that. What I said was that texts are autonomous, their meaning not limited to the author's intentions. Google "Barth death of the author".You said 'texts mean what they say' - that entirely removes the subjective intention of the author, and the interpreter. And since you have just killed the author, you telling me what you meant is piquantly ironic.
Charlotte Church on the 'From the river to the sea'. Lots of stuff I agree with but we're back at interpretation, and the use of it by Hamas isn't dealt with.Intelligent and well-written piece by Charlotte Church.
https://charlotte-church.ghost.io/
Of course that's its meaning.You don’t seem to understand the realities of Middle Eastern politics - if you did you would not be incorrectly claiming that Israel is a secular state where everyone is treated equally rather than a Jewish state, which discriminates against Palestinians in violation of international laws.
Obviously, I don't think that Charlotte Church believed it, but then a lot of people really don't understand the realities of Middle Eastern politics.
I think ignoring that anti semitism has often been based on the idea of a Jewish conspiracy which would allow them to be characterised as 'the powers that be' is at best stupidity.The “powers that be” doesn’t sound like a Jewish conspiracy to many people - I think it’s stupidity to keep reaching for the “antisemitism” card and reading “Jewish conspiracy” into every criticism made about spin doctoring and smears. Pretending there aren’t privileged people with power who try to silence dissent through media manipulation is naive/ disingenuous, so good for Charlotte Church for calling it out without worrying about attempts to portray it as antisemitism.
Eurovision continues to be involved in the periphery of comment. 'Queers for Palestine' upset at Olly Alexander.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68693181
Moderator Announcement Thread is locked for review, see Mod thread on Board being reported to Police Scotland under Hate Crime Act.As per thread, this now appears to have been a joke. Thread unlocked
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=21405.msg882565#msg882565
"Israel Gaza: Charity suspends Gaza aid work after staff killed"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68710515
This is not a new phenomenon. Over 200 Palestinian aid workers have been killed since October. It is well past time that we recognise that these "miscalculations" are happening far too often. If I had a suspicious nature I would say that they are pre-meditated, but as I don't, and as I know Netanyahu doesn't have the possibility of going to jail on his mind, then I rest easy that he isn't using the war for his own personal reasons.I doubt this one was premeditated precisely because of the stushie it has caused.
While I might question the motives of the Henry Jackson Society, there is no doubt that there are some disturbing figures in the survey. A lot of it might be mirrored on a different subject by those who might express themselves worried that many UK Muslims do not accept the 'mainstream media' and politicians' narratives on this. There is a widespread breakdown in trust of what is presented but when it supports one's own views, it's seen as almost being in the mainstream narrative despite of the best efforts to keep it out.I would be interested to know what they actually asked in the survey.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/just-one-in-four-british-muslims-believe-hamas-committed-murder-and-rape-in-israel/ar-BB1lbvTO
I would be interested to know what they actually asked in the survey.That there are reasons to be careful about narratives is only sensible. What we have though is a widespread belief that any mainstream narrative is wrong except when it agrees with your preconceptions, from people on different sides of different issues.
I think there are a lot of people who are sceptical of the selective reporting of the mainstream media, both the inherent biases in reporting and the agenda of various media outlets that skew their reporting.
A lot of young people seem to base their information on social media videos, so not really much regulation of reporting with videos uploaded by individuals.
The distrust could be based on all the stories flying around initially in the media about 40 beheaded Israeli babies and massacres of Israeli children on 7th October. https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahus-office-releases-horrifying-images-of-infants-murdered-by-hamas/
It later emerged that 2 babies were murdered in the 7th October attack. https://www.timesofisrael.com/14-kids-under-10-25-people-over-80-up-to-date-breakdown-of-oct-7-victims-we-know-about/
People, including Biden and other officials, were repeating these false stories planted in the media by Israeli first responders to the October 7th attacks. Many people were inclined to believe these stories because of their existing prejudices against Muslims / Palestinians.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/10/12/40-israeli-babies-beheaded-by-hamas/
Young people watching videos on social media that exposed those lies about the babies would naturally want to see evidence that rapes occurred before they take it as fact.
I assumed there would have been some rapes because there has been evidence in other conflicts around the world that violent men with guns, whether they are IDF or US soldiers or militants, have used rape as a weapon of war. So I was not expecting Hamas to be any better or any worse than other soldiers in other countries with regard to raping women. However, I heard a few young people on the protest marches say the reports about rape are from Israeli first responders or captured Hamas militants who may have been tortured by the IDF to confess to raping women. They did not seem inclined to trust these reports because of the fake news about beheaded babies, and wanted independent evidence for the rape allegations such as forensic reports before they believed them.
Presumably the false reports about many beheaded babies were intended to dehumanise the Palestinian population and lay the groundwork for justifying revenge attacks by the IDF, such as murdering Palestinian babies in the IDF's collective punishment bombing campaigns against Palestinian civilians. Hence, there could be a similar motive for spreading stories about widespread or systematic rape by Hamas, despite denials by Hamas of this being the case. I guess we'll never know until there is independent evidence.
That there are reasons to be careful about narratives is only sensible. What we have though is a widespread belief that any mainstream narrative is wrong except when it agrees with your preconceptions, from people on different sides of different issues.Sure, we saw that in the Brexit debate too.
Sure, we saw that in the Brexit debate too.I don't think that people finding things to support their own views from available 'evidence' is new phenomenon rather I'd suggest that where there tended to be an establishment view that was accepted by a majority of people on the majority of issues, the lack of trust is more widespread. That we've had PMs and cabinet ministers talking about being stymied by the establishment is indicative of this.
Not sure if it's a new phenomenon or has been going on for centuries. Were people polarised in a similar way in the past about mainstream narratives on various topics e.g. in the US during the Vietnam war or in debates about the abolition of slavery or civil rights? Didn't people only believe the mainstream narrative if it agreed with their preconceptions in those debates?
I don't think that people finding things to support their own views from available 'evidence' is new phenomenon rather I'd suggest that where there tended to be an establishment view that was accepted by a majority of people on the majority of issues, the lack of trust is more widespread. That we've had PMs and cabinet ministers talking about being stymied by the establishment is indicative of this.I agree with a lot of what you say. However, being realistic I would say that diversity occurs because it is useful - some people with passionate intensity for abstract ideals are necessary to counter-balance other people with passionate intensity for an opposing view or to counter-balance people with a passionate intensity for money or power or personal-self interest or to counter-balance dispassionate ruthlessness or despotism etc
Added to that, the availability of information and disinformation has expanded exponentially, and while that should make us more careful about evidence, because of how we seem to work it makes us less so.
When Yeats wrote in The Second Coming:
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity",
it was talking about the general phenomenon here but I think the world we live in has reduced doubt so much more because it has become what we fear most.
I am constantly aware of warnings through history about the concern of change, and novelty, and how so many times they have been not sufficiently justified but not all of thise warnings have been completely wrong, and we have changed little, if at all, while the pace of change is ever faster.
To go back to Yeats:
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
I agree with a lot of what you say. However, being realistic I would say that diversity occurs because it is useful - some people with passionate intensity for abstract ideals are necessary to counter-balance other people with passionate intensity for an opposing view or to counter-balance people with a passionate intensity for money or power or personal-self interest or to counter-balance dispassionate ruthlessness or despotism etcI don't disagree with much of that. I think though in general in the past there has been tension between 2 views, one of which is the mainstream narrative. I think now we have something where the main proponents of sides, and this doesn't just apply to the war in Gaza are both distrustful of mainstream narratives, and therefore there is no centre. Again I am wary of saying this is not mirrored in some examples in past times of such conflict but I think it would be foolish not to consider that communication has been so radically changed that we're not in Kansas anymore.
Human emotional and intellectual diversity being a product of nature / nurture means there will always be some people with passionate intensity for something that others passionately disagree with. Hence I think civilisation requires for example both religious and atheists to keep each other in check and mitigate the dangers of human tunnel vision and group think, and help the continuation of the species.
I would say widespread distrust of the establishment seems a normal by-product of periods of political and cultural change, hence the point I made about the increasing distrust of the establishment in the US during the Vietnam war. The culture in the US was changing due to the Civil Rights movements of the increasingly politicised black community, and young people were becoming less inclined to accept the establishment narrative that shipped them off to fight a conflict in Vietnam, especially where black people were disproportionately represented in the army as cannon fodder, fighting for a country where they were treated as second class citizens. The establishment attempted to fight back by labelling dissenters as Communists.
