Hamas attacks Israel.

[Nearly Sane]

'Ireland, Norway and Spain to recognise Palestinian state' - while I get that recognising a Palestinian state does not mean support of Hamas, it seems odd not to have recognised prior to the 7th October murders, and hostage taking, and to recognise it now, and it is welcomed by Hamas.

And while it might be argued thar it's mainly in reactio  to the Israeli actions since, again it would seem to be a better approach to have done this before a set of tit for tat atrocities.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4nn78r3w3ko

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

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

[Nearly Sane]

Please explain what you mean by "good" in the context of "good reason"? What is a "good" reason to kill unarmed civilians?

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

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".

[Nearly Sane]

Again, you are entitled to your opinion. No need for me to take your opinion seriously if you can't support it with evidence.

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.

All you've touted is a wordy version of 'They started it'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

ETA: What do you mean by my "tone"?

Is this you admitting you have no quote as evidence for your repeated assertions so now you're reduced to trying to interpret what you imagine to be my tone?

Feel free to explain i.e. quote which particular words in which particular sentence led you to decipher a tone. How did you decide what that "tone" meant in order for you to interpret it as my approval for killing people? 

So far your responses on here mentioning my "tone" and what my words "read as" remind me of racist people who see black people as threatening just because they looked at them.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The Story Of Lehi, The Jewish Terrorist Organization That Tried To Form An Alliance With The Nazis https://allthatsinteresting.com/lehi

"...two leading operatives, Yitzhak Shamir and Eliyahu Giladi, escaped from custody and wasted no time in re-establishing the organization based on a campaign of bank robbery, bombing, assassination, and kidnapping wealthy Jews throughout Palestine.....In 1944, Lehi succeeded in killing Walter Guinness, First Baron Moyne, and the highest-ranking British official in the Middle East...."

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/efforts-zionist-militais-recruit-nazis-against-britain-revealed-israel-archives

https://www.timesofisrael.com/yitzhak-shamir-why-we-killed-lord-moyne/

It appears from the linked articles that terrorism, dodgy alliances and murder can be the catalyst that leads to the creation of a state - that certainly appears to be the case for the creation and recognition of the state of Israel.

If Jewish terrorists can become Israeli MPs and if a Jewish terrorist can become Prime Minister of Israel, we may still see Hamas terrorists becoming elected leaders in a Palestinian state. 

Though democratic elections were disregarded by the US and EU the last time Hamas won elections in 2006. Hamas won largely due to perceived internal problems in its rival political party, Fatah, and the popular conviction that Fatah officials were incompetent and dishonest. 

Fatah backed by the US tried to stage a violent coup to overthrow the results of the 2006 democratic elections. After Hamas fought and defeated the attempted coup,  the US and EU cut funding to Gaza, while Hamas' sponsor, Iran, increased funding to Hamas to cover the deficit in Gaza https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/gaza-news/article-773669

The US certainly doesn't seem to have a problem working with corrupt politicians who are prepared to use indiscriminate violence e.g. Netanyahu, who has been indicted on corruption charges, and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas who cancelled elections in 2021 because he thought Fatah would lose to Hamas and who has been brutally repressing critics of his regime
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/31/nizar-banats-death-highlights-brutality-of-palestinian-authority

[Nearly Sane]

I wonder if it might be more effective if the campaign was to expand to demand a review of all investments and dealings that could be seen as supporting oppression.  It would avoid the charge that this isn't just focusing on the state of Israel for reasons unconnected to its actions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0ddzejlndvo

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

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 especially don't all join forces to ensure no one is allowed to hold the rich and powerful accountable. The ICC prosecutor has a dusky hue so that probably already undermines his position in the eyes of many.

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. 

[Nearly Sane]

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.

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.

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

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.

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 pro-Israeli 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 of people who come out with casually homophobic comments equating homosexuals with paedophiles. You're right in that sense - impressions matter.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=19083.msg848419#msg848419

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

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.

Your argument was if there Jewish people protesting, the protest cannot be anti semitic. That translates to if there are women protesting for men who say they are women being put in women's positions, those protests cannot be anti women.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

Women campaigning for trans women to have access to single sex facilities or women's sport are saying the potential physical harm to women by men is a less important consideration compared to the "hurty" feelings of trans women.

Jewish protestors campaigning for a ceasefire are saying stopping physical harm to unarmed civilians is more important than the "hurty" feelings of Jewish people.

Since the people alleging antisemitism are comparable to the people alleging transphobia - both groups are prioritising "hurty" feelings over physical safety -  your argument does not work. On the other hand, trans people who support women's physical safety over their own side's "hurty" feelings would be comparable to Jewish people criticising Israel for war crimes. 

The point I was making is that the accusation of antisemitism is a propaganda tool made by some people who feel intimidated by students criticising Israel for committing war crimes.

The antisemitism smears are on the basis that (1) students would not criticise other states for carrying out mass bombing, starvation, collective punishment campaigns and/or (2) that criticising Israel equates to a lack of sympathy for the families of the Israeli victims of the Hamas terrorist attack.

Given students have criticised other states, including Britain and the US, for brutal and violent cultural and/ or physical colonisation, that smear doesn't work.

When the ICC said it was investigating the US military and the CIA for war crimes in Afghanistan, and it was investigating the Afghan government and the Taliban, I don't recall  those same critics saying the ICC investigation showed a lack of sympathy for the victims of 9/11 or the victims of the Afghan warlords or the victims of the Taliban?

Jewish people are at protests criticising Israeli actions because they prioritise stopping physical harm over "hurty" feelings and because they are not feeling intimidated by people protesting against Israel's war crimes, nor do they take such protests as evidence of a lack of sympathy for Jewish victims of Hamas. Presumably because these Jewish people are not prejudiced and think the law should be applied to all.

My view is if we're ok with talking to and dealing with Jewish terrorists/ Zionist paramilitary groups with an almost mystical belief in the 'Greater Israel' and ok with such Jewish terrorists being elected to power in Israel, then I don't see the logic in not dealing with Palestinian terrorists / paramilitary groups or the problem with Hamas being elected to power.

Anyone care to argue otherwise? Preferably with some supporting evidence rather than just assertions. As NS has demonstrated repeatedly on this thread, assertions without evidence are easily dismissed.

[Nearly Sane]

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.


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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

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.

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.

Agreed.

[Nearly Sane]

There wasn't an inconsistent application of logic on my part. Remember NS assertions without evidence are easily dismissed.

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

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).

[Nearly Sane]

Nope, your argument is precisely an inconsistent application of logic.

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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".

If you want to assert that my argument was something different to what it actually was and argue against your misrepresentation of my argument, knock yourself out.

My very specific argument, which I quoted, was in relation to what these protests are against - that Jewish people are on these protests against Israel's war crimes because they want international law to be applied equally to everyone including Israel. Hence, it's difficult to take seriously the false claim of antisemitism when the protestors, including Jews, want all war crimes to be treated the same i.e. halted and investigated.

One group (some Jewish protestors) is not discriminatory because they want international law to be applied consistently to everyone including their own group i.e. those that identify as Jewish - so no war crimes by anyone, including no war crimes in response to war crimes;

The other group (some female protestors) is discriminatory because they are protesting that laws should apply differently to some men who identify as women thereby giving men who identify as women the opportunity to assault women that is denied to men who identify as men.

Feel free to give me another opportunity to remind posters on here why the protests against Israel's war crimes is not antisemitic.