I see some similarities today in attempts to label as Hamas supporters or terrorist sympathisers those who mistrust the establishment's narrative on the Zionist-Palestine issue. Being against the Zionist position does not mean an automatic endorsement of Hamas terrorism. I may agree with some of what Hamas is saying, some of what the Zionists are saying, and also disagree with both groups on their positions on various aspects of this conflict. If the establishment narrative is that Muslims need to denounce everything that Hamas is saying, that's just not going to happen as I myself don't see any of these issues in terms of black and white or good guys vs bad guys.
I personally don't accept the establishment narrative that it is morally ok to turn a blind eye to the killing of thousands of civilians to get back about 150 hostages. I think that is a morally bankrupt position to hold. I distrust the establishment narrative and the narrative of Israel's supporters who say Hamas and not Israel are responsible for the thousands of Palestinian civilian deaths.
On a more general point, I think increasing interaction between differing cultures lead to cultural change followed by changes in leadership. Leaders will have to incorporate some of the ideas expressing distrust of the establishment in order to get sufficient political support to maintain their positions of leadership.
The Mongol Empire in the 13th and 14th centuries was one of the largest land empires in history. Initially ruled by Mongol tribes following traditional Mongolian shamanism and tribal customs under Genghis Khan, the empire eventually adopted Islam as the main state religion during the early 14th century. As more trade occurred between the Mongols, Persians and Arabs, Mongol leaders and soldiers gradually converted to Islam for practical reasons relating to commerce and alliances. Mahmud Ghazan for example, leader of the Mongol empire in the 13th century, converted to Islam after significant interaction between the Mongols and Muslims. One motive behind Mahmud Ghazan's conversion to Islam was a desire to attract the support of those Mongols who had already converted to Islam in order to overthrow a rival.
I don't disagree with much of that. I think though in general in the past there has been tension between 2 views, one of which is the mainstream narrative. I think now we have something where the main proponents of sides, and this doesn't just apply to the war in Gaza are both distrustful of mainstream narratives, and therefore there is no centre.Do you mean Western European mainstream narrative or the UK government's narrative? The UK has disagreed with its European allies with regard to intervening in various 20th and 21st century middle-east conflicts. Ireland seems to have a very different mainstream narrative from the UK government regarding the Israel-Palestine issue. London mainstream may be different from the rest of Britain.
Again I am wary of saying this is not mirrored in some examples in past times of such conflict but I think it would be foolish not to consider that communication has been so radically changed that we're not in Kansas anymore.I would agree that technology enables more varied narratives, wider dissemination of narratives. I also find it hard to identify what is considered the mainstream narrative these days, especially since Brexit, as there is huge variety in narratives and the narratives change almost daily depending on what new information became available and has gone viral. This is evident in the clashes over trans ideology, Brexit, and in terms of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
And yes, I agree that a lot of conflict happens because of traits that are evolved to be beneficial in other circumstances. It's why I think that those who talk about the possibility of removing religion from humanity if you had a magic band to do so would create something that is not humanity, and may well be dreadful. The point though is that human evolution is glacial, technology evolution is lightning.
Being 'openly Jewish' in a built up area?Reminds me of the old joke about people of the tinted persuasion being arrested for "driving whilst black"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4n19j892neo
Reminds me of the old joke about people of the tinted persuasion being arrested for "driving whilst black"
Updated report. Apparently because the police officer was a sick it means the person he was a dick to is now right on everything and the Met Commissioner must go for allowing countless anti semitic hate crimes.So the Met Commissioner is a bit anti semitic but not too anti semitic according to the PM.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsarticles/c4n19j892neo
Updated report. Apparently because the police officer was a sick it means the person he was a dick to is now right on everything and the Met Commissioner must go for allowing countless anti semitic hate crimes.When I click on it, it says page not found.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsarticles/c4n19j892neo
So the Met Commissioner is a bit anti semitic but not too anti semitic according to the PM.When I first heard this story I assumed the person in question was an ordinary jewish member of the public. But that doesn't appear to be the case - he is the head of the Campaign Against Antisemitism. Now I'm certainly not claiming that the Met acted correctly, but it seems implausible that he didn't deliberately decide to go to where the protest was taking place and deliberately ask to cross the road. He was clearly making a point and I think the Met have to consider the likelihood of a breach of the peace should a person with known counter-views end up within a large protest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68872398
When I first heard this story I assumed the person in question was an ordinary jewish member of the public. But that doesn't appear to be the case - he is the head of the Campaign Against Antisemitism. Now I'm certainly not claiming that the Met acted correctly, but it seems implausible that he didn't deliberately decide to go to where the protest was taking place and deliberately ask to cross the road. He was clearly making a point and I think the Met have to consider the likelihood of a breach of the peace should a person with known counter-views end up within a large protest.Achievement unlocked by Falter. And why Sunak is trying to play this as a general problem, and tying it to general questions about the policing of the protests rather than going too close to the specific. I suspect we'll see something from Tice and Braverman in the next couple of days about how Sunak is too soft on the Met.
As an analogy I imagine they would have taken similar action had George Galloway just happen to turn up at a pro-Israel rally and ask to cross its path, or Had Tommy Robinson turned up at an anti-racism rally and ask to cross its path.
So people can legitimately protest, others can completely legitimately protest in an alternative direction, but the police sometimes may need to keep those groups apart for the sake of everyone's safety. So the Met were probably right in their broad approach - that it was best for them to usher this individual away from the protest, but how they did it was appalling.
Achievement unlocked by Falter. And why Sunak is trying to play this as a general problem, and tying it to general questions about the policing of the protests rather than going too close to the specific. I suspect we'll see something from Tice and Braverman in the next couple of days about how Sunak is too soft on the Met.I see that further, and more complete, footage has been release which is likely to see the story develop ... and not necessarily in favour of Falter.
I agree with the Met Commissioner in this report (below). It was a tactless choice of words, but no more. Mr Falter was deliberately being provocative by wearing his kippah alongside the march.I don't agree that wearing a kipper is provocative. It was Falter's behaviour that appears to be provocative - from the comments from the police it appears that he'd already entered the protest and walked deliberately in the opposite direction. And then he was demanding to get where he wanted to go directly through the protest, despite being offered (many, many times) an alternative route.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/22/met-police-chief-praises-professional-conduct-officer-antisemitism-row
I agree with the Met Commissioner in this report (below). It was a tactless choice of words, but no more. Mr Falter was deliberately being provocative by wearing his kippah alongside the march.You seem just to be saying he shouldn't be obviously Jewish.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/22/met-police-chief-praises-professional-conduct-officer-antisemitism-row
I see that further, and more complete, footage has been release which is likely to see the story develop ... and not necessarily in favour of Falter.And yet achievement unlocked because here we are talking about it, and the PM has talked about the Met Commissioner as a result.
The main police officer involved seems to be almost endlessly patient against clear intransigence from Falter. He keeps offering to take Falter where he wants to go, but Falter refuses and only wants to take a route straight through the protest.
You seem just to be saying he shouldn't be obviously Jewish.In that particular situation, no, he shouldn't.
In that particular situation, no, he shouldn't.Why not?
Why not?Because it was being deliberately provocative.
Because it was being deliberately provocative.If being obviously Jewish is provocative the problem is those being provoked.
And yet achievement unlocked because here we are talking about it, and the PM has talked about the Met Commissioner as a result.At least the Met Commissioner is talking about the "fakery" and spin of those trying to undermine the police - so it's good the message is getting out there to combat some of the pressure put on institutions and individuals by the Zionist lobby.
If being obviously Jewish is provocative the problem is those being provoked.It is all about time and place, and the job of the police is to do what they can to avoid tensions escalating. Where you have protest and counter protest you will have tensions that can easily spill over. The safest approach is to allow both the protest and the counter protest, but to keep them apart. That is what the police were attempting to do, as Falter's demand to be able to walk right across the path of the main protest was clearly a protest in its own right.
My wife's been told she was offending people and threatened with violence for wearing TShirts saying 'Vote for Scottish Independence', 'Women:Adult Human Female' 'I l❤️ JK'. - should she have been stopped?I don't really think there is an equivalence with the wearing of a kippah. Falter will probably wear a kippah as a matter of course, routinely in all sorts of situations. The wearing of one isn't making some kind of political point.
I've been on a few pro=Palestine demos in London, and all of them were noisy but peaceful, and some had sizeable self-identified Jewish contingents from 'Jews for Justice for Palestinians' and other Jewish pro-Palestinian groups.That's true of course, but that isn't really what I am talking about. Falter was clearly engaging in a counter protest, albeit having rather disingenuously claimed that he just 'stumbled' across the demo.
That's true of course, but that isn't really what I am talking about. Falter was clearly engaging in a counter protest, albeit having rather disingenuously claimed that he just 'stumbled' across the demo.Yes, I know - I just chucked it in as a vaguely relevant anecdote.
So had he been a pro-palestinian jewish person then of course the police wouldn't have had any issue with allowing him to join the demo. But he wasn't and I wouldn't have been surprised if the police knew exactly who he was as he wasn't Joe Public but the leading member of an anti-semitism organisation. And in that context it seems perfectly reasonable that the police wouldn't allow him to join the demo as this could potentially create the risk of breach of the peace, but to keep him (and other counter protesters) separate from the main rally, while sill allowing them to counter protest but at a distance. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Jonathan Freedland on unhelpful extremist "allies" of the Palestinian cause. He might have mentioned similar "allies" of Israel, particularly in the nuttier parts of evangelical and charismatic Christianity.He's making a personal point, I think, from mainly being sympathetic to the Palestinians, and isn't reporting. He makes clear that there are dodgy allies of Israel.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/26/jews-palestinians-peace-gaza-narcissist-allies
Odd that nothing seems to be being said.Is it odd? It's long been known that the Israeli Zionist lobby has its tentacles all over the place putting pressure on media and other organisations. AIPAC is well-known for it in the US. And lobby groups work the same way over here. Nothing covert about it so not quite sure why there are squeals of anti-semitic tropes from some sectors every time it is highlighted that pro-Zionist lobbying campaigns are used to bring pressure on organisations. Possibly just another attempt by the pro-Zionist lobby to squeal anti-semitism at every available opportunity to try to control the narrative and put people expressing legitimate criticism on the back-foot by playing the victim card. I would take being called anti-semitic by the Zionist lobby as a compliment these days, since the term has lost all meaning if it is wheeled out every time you criticise Zionist tactics.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/what-we-know-about-sangita-myskas-absence-from-lbc-radio-162116111.html
Is it odd? It's long been known that the Israeli Zionist lobby has its tentacles all over the place putting pressure on media and other organisations. AIPAC is well-known for it in the US. And lobby groups work the same way over here. Nothing covert about it so not quite sure why there are squeals of anti-semitic tropes from some sectors every time it is highlighted that pro-Zionist lobbying campaigns are used to bring pressure on organisations. Possibly just another attempt by the pro-Zionist lobby to squeal anti-semitism at every available opportunity to try to control the narrative and put people expressing legitimate criticism on the back-foot by playing the victim card. I would take being called anti-semitic by the Zionist lobby as a compliment these days, since the term has lost all meaning if it is wheeled out every time you criticise Zionist tactics.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/australian-lawmaker-apologizes-after-remarks-on-jewish-and-zionist-lobby-tentacles/
Following on from your post is this, which feels to me like going against the US First Amendment.The IHRA's definition of antisemitism is a rather blatant attempt to silence criticism of Israel by conflating it with antisemitism. you can't criticise Israel's human rights record unless you also criticise other countries' as well, which is a tiresomely common tactic of the country's uncritical defenders.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-antisemitism-bill-campus-arrests-rcna150170
It's got a very odd collection of people against it but I would certainly be one.
The IHRA's definition of antisemitism is a rather blatant attempt to silence criticism of Israel by conflating it with antisemitism. you can't criticise Israel's human rights record unless you also criticise other countries' as well, which is a tiresomely common tactic of the country's uncritical defenders.As noted, I struggle to see how as phrased it isn't in breach of the US's First Amendment.
Odd that nothing seems to be being said.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/what-we-know-about-sangita-myskas-absence-from-lbc-radio-162116111.html
Hamas accepting ceasefire deal a ruse according to Israeli govt.
https://news.sky.com/story/hamas-accepts-proposed-ceasefire-deal-13128702
'What ICC arrest warrants mean for Israel and Hamas'Watching the reports on this, it's clear that what it has achieved is much more unity in the Israeli govt than what was being shown previously.
It would appear that the Paul Daniels answer is appropriate
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4490z75v3o
It's probably a response to Israel having become increasingly right-wing and extremist and just paying lip service to a 2 state solution - given Israel has been building and expanding its illegal settlements, which it would not have done if it had any intention of negotiating for a 2 state solution.And it sounds like you are justifying the murders.
It sounds like Norway, Spain and Ireland recognise that one of the reasons October 7th happened is because when there is no prospect of a political solution because Israel will not allow a free, autonomous Palestinian state, people turn to violence in response to blockades, occupation and colonisation of their land.
And it sounds like you are justifying the murders.You're entitled to your opinion but my response is that you are misusing the word "justifies" according to the available dictionary definitions. What do you think "justifies" means?
You're entitled to your opinion but my response is that you are misusing the word "justifies" according to the available dictionary definitions. What do you think "justifies" means?It seems to me to read that you are providing what you see is a good reason for the action.
It seems to me to read that you ate providing what you see is a good reason for the action.Please explain what you mean by "good" in the context of "good reason"? What is a "good" reason to kill unarmed civilians?
Please explain what you mean by "good" in the context of "good reason"? What is a "good" reason to kill unarmed civilians?Why would I explain what I mean by good reason when I don't think it is? I'm saying your post reads as if you thought it was a good reason.
Was 9/11 a good reason to bomb people in Afghanistan? Was the USA financially and militarily backing human rights abuses in the US and around the world a "good" reason to fly planes into the Twin Towers?
Maybe you can clarify your interpretation by quoting where I described something as a "good" reason for killing unarmed civilians. Then I can respond to your quote.
I can see there are reasons that lead to people choosing armed struggle if they cannot change a situation politically. Are you saying you can't see reasons? That you have not observed throughout history that amongst colonised, occupied, imprisoned, blockaded people, there are members of that group who have used violence to gain what they see as their right to their freedom / their survival/ an end to their colonisation/ militarily occupation/ blockade/ imprisonment/ genocide? etc if they cannot end those situations politically? - e.g.
The Kurds against Turkey - in March 2017, the United Nations voiced "concern" over the Turkish government's operations and called for an independent assessment of the "massive destruction, killings and numerous other serious human rights violations" against the ethnic Kurdish minority.
There are lots of examples of uprisings in history - are you suggesting they happened randomly for no reason?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions
Why would I explain what I mean by good reason when I don't think it is? I'm saying your post reads as if you thought it was a good reason.Again, you are entitled to your opinion. No need for me to take your opinion seriously if you can't support it with evidence.
Again, you are entitled to your opinion. No need for me to take your opinion seriously if you can't support it with evidence.I explained why you asking me to define 'good' in those circumstances is irrelevant since I don't think they are. You have ignored that. I explained that your posts read as if you think it is a good reason by your tone, and previously by you citing it. You ignored that.
Why have you just ignored the bit in my post where I asked you to define "good" and then quote where I said a reason was "good".
I explained why you asking me to define 'good' in those circumstances is irrelevant since I don't think they are. You have ignored that. I explained that your posts read as if you think it is a good reason by your tone, and previously by you citing it. You ignored that.Why are you lying? You did not explain anything. All you have done is make some assertions that revealed your prejudice without any evidence to support your assertions. When you come up with a quote to justify your assertion, then you will be explaining.
All you've touted is a wordy version of 'They started it'.All you've touted is your prejudice. Don't you look stupid. Come back with some evidence to discuss if you want your assertions to be taken seriously.
It didn't work for Netanyahu when he tried the propaganda that Palestinian Arabs are never really angry about specific acts taken by the Israeli government, but rather at the existence of Israel itself. He faced significant backlash for his false claims.And yet there is obviously anti semitism going on and denying it just makes you look like an apologist. The reason why I wondered if the tactics would be better to go after more general targets, albeit with a concentration on the war crimes is to avoid it being seen as if this is anti semitic. Impressions matter.
https://time.com/4084301/hitler-grand-mufi-1941/
I think expanding to other countries will dilute the effectiveness of the student campaign - the accusations of antisemitism is useful publicity and keeps the spotlight on the issue of Israel's war crimes.
I think the Oxford students have the right strategy of focusing on Israel at this particular time i.e. while the UK government and businesses are politically and financially supporting Israel while it openly carries out war crimes through its collective punishment, starving, bombing, cutting off fuel and creation of a humanitarian crisis for Palestinians.
Sure the UK government could argue that Britain has its own history of racism, colonisation, brutality and collective punishment so we shouldn't be too hard on the Israelis or any other democracy for being as brutal and violent as Britain was in the not too distant past, as that could be seen as antisemitism.
Netanyahu has even tried this line of argument with comparisons to Churchill (an imperialist who campaigned against Indian Home Rule because he saw the "dusky races" as inferior) and the US bombing and invading Afghanistan after 9/11, which didn't really work out for the US.
Not sure why Netanyahu is bringing up Afghanistan - not only did hundreds of thousands of people protest against bombing Afghanistan so it's clearly not antisemitism driving protests, but the ICC is investigating whether to indict the Taliban, the Afghan government and the US military and CIA for war crimes during that conflict, so it reinforces the point that the IDF and the Israeli government should be investigated by the ICC too.
https://theconversation.com/did-the-us-commit-crimes-in-afghanistan-international-prosecutors-want-to-find-out-133590
Probably Netanyahu wants to warn the US politicians that they could be held similarly accountable for breaking international law and bombing and murdering people if white people don't all join forces against the darkies to ensure no one is allowed to hold the rich and powerful accountable.
The antisemitism argument doesn't work, even if it is useful publicity, as many previous student protests have spoken out against British historical colonialist activities and their legacy of discrimination and inequality. Not surprisingly the students have added Israel as a colonialist entity to the list while Israel's Zionist policies focus on creating and expanding a Jewish state through colonisation and while Israel is carrying out those same atrocities today while touting its credentials as a democratic country.
Not sure why Netanyahu or any democratically elected leader would expect a free pass for terrorism - must be the colonial mindset of Western superiority - if your skin is relatively white, you're allied with the West and you colonise and brutalise people it's all quite civilised and can be overlooked....except if you're white and Russian, in which case immediate sanctions and an ICC arrest warrant of course.
Hamas was democratically elected to power too in 2006 largely due to the corruption, incompetence and brutality of their opposition, Fatah, yet we're not saying the ICC can't indict the leader of Hamas for terrorism just because Hamas wins an election. https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/11/01/majority-palestinians-gaza-elect-hamas/
It's a bit difficult to take the antisemitism accusations seriously while there are lots of Jewish people protesting against Israel's war crimes.
And yet there is obviously anti semitism going on and denying it just makes you look like an apologist. The reason why I wondered if the tactics would be better to go after more general targets, albeit with a concentration on the war crimes is to avoid it being seen as if this is anti semitic. Impressions matter.Except I didn't say antisemitism isn't going on from some individuals - experiencing racism sometimes is part of normal human experience but I have also experienced lots of individuals who aren't prejudiced or racist.
As to there being Jewish people protesting against the war crimes, there are women campaigning for men who say they are women to be in women's prisons and women's sports, and that doesn't stop that being an anti women position.
Except I didn't say antisemitism isn't going on from some individuals - experiencing racism sometimes is part of normal human experience but I have also experienced lots of individuals who aren't prejudiced or racist.I'm pointing out the problems with your argument where you deny that a movement could be anti specific by having people from that group in it. Your tedious attempt an ad ad hominem based on that is just evasion from your flawed logic.
What I did say is that it's hard to take it seriously - by which I mean in comparison to thousands of people dying from mass bombing and starvation, a few "hurty" feelings are difficult to take seriously. Of course anything more serious such as physical violence should be taken seriously, but Jewish people feeling intimidated because Israel is being called out on its actions and playing the antisemitism card as part of their propaganda tactics is good publicity as far as I'm concerned as it's back-firing on them.
I was at the most recent protest on Saturday in London against Israel's war crimes and the protest stalled outside Piccadilly Circus tube station because there were about maybe 30 pro-Israeli counter-protestors waving flags and chanting "shame on you".
Of course the protestors in the much bigger 'pro-ceasefire now' march wanted to pause to shout back at the counter-protestors so the march stopped marching and went by that particular spot much more slowly. But there were no barriers between the protest or counter protest and no line of policemen in between the 2 protest groups - there were police standing around but not getting in between the Israelis and the pro-ceasefire march.
There were chants of "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" and "When you face apartheid, resistance is justified" from the pro-ceasefire group but there was no physical violence against the pro-Israeli protestors.
Careful, your prejudice is showing if you're equating people calling for a ceasefire against violence on unarmed civilians with women campaigning for men to have the opportunity to rape and physically assault women in prisons and sport.
You remind me people who come out with casually homophobic comments equating homosexuals with paedophiles. You're right in that sense - impressions matter.
I'm pointing out the problems with your argument where you deny that a movement could be anti specific by having people from that group in it. Your tedious attempt an ad ad hominem based on that is just evasion from your flawed logic.Do you find your own attempts at ad hominems equally tedious ? There are so many of your tedious attempts to choose from on this forum.
Do you find your own attempts at ad hominems equally tedious ? There are so many of your tedious attempts to choose from on this forum.I'm equating if x, then y as an argument. You don't believe it applies in the one where you don't like the conclusion because you won't follow your own logic.
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=19083.msg848422#msg848449
Context is important when you're trying to make an argument. The Jewish protestors against Israel's war crimes are calling for a cease fire - they want both sides to stop attacking unarmed civilians but they also want Israel to stop their terrorism, expanding colonisation, blockades, collective punishment, restriction of movement and discriminatory policies against the Palestinian people in the illegally occupied territories that preceded the 7th October terrorist attack by Hamas. They are asking the international community and all sides to uphold international law.
It's your flawed logic that is seeking to equate the 2 positions (1) Jewish people seeking to uphold the existing law to protect all civilians from physical harm with (2) the position of trans activists who are campaigning against upholding the law (provisions in the Equality Act 2010) that protects women from physical harm by allowing legal discrimination against trans women provided it's for a legitimate purpose, such as the physical safety of women.
Can you see the problem with your attempts at logic?
I suppose it makes a change from you making assertions about my 'tone' and then ignoring any requests for evidence.
I'm equating if x, then y as an argument. You don't believe it applies in the one where you don't like the conclusion because you won't follow your own logic.Nope, I'm pointing out the flaw in your logic by trying to compare 1 group who prioritise "hurty" feelings with another group who prioritise physical harm.
That's an awful lot of words to try and justify your imconsistebt application of logic which would apply no matter what the cases themselves are.There wasn't an inconsistent application of logic on my part. Remember NS assertions without evidence are easily dismissed.
Anyway the ICJ has ordered Israel to cease theory action in Rafah.Agreed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-69055989
I hope that it has some effect.
There wasn't an inconsistent application of logic on my part. Remember NS assertions without evidence are easily dismissed.It is precisely a inconsistent application of logic. Your argument was the presence of a representatives of a group protesting meant that the protest couldn't be anto that group. If that was applied to women protesting for the rights of men who say they are women into women's prisons, then by the logic of your argument, the protest could not be anti women. The evidence is in this thread of posts on this specific discussion.
Unlike you, I like to include some specific examples to illustrate my point that those alleging antisemitism are being inconsistent and prejudiced. Hence the wordy response.
But you go ahead and stick to your brief unevidenced assertions if that's all your capable of at this time.
Agreed.
It is precisely a inconsistent application of logic. Your argument was the presence of a representatives of a group protesting meant that the protest couldn't be anto that group. If that was applied to women protesting for the rights of men who say they are women into women's prisons, then by the logic of your argument, the protest could not be anti women. The evidence is in this thread of posts on this specific discussion.Nope, your argument is precisely an inconsistent application of logic.
Nope, your argument is precisely an inconsistent application of logic.No. I'm not saying anything about the specific arguments. Your argument again is that the presence of representatives of group of people protesting means that it cannot be anti that group of people. You don't think that as regards my example of the women. So you aren't applying it consistently.
My argument was "It's a bit difficult to take the antisemitism accusations seriously while there are lots of Jewish people protesting against Israel's war crimes."
i.e. the presence of a representatives of a group (Jewish) protesting against their group (Jewish) carrying out physical harm to another group (Palestinians) meant that this protest isn't anti that group (anti-Jewish), it's anti-physical harm to the other group (Palestinians).
Whereas your argument was that supporting physical harm to women is misogynistic so women campaigning to allow transwomen the opportunity to cause physical harm to real women is misogynistic.
Which is precisely the opposite of what Jewish protestors are doing - they aren't on protests supporting giving Hamas the opportunity to harm Jewish people.
You are the one with an inconsistent application of logic. To be consistent you would need to compare 2 groups of people protesting against their own kind for carrying out acts of physical harm on others (Jews protesting against Jewish war crimes against Palestinians and trans women protesting against trans women physically assaulting real women).
No. I'm not saying anything about the specific arguments. Your argument again is that the presence of representatives of group of people protesting means that it cannot be anti that group of people. You don't think that as regards my example of the women. So you aren't applying it consistently.Nope, I didn't make any generalisation about "the presence of representatives of group of people protesting means that it cannot be anti that group of people".
....
Anyway the ICJ has ordered Israel to cease theory action in Rafah.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-69055989
I hope that it has some effect.
Sadly, not looking like itAnd no, though they will cite the Hamas rocket attacks as the provocation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cllljg70m23o
And no, though they will cite the Hamas rocket attacks as the provocation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kkqkngnedo
Biden unveils Israeli proposal to end Gaza warOr perhaps not
A glimmer of something?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw8860gn1nwo
Bleak details, as with all claims in war, to be approached carefully.And more of the same bleakness
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c511k1nqx81o
Bleak details, as with all claims in war, to be approached carefully.You mean similar to how the claims about Hamas beheading babies were treated by posters on here?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c511k1nqx81o
More contrition than I was expecting from NetanyahuI am not seeing any contrition here? Calling something a "tragic mishap" is Netanyahu saying it's a tragic mishap for Israeli PR.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjjj26d0eqxo
I am not seeing any contrition here? Calling something a "tragic mishap" is Netanyahu saying it's a tragic mishap for Israeli PR.You do realise that it was because I was expecting none at all, and even calling it tragic was more than I was expecting.
If you think he means it's tragic for the Palestinians or that Israel really is taking "every precaution possible" to protect civilians caught up in the fighting in Gaza, I can put you in touch with a prince in Nigeria with a once-in-a-lifetime investment opportunity for you.
You do realise Netanyahu is up on charges for corruption - lying for self-interest comes as easy to him as breathing.
You do realise that it was because I was expecting none at all, and even calling it tragic was more than I was expecting.He meant it was a tragic mishap for Israel's PR and for the Zionist lobby - they will have to work a bit harder to try to supress criticism of Israel by rolling out the antisemitism soundbites, maybe pay a bit more money to oil the PR machinery, and schmooze more politicians.
Suffering continues in GazaAnd unsurprisingly there is a backlash against Hamas.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd1600vl7lzo
But then there is this sort of 'settlement' drive from the Israelis which cannot but threaten any negotiationsI have not seen Israel's current government give any indication that it has an intention to negotiate for a 2-state solution.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czq61w10qwpo
I have not seen Israel's current government give any indication that it has an intention to negotiate for a 2-state solution.I think people matter more than land, but otherwise I agree. It's clear that the initial huzzah for the US recession plan were premature, and the US govt does not loom in a position to do anything - though that's one of Biden's many problems in getting back in. Given it looks like the ele tion is already done, it looks like nothing till Trump, and....
Which then makes it difficult to see how the line trotted out regularly that "Israel has a right to defend itself" does not also apply to Hamas.
Is there any difference between Hamas killing Israeli civilians in response to Israel stealing land through illegal settlements and Israel killing Palestinian civilians in response to a terrorist attack?
I think people matter more than land, but otherwise I agree.I am not sure I am comparing land with people. Settling land already occupied by others involves violence against the people already living on the land. The Israelis don't want the Palestinians to be there so they drive them out. It's the Palestinian people rather than their land that are suffering because they have no future under Israeli illegal occupation, settlement expansion and violence.
I am not sure I am comparing land with people. Settling land already occupied by others involves violence against the people already living on the land. The Israelis don't want the Palestinians to be there so they drive them out. It's the Palestinian people rather than their land that are suffering because they have no future under Israeli illegal occupation, settlement expansion and violence.So the murdering carried out by Hamas in the attacks that triggered this particular cycle is 'honourable' in your view?
I think oppression is worse than killing people. I think the people who are supporting Ukraine also believe that oppression is worse than killing people and that dying for freedom is honourable - so they support Ukrainians in killing Russians and also in dying for their land to be free - they support this with words, politically and economically and militarily. It's no different if Arabs or Jews believe dying/ being martyred for their country is honourable - it's a well know concept in many cultures including Western cultures.
So the murdering carried out by Hamas in the attacks that triggered this particular cycle is 'honourable' in your view?I think going back to school to learn to read English, or a dictionary might help you here with your comprehension skills.
I think going back to school to learn to read English, or a dictionary might help you here with your comprehension skills.You pulled a bait and switch between killing and dying. I asked a question to allow you to clarify it. Your reaction indicates that you want to maintain the ambivalence for whatever reason.
You pulled a bait and switch between killing and dying. I asked a question to allow you to clarify it. Your reaction indicates that you want to maintain the ambivalence for whatever reason.::) What happened is the media has conditioned you to think Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers so your prejudice causes you to read something that isn't there and jump to prejudiced-based conclusions. Why lie about it? There are plenty of people who think like you and this isn't the first time you've displayed your prejudices on here.
::) What happened is the media has conditioned you to think Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers so your prejudice causes you to read something that isn't there and jump to prejudiced-based conclusions. Why lie about it? There are plenty of people who think like you and this isn't the first time you've displayed your prejudices on here.I don't think Muslims are terrorists, and nothing I've written on here shows that. Not much point in dealing with the rest of a post based on nonsense.
My interest in this thread has been to ask for possible explanations of why some people support Ukrainians fighting and being prepared to die to defend their land but not Palestinians. In both situations it's just land and if "people are more important than land" or so the argument goes why don't the Ukranians love their fellow citizens enough to let Russia take over so no more Ukranians have to die being blown up by Russian missiles or killed by Russian soldiers and no more Russians are being killed by Ukranians conscripted to the military or Ukranian secret operatives carrying out atrocities.
Because that seems to be the argument some people apply to the Palestinians - if defending against Israel's land theft is causing so many Palestinian deaths the Palestinian leadership clearly don't care about the Palestinian people's lives.
If Ukraine and Palestine are not similar situations, I would be interested to hear theories of why they are not similar.
I don't think Muslims are terrorists, and nothing I've written on here shows that. Not much point in dealing with the rest of a post based on nonsense.::) Of course you don't. You can deny it all you want but your sub-conscious bias against Muslims is evident when you reply on this thread to the only Muslim poster on here. There are plenty of examples of your sub-conscious bias in your posts on this thread. For example, when you keep jumping to interpretations of my posts where you claim I personally agree with or justify the actions of Hamas or that I think their actions are honourable yet when asked for evidence such as quotes of words I have written, you are unable to provide a single quote so far.
::) Of course you don't. You can deny it all you want but your sub-conscious bias against Muslims is evident when you reply on this thread to the only Muslim poster on here. There are plenty of examples of your sub-conscious bias in your posts on this thread. For example, when you keep jumping to interpretations of my posts where you claim I personally agree with or justify the actions of Hamas or that I think their actions are honourable yet when asked for evidence such as quotes of words I have written, you are unable to provide a single quote so far.So my interpretation of that is, and take your whole post here, and the previous one, as a quote, if someone challenges the only Muslim posting here about their posts they think all Muslim are terrorists.
So my interpretation of that is, and take your whole post here, and the previous one, as a quote, if someone challenges the only Muslim posting here about their posts they think all Muslim are terrorists.Not quite. Challenging the only Muslim poster is fine. It's the bit where you are never able to provide a quote of the actual words I wrote and the dictionary meaning of those words as evidence to justify your challenge that means your challenge is based on your prejudice. If only you could provide an actual quote or line I wrote as evidence ...but you never can. Every time you are challenged on it you just run away.
Not quite. Challenging the only Muslim poster is fine. It's the bit where you are never able to provide a quote of the actual words I wrote and the dictionary meaning of those words as evidence to justify your challenge that means your challenge is based on your prejudice. If only you could provide an actual quote or line I wrote as evidence ...but you never can. Every time you are challenged on it you just run away.I disagree but I find this to be a distraction on a day when the ICJ report is due. Our disagreements about posts here seem pretty meaningless.
How very dishonest of you NS.
I disagree but I find this to be a distraction on a day when the ICJ report is due. Our disagreements about posts here seem pretty meaningless.Not as much of a distraction as you repeatedly interpreting posts by the only Muslim poster on here as being support or justification of murder or terrorism while never providing evidence of this. Let's hope the ICJ is not as prejudiced as you.
Can't find it my heart to mourn him but let's hope it doesn't escalate furtherThough any hope on non escalation seems fanciful
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4ng7g74xppt
Can't find it my heart to mourn him but let's hope it doesn't escalate furtherIsrael has a history of going rogue and assassinating people to send a message or to try to intimidate to terrorise - this is often their preferred method of dealing with people they deem to be problematic rather than practising and improving their abilities to use statesmanship or diplomacy or engage in solutions that don't break the law. They also have a history of assassinating / murdering the wrong people and innocents while still trying to portray themselves as victims that deserve sympathy from other countries.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4ng7g74xppt
Israel has a history of going rogue and assassinating people to send a message or to try to intimidate to terrorise - this is often their preferred method of dealing with people they deem to be problematic rather than practising and improving their abilities to use statesmanship or diplomacy or engage in solutions that don't break the law. They also have a history of assassinating / murdering the wrong people and innocents while still trying to portray themselves as victims that deserve sympathy from other countries.Just to clarify, do you have any intention to imply Haniyeh is either not the intended victim, or is an innocent?
That's the problem with vigilante actions and terrorism - those who engage in it, including the Israeli government, get the wrong people as often as or more often than they get the "right" people. The idea that the Israeli government are not a bunch of murderous thugs just like Hamas is laughable - there is nothing to choose between them and it is only bias and prejudice that enables some people to view Israel's government more sympathetically than Hamas.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-israels-leaders-use-targeted-killings-to-try-to-stop-history/
Just to clarify, do you have any intention to imply Haniyeh is either not the intended victim, or is an innocent?No - Israel having a history of assassinating innocent victims was my second point. Assassination, terrorism, kidnapping, hostage-taking and torture are hallmarks of the Israeli government and Hamas. Haniyeh like Netanyahu is not an innocent and no doubt both leaders were/ are aware that their own assassination comes with the territory of how they choose to carry out their jobs.
No - Israel having a history of assassinating innocent victims was my second point. Assassination, terrorism, kidnapping, hostage-taking and torture are hallmarks of the Israeli government and Hamas. Haniyeh like Netanyahu is not an innocent and no doubt both leaders were/ are aware that their own assassination comes with the territory of how they choose to carry out their jobs.Yes, I see Israel have said they are going to assasinate Yahya Sinwar, the new leader of Hamas. And it isn't called out.
Yes, I see Israel have said they are going to assasinate Yahya Sinwar, the new leader of Hamas. And it isn't called out.Israel presumably assassinated Haniyeh because he was too moderate and pragmatic - it suits Israel's current government to have someone more extreme to head Hamas - no prizes for working out why.
Israel presumably assassinated Haniyeh because he was too moderate and pragmatic - it suits Israel's current government to have someone more extreme to head Hamas - no prizes for working out why.Sometimes a cigar is just an everyday assignation attempt. If you're the leader of Hamas for the murders last year, you're extreme enough for any purposes.
Sometimes a cigar is just an everyday assignation attempt. If you're the leader of Hamas for the murders last year, you're extreme enough for any purposes.Are you suggesting it is morally or legally not as bad to assassinate Netanyahu for his murder of innocents and that Netanyahu is extreme enough for any purposes? Hamas would agree with you - as would the Israeli government about Hamas leaders being extreme enough for any purposes.
Political assassinations are not confined to Israel, and in some ways are not as bad, on a scale of evil to dear fuck what have you just done, as attacks that murder innocents.
Sometimes a cigar is just an everyday assignation attempt. If you're the leader of Hamas for the murders last year, you're extreme enough for any purposes.
Political assassinations are not confined to Israel, and in some ways are not as bad, on a scale of evil to dear fuck what have you just done, as attacks that murder innocents.
Are you suggesting it is morally or legally not as bad to assassinate Netanyahu for his murder of innocents and that Netanyahu is extreme enough for any purposes? Hamas would agree with you - as would the Israeli government about Hamas leaders being extreme enough for any purposes.In relative terms, the assassination of someone who has organised and ordered the murder of innocents does not seem as bad to me as the murder of those innocents. I'm not really that bothered if Hamas or the Israeli govt agree on that aspect of moral calculation because they would commit both while I would commit neither.
In relative terms, the assassination of someone who has organised and ordered the murder of innocents does not seem as bad to me as the murder of those innocents. I'm not really that bothered if Hamas or the Israeli govt agree on that aspect of moral calculation because they would commit both while I would commit neither.I think we would commit neither because we are not leaders of organisations or governments or countries under attack, nor are we dealing with being under attack for decades. Organising and ordering the murder of innocents appears to go with the territory of leading a country which has armed forces and is protecting its interests or leading a militant organisation that grew out of a population under attack from a government.
I think we would commit neither because we are not leaders of organisations or governments or countries under attack, nor are we dealing with being under attack for decades. Organising and ordering the murder of innocents appears to go with the territory of leading a country which has armed forces and is protecting its interests or leading a militant organisation that grew out of a population under attack from a government.it's obviously impossible to know what we would do in completely different circumstances so not sure what the point of the hypothetical is. It remains that I think the assassination of someone who has ordered and/or organised the murder of innocents is less bad than the murder of those innocents, and that while I can make that judgement it does not mean that I am approving of the assassination.
it's obviously impossible to know what we would do in completely different circumstances so not sure what the point of the hypothetical is.I was just clarifying that we would not order the murder of innocents because of our nature/ nurture - different environment usually leads to different choices - no such thing as free will - our choices are determined - basic stuff like that, which we have been putting forward on other threads.
I was just clarifying that we would not order the murder of innocents because of our nature/ nurture - different environment usually leads to different choices - no such thing as free will - our choices are determined - basic stuff like that, which we have been putting forward on other threads.And as I have also put forward in those threads frequently, I think on a day to day basis we have no choice but to talk as if we have a form of free will. As pointed out, I can only really say what the confederacy of dunces normally covered by the perpendicular pronoun has agreed upon.
It remains that I think the assassination of someone who has ordered and/or organised the murder of innocents is less bad than the murder of those innocents, and that while I can make that judgement it does not mean that I am approving of the assassination.Does it really matter whether you approve or don't approve?
Does it really matter whether you approve or don't approve?Then your disapproval of the Israeli govt in this thread doesn't really matter, so you would appear to be saying those posts are pointless.
If you were operating in the same circumstances as Hamas or Netanyahu you would do things such as order murders of innocents, not because you relish or enjoy doing so but because it was a pragmatic option designed to meet certain political objectives. It goes with the job of leading a country or armed forces or militants that sometimes you are required by the circumstances to consider the lives of innocents as expendable, weighed against political objectives.
Then your disapproval of the Israeli govt n this thread doesn't really matter, so you would appear to be saying they are pointless.My disapproval of the Israeli government and Hamas leadership in this thread was just me expressing that I thought they were both the same in the way they have been conducting themselves in the conflict - though obviously the Israeli government have killed far more innocents than Hamas has, so looking at objective facts like numbers rather than likes and dislikes based on anti-Arab or anti-Muslim prejudice, the Israeli government are worse than Hamas.
My disapproval of the Israeli government and Hamas leadership in this thread was just me expressing that I thought they were both the same in the way they have been conducting themselves in the conflict - though obviously the Israeli government have killed far more innocents than Hamas has, so looking at objective facts like numbers rather than likes and dislikes based on anti-Arab or anti-Muslim prejudice, the Israeli government are worse than Hamas.And therefore my comments about what I would do have exactly the same validity as your disapproval.
I can understand that both sides are products of their nature/ nurture and due to the circumstances they find themselves in they make choices accordingly. My approval / disapproval is pointless to the extent that if I was in their circumstances I recognise the likelihood that I would make similar choices. As would others commenting here.
And therefore my comments about what I would do have exactly the same validity as your disapproval.Not sure what you mean by validity.
Not sure what you mean by validity.Then your disapproval of the Isreali govt actions is, by your own argument, worthless.
My input into this thread started because there seemed to be a narrative developing in the media that the actions of Hamas on 7 October were worse than the actions of the government of Israel over the past few decades and I introduced some information to show how the actions of the government of Israel were as bad as Hamas, and since 7 October were considerably worse than Hamas.
My comments on this thread expressing disapproval of the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government by calling both their actions illegal were not an indication of what I would do but a comparison of what they were both doing to innocent civilians.
I just found your comment that you would not murder innocents, unlike the leaders of Hamas and Israel, odd since it is neither analysing the situation nor is it logical - I was disagreeing with you that you would not order the murder of innocents nor order the assassination of those who had murdered innocents - if you were in their circumstances you probably would murder innocent civilians because your choices would be determined by your circumstances/ nature/ nurture.
Then your disapproval of the Isreali govt actions is, by your own argument, worthless.Sure - that's why there was a lot more in my posts than just expressing disapproval of the actions of the leaders of Israel and Hamas. My posts were mostly an analysis of the way in which the circumstances that Hamas and Israelis found themselves in led to the actions of both sides.
Sure - that's why there was a lot more in my posts than just expressing disapproval of the actions of the leaders of Israel and Hamas. My posts were mostly an analysis of the way in which the circumstances that Hamas and Israelis found themselves in led to the actions of both sides.But there can't be a 'lot more' by your own argument here.
I called you out on your worthless post because it only consisted of you trying to portray yourself as someone who would not murder innocents or order the assassinations of those who would murder innocents - your post made no sense since you would likely murder innocents if you were in the same circumstances as the leaders of Hamas and Israel since your actions would be determined by your past circumstances/ nature/ nurture.
But there can't be a 'lot more' by your own argument here.Yes there can be a lot more, and there was. There was information on how the situation in Palestine had changed over the years due to the circumstances that evolved. There was a comparison with the conflict between Ukraine and Russia and the part that self-interest and prejudice plays in the opinions that people form about conflicts and there was a discussion of how circumstances/ nature/ nurture determine the actions of those involved. All far more interesting than you laughably trying to insert yourself as some kind of paragon of virtue in the discussions on this thread.
Yes there can be a lot more, and there was. There was information on how the situation in Palestine had changed over the years due to the circumstances that evolved. There was a comparison with the conflict between Ukraine and Russia and the part that self-interest and prejudice plays in the opinions that people form about conflicts and there was a discussion of how circumstances/ nature/ nurture determine the actions of those involved. All far more interesting than you laughably trying to insert yourself as some kind of paragon of virtue in the discussions on this thread.Not sure why you are not sure but your argument was that in the level we are talking, there is no choice about what you think.
Not sure what argument you are referring to.
Not sure why you are not sure but your argument was that in the level we are talking, there is no choice about what you think.My argument is that what you think is determined by nature/ nurture/ circumstances - so information you read on this thread is part of nurture/ circumstances and will be one of the causes / determinants of what you think about the situation in the Middle East.
My argument is that what you think is determined by nature/ nurture/ circumstances - so information you read on this thread is part of nurture/ circumstances and will be one of the causes / determinants of what you think about the situation in the Middle East.And your argument seems to agree with that position, without the qualification I covered earlier, so you think Netanyahu does what you would do if you were him.
I could not see how your post declaring you currently don't have an inclination to murder innocents in the Middle East adds anything to the understanding of the situation in the ME - you are not in the situation that would lead you to murder innocents in Palestine or Israel so of course you won't murder them at the moment, but if you were in that situation you likely would murder them.
And your argument seems to agree with that position, without the qualification I covered earlier, so you think Netanyahu does what you would do if you were him.Seems we both agree that if either of us were in the position / circumstances/ nature/ nurture of Netanyahu or Hamas' leadership, we would both do what Netanyahu/ Hamas does - murder innocents and order assassinations. Not sure what qualification you are referring to.
I can't help (jokey reference) but feel that you are indulging in a tedious argument here ignoring the suffering of those in Gaza.As you have demonstrated many times on here, you can't help what you think... until additional information on here or elsewhere causes you to think differently.
Seems we both agree that if either of us were in the position / circumstances/ nature/ nurture of Netanyahu or Hamas' leadership, we would both do what Netanyahu/ Hamas does - murder innocents and order assassinations. Not sure what qualification you are referring to.No, we haven't agreed that. That is your position which says you agree that you would do everything that Netanyahu has done.
As you have demonstrated many times on here, you can't help what you think... until additional information on here or elsewhere causes you to think differently.
Doesn't mean what you think is accurate.
No, we haven't agreed that. That is your position which says you agree that you would do everything that Netanyahu has done.That's your position too based on the arguments you made on the Searching for God thread that our actions are determined.
That's your position too based on the arguments you made on the Searching for God thread that our actions are determined.And again I explained the difference between that as a philosophical idea and a day to day discussion earlier. If you want to take the position you do get, you approve of Netanyahu
And again I explained the difference between that as a philosophical idea and a day to day discussion earlier. If you want to take the position you do get, you approve of NetanyahuHow do you reach that conclusion - how are you defining "approve" here? The philosophical idea that our actions are either determined (or random) does not say anything about approval or disapproval in the sense of morality such as thinking an action is "good" or "bad".
How the pagers and walkie-talkies were exploded.Some more details
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/18/hezbollah-pagers-what-do-we-know-about-how-the-attack-happened
The drift to wider conflict quickensSpinning ever faster
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czxgyzq7z2ro
Maybe we should be strictly neutral, and let them fight it out among themselves.Would that apply to Ukraine as well? If not, why not?
Would that apply to Ukraine as well? If not, why not?Different situation. The right and wrong of the Ukraine war is much more clear-cut.
Different situation. The right and wrong of the Ukraine war is much more clear-cut.Surely that's just a matter of opinion? They're much more clear cut to you but there's a lot of people who would argue the other way.
John Mason suspended from SNP for remarks on the war.I'm at a loss to know what was objectionable in saying that Israel's actions don't yet amount to genocide.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/13/snp-expels-msp-over-utterly-abhorrent-comments-on-israel-hamas-conflict
I'm at a loss to know what was objectionable in saying that Israel's actions don't yet amount to genocide.
Because they don't.I think it's quite worrying that stating that you think the actions are wrong but don't in your opinion amount to genocide gets you suspended from a mainstream party. I mean don't get me wrong, I think Mason is an utter prick but on this I don't see a problem.
Not that it matters. People are dying and there's no way to make it stop because both sides see this as existential.
John Mason suspended from SNP for remarks on the war.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/13/snp-expels-msp-over-utterly-abhorrent-comments-on-israel-hamas-conflict
I think it's quite worrying that stating that you think the actions are wrong but don't in your opinion amount to genocide gets you suspended from a mainstream party. I mean don't get me wrong, I think Mason is an utter prick but on this I don't see a problem.That's part of the problem - politicians not naming Israel, which emboldens Israel to carry out genocide and war crimes. Complicity in genocide is punishable under international law.
I see that there's a push to get Emily Thornberry suspended from Labour after she said
“There are war crimes on all sides it seems to me during this conflict. There are war crimes being committed by Hamas, by Iran, on all sides.”
Because she didn't name Israel
That's part of the problem - politicians not naming Israel, which emboldens Israel to carry out genocide and war crimes. Complicity in genocide is punishable under international law.Are you suggesting that Thornberry is complicit in genocide?
Case law has established that “a pattern of purposeful action” leading to the destruction of a significant part of the targeted group is enough to establish genocidal intent. https://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/ij/ictr/3.htm
https://tinyurl.com/aennvrff
Human rights NGOs based in Israel today called on the international community to take action now to prevent Israel from forcibly transferring hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have remained in the Northern Gaza Strip outside of the area, including by denying entry of essential humanitarian aid and fuel. The Israeli ceasefire coalition, the groups Gisha, B’Tselem, PHR-I and Yesh Din, said that there are alarming signs that the Israeli military is beginning to quietly implement the Generals’ Plan, also referred to as the Eiland Plan, which calls for complete forcible transfer of the civilians of the northern Gaza Strip through tightening the siege on the area and starving the population.
Are you suggesting that Thornberry is complicit in genocide?The below seems to indicate what would make the UK government complicit to genocide:
The below seems to indicate what would make the UK government complicit to genocide:I don't disagree with Levy but I would say that it's all countries not just 'the West'.
In April 2024 senior members of Britain's legal profession said the government needed to halt sales now to avoid "aiding and assisting an international wrongful act".
"The provision of military assistance and material to Israel may render the UK complicit in genocide as well as serious breaches of International Humanitarian Law," the judges, barristers and legal academics said in a 17-page letter to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
Assuming Thornberry is not responsible for deciding on UK arms sales to Israel, I assume only those responsible for arms sales to Israel could potentially be complicit to genocide in this scenario.
If UK political leadership started calling Israel's mass starvation and bombing of Palestinian civilians genocide or naming and shaming Israel for carrying out war crimes, then under international law the UK government would have a duty to act to prevent it, which is not something the UK government seems interested in doing.
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/icj-gaza-genocide-uk-failures-war-israeli-adviser-2844251
Mr Levy, however, accused the UK of double standards, pointing to how Britain and five other countries submitted detailed legal arguments to the ICJ in November claiming Myanmar committed genocide against the Rohingya ethnic group.
Commentators have also pointed to how the UK has staunchly supported Ukraine in its war with Russia, which has been repeatedly accused of committing genocide by Kyiv officials.
“I think it’s hardly breaking news to the rest of the world that the West champions international law when it’s convenient and pretends it’s not there when it’s inconvenient,” said Dr Levy.
I don't disagree with Levy but I would say that it's all countries not just 'the West'.Which other countries were you thinking of specifically that intervene / interfere in the affairs of other countries?
Which other countries were you thinking of specifically that intervene / interfere in the affairs of other countries?I'm not thinking of any countries in particular, rather I think all countries, which is why I used the term 'all countries' look on international law as subject to their interests.
Who would you say are their allies that back and arm their interventions?
Which countries are the biggest arms dealers in the world?
I'm not thinking of any countries in particular, rather I think all countries, which is why I used the term 'all countries' look on international law as subject to their interests.Does it matter if "all countries" look on international law as subject to their interests?
Does it matter if "all countries" look on international law as subject to their interests?It matters if someone is singling out one group as Levy did.
I mean in comparison to the actual handful of countries in the 'West' that earn millions in revenue arming certain regimes in order to carry out proxy wars that kill tens of thousands and send floods of refugees fleeing from areas where civilian infrastructure is destroyed and rule of law no longer applies?
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/uk-government-revealed-to-be-second-biggest-arms-dealer-in-the-world-204378/
It matters if someone is singling out one group as Levy did.No explanation as to why it matters - so it doesn't matter.
No explanation as to why it matters - so it doesn't matter.A part of me was tempted to write 'so what' here but I think that would be indulgent. I'm really not sure what point you are making. Scale may matter but there are small countries in the 'West', and large countries with huge interests outside of it. So I'm missing what point you are trying to make.
Levy is singling out groups that preach to other countries about international humanitarian law while profiteering the most from flouting international humanitarian law e.g. by being the biggest arms sellers. Scale matters. No point including the small fry that don't kill as many civilians or make as much money from killing them.
The scale of destruction and war crimes in Gaza would not be possible without this continued flow of weapons from the U.S. Despite massive public protests, the Biden administration has been working to give Israel over $14 billion to buy more weapons. This is on top of the $3.8 billion the U.S. already gives to the Israeli military annually. Israel is required to use this money to buy U.S.-made weapons so the US companies profit from the ongoing slaughter of civilians.
This is a form of corporate welfare not only for the largest weapons manufacturers, like Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, and General Dynamics, which have seen their stock prices skyrocket, but also for companies that are not typically seen as part of the weapons industry, such as Caterpillar, Ford, and Toyota.
After decades of Israeli occupation forces using Caterpillar's armored D9 bulldozers to "demolish Palestinian homes and civilian infrastructure in the occupied West Bank and to enforce the blockade of the Gaza Strip," the machines "have been crucial in the Israeli military's ground invasion" of the enclave, according to AFSC. https://afsc.org/gaza-genocide-companies
A part of me was tempted to write 'so what' here but I think that would be indulgent. I'm really not sure what point you are making. Scale may matter but there are small countries in the 'West', and large countries with huge interests outside of it. So I'm missing what point you are trying to make.That's an odd question. This thread was started presumably because scale mattered - otherwise who cares if Hamas killed 1,200 Israeli civilians or 2 Israeli civilians?
There's an idea generally that the 'West', a simplistic treatment of things beyond a classification are somehow worse because of hypocrisy, and yet that's the issue why singling out the 'West' is problematic because hypocrisy is the rule.
It might be that there's an idea that somehow those outside are less hypocritical, which is a bit like less pregnant, a bit like Kelin, the Russian ambassador here.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8dxkz6yl2o
Bur oddly, that's very like Netanyahu's approach and I doubt you would approve of that.
I'm bemused at what point you are trying to make. If we agree that countries put forward their interests before international law, what difference is made by size or situation?
CNN is facing backlash for a sympathy piece on the mental health of Israeli soldiers deployed in Gaza, who have, in their own words, run over Palestinians "dead and alive, in the hundreds”, with bulldozers.
Qatar pulls out of mediating roleI note that Qatar has suspended its role. The media around the world of course spin events to mean something else depending on their geographical location, which is one of the reasons for a lot of the anti-Arab sentiment and bias displayed by those exposed to Western media in this instance. From your link:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c774d4p2mx6o
VG,You keep mentioning you think it's an important difference without ever explaining why you think it's important.
No. Try two examples:
1. The God of the OT says, “slaughter the Canaanite men, women and children because their behaviour is sinful”. The Jews accept that as an article of faith and slay the Canaanites.
2. Netanyahu says, “kill the Palestinian men, women and children in Gaza because that way we may also exterminate Hezbollah and in any case our retribution for the October 7 killings will be so terrible that they’ll never attempt the same thing again”.
In both cases, as you note, lots of innocent people end up dead. In the former case though, the faith claim is the beginning and the end of the matter – there’s no way to know if the God of the OT is real and nor, even if "He" is, whether his instructions are faithfully written in a text. There's no particular, real world outcome other than delivering on the article of faith.
In the second case though, either it works or it doesn’t – ie, either Hezbollah regroups and attacks again, or they never again try it.
Note too that in the second case there’s no overt reference to a moral or philosophical imperative (which is all there is in the first case). Instead there’s a claim to a pragmatic, real world solution that demonstrably after the slaughter can be shown to have worked or not (regardless of how morally contemptible you or I think it to be whether or not it achieves its objective).
This difference clearly is a difference no matter how much you try to obfuscate that, and I happen to think it’s quite an important one too.
Moderator note, as per previous post this is reply from jeremy p to the previous post originally on SfGJeremyP
That's a gross distortion of the Palestinian situation.
For one thing, Israel can't turn Gaza into an "open air prison" by itself. Gaza has a border with Egypt and a coastline.Egypt doesn't want Israel to succeed in its ethnic cleansing by permanently expelling thousands of Palestinians as refugees into Egypt. Nor does it want Palestinian militants walking in as that endangers its peace treaty with Israel and could cause political disruption in Egypt. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/why-egypt-and-other-arab-nations-are-hesitant-to-take-in-palestinian-refugees
Anyway, that's all off topic for this thread, so I'll say no more.
'Arrest warrants issued for Netanyahu, Gallant and Hamas commander over alleged war crimes' - from the International Criminal CourtBiden says the warrant against Netanyahu is outrageous, some European countries says they'll respect the warrants, UK says it respects the independence of the court. Hmm...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2exvx944o
'Arrest warrants issued for Netanyahu, Gallant and Hamas commander over alleged war crimes' - from the International Criminal CourtNot surprised to see the US is trying to pass legislation (already been passed by the House of Representatives) under which the US would impose sanctions on people "engaged in any effort to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute any protected person of the United States and its allies”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2exvx944o
Perhaps some good newsThough not supported by much of Netanyahu's based
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rge45kw4jo
And there is a ceasefireBut not soon enough to save some
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c3rwqpj70ert
Utterly bizarre
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/clyn05y9x2xt
Indeed: just been reading these reports.Was described on the Today programme as a real estate solution to a political problem. To be fair, the political solutions in the past brought us here.
Even for a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur, this notion is spectacularly unhinged.
Was described on the Today programme as a real estate solution to a political problem. To be fair, the political solutions in the past brought us here.So that’s tariffs on Egypt and Jordan if they don’t take the Gazans in.
So that’s tariffs on Egypt and Jordan if they don’t take the Gazans in.Who knows? Again the issue surely is that all those throwing their hands up, including me, supported policies that were demonstrably not working.
Who knows? Again the issue surely is that all those throwing their hands up, including me, supported policies that were demonstrably not working.Do you think this has a chance, or has Pollyanna monetised her services?
So that’s tariffs on Egypt and Jordan if they don’t take the Gazans in.How about tariffs on Israel if they don't take Gazans in?
Do you think this has a chance, or has Pollyanna monetised her services?it seems utterly mad to me, but who knows. It obviously isn't even a plan for plan, it's kite flying but maybe something will come of it.
Do you think this has a chance, or has Pollyanna monetised her services?