Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How should Palestine defend itself?
Options
Comments
-
Well it could. Because if somebody is sitting on the middle of a road, blocking traffic, one could make the argument that they were in a stupid place and invited trouble on themselves.
Whereas if the same individuals are a young family in UN shelter and you get hit by a missile, there is absolutely nothing you could have done to avoid it. That's the key reason why the world is so outraged.
I don't think anyone could make the argument that running people down with tanks and firing missiles are the appropriate way to deal with people blocking traffic. The last people to do that were the Chinese to my recollection. US support of Israel would be impossible if CNN and FOX were broadcasting video of Merkava tanks driving over peaceful protesters.
It would also allow the Palestinians to protect "young families" by concentrating the conflict at a point of their choosing - the roadblock. Rather than turning all of Gaza into a battlefield. By all measures, violence is an inferior strategy for the Palestinians in their current predicament.
Stop thinking about the conflict in cartoon images. Stop with the nihilism. Saying "Oh, what else can we do?" as an excuse for pursuing stupid and self harming strategies is just an evasion of responsibility. It's almost excusable when children and teenagers do it. The Palestinians deserve better leadership than a group which has no better answer than to futilely fire rockets at Israel and then shrug their shoulders helplessly when the perfectly predictable response harms the people they're supposed to be leading.
@NodinIf you'd be good enough to get back to me
Looking at your previous contributions to the the thread, which if I added them altogether might actually amount to a post, I wont. It would require more than one sentence for me to deal with the question. And I don't see why I should spend my time doing that when your contributions don't amount to more than a sentence.0 -
I don't think anyone could make the argument that running people down with tanks and firing missiles are the appropriate way to deal with people blocking traffic. The last people to do that were the Chinese to my recollection. US support of Israel would be impossible if CNN and FOX were broadcasting video of Merkava tanks driving over peaceful protesters.
It would also allow the Palestinians to protect "young families" by concentrating the conflict at a point of their choosing - the roadblock. Rather than turning all of Gaza into a battlefield. By all measures, violence is an inferior strategy for the Palestinians in their current predicament.
Stop thinking about the conflict in cartoon images. Stop with the nihilism. Saying "Oh, what else can we do?" as an excuse for pursuing stupid and self harming strategies is just an evasion of responsibility. It's almost excusable when children and teenagers do it. The Palestinians deserve better leadership than a group which has no better answer than to futilely fire rockets at Israel and then shrug their shoulders helplessly when the perfectly predictable response harms the people they're supposed to be leading.
.
Israel spin.... '1 protestor was armed. The Fox News chap didn't see him but we did. Their lives were in danger'.
You fail to grasp the elementary point that not all citizens voted for Hamas. We all know Palestinian people deserve better leadership. Hamas in't where our sympathies lie, it lies with the thousand of innocent civilians caught up in it.
In Nazi Germany, not everyone voted for Hitler. Those people that did not vote for him deserved better.Similarly, the Palestinian people deserve better.0 -
@RightwingIsrael spin.... '1 protestor was armed. The Fox News chap didn't see him but we did. Their lives were in danger'.
So, one protester is armed and they drive a tank over the other 50 people?
Sigh. I thought I said to stop thinking about the conflict in cartoon images. You're really grasping at straws with the above to deny that there might be a better idea than firing rockets uselessly at Israel.
I mean, I'm sure there are some utter lowlifes in the IDF - the two guys beating up that Palestinian-American kid for example - but I think the IDF is going to have a real problem finding tank drivers comfortable with driving over unarmed civilians. Israelis are people too you know. They have emotions...and stuff.0 -
@Rightwing
So, one protester is armed and they drive a tank over the other 50 people?
Sigh. I thought I said to stop thinking about the conflict in cartoon images. You're really grasping at straws with the above to deny that there might be a better idea than firing rockets uselessly at Israel.
I mean, I'm sure there are some utter lowlifes in the IDF - the two guys beating up that Palestinian-American kid for example - but I think the IDF is going to have a real problem finding tank drivers comfortable with driving over unarmed civilians. Israelis are people too you know. They have emotions...and stuff.
The only images in my head are of young children missing limbs/parents/siblings.
And that's exactly the issue the world has. The report below perfectly illustrates it. A motorbike with 'terrorists' And bang. Everyone suffers.
---
The US said it was appalled by the "disgraceful" school attack, which killed at least 10 people and injured dozens just days after the shelling of two other UN schools in Gaza caused international shock and anger.
A hospital near the site of the attack, in the southern town of Rafah, was overwhelmed with the dead and injured. Children's bodies were stored in an ice-cream freezer as the morgue ran out of room.
It was, said Ban, "yet another gross violation of international humanitarian law, which clearly requires protection by both parties of Palestinian civilians, UN staff and UN premises, among other civilian facilities". He called for a swift investigation, saying "those responsible [must be] held accountable. It is a moral outrage and a criminal act."
The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) had been "repeatedly informed of the location of these sites", Ban added.
In an unusually severe statement, the US state department called on Israel to do "more to meet its own standards and avoid civilian casualties".
The Israeli military was investigating the incident, said a spokesman, but preliminary inquiries had shown that its forces were "targeting a number of terrorists on a motorbike near the school, and we did identify a successful hit on a motorbike.0 -
But the logic being pursued here is that Hamas through its strategy are wholly responsible for that missile being fired on a UN shelter/school. For some reason Israel, who fire the rockets, are being taken out of this whole equation and are allowed to act with complete impunity while Hamas/Palestine are completely culpable. It is so illogical it makes my head hurt.
Apparently its Hamas' strategy that have led to Palestinian land shrinking in size since 1967, even though Hamas only came into existence in the 1980's. For some reason unbeknownst to me Israeli strategy has nothing to do with it. If this is the level of debate we are currently at, Palestinians really have no chance.
Correct.
There are no winners in this, all losers.
Israel has lost the respect and credibility of most intelligent people in the world. Hamas has used up all of their rockets - that's about all they had to lose (not that they are much use anyway) and the Palenstinian people in Gaza have been left destroyed. UN loses more credibility as being toothless, even though their efforts have been genuine.0 -
Advertisement
-
The link comes up as the second return on a google search for Ayelet Shaked so I cant imagine you searched that hard for it. But anyway:
Thanks for that.This is an interesting one because it demonstrates the bias again. I've already noted that I don't believe a majority of Israelis or Palestinians actually desire the genocide of the other.
I would agree that is the case. Unfortunately, all it takes is people at the top with the means to carry it out for that happen, and only 1 side has the means, and seems to be using them.But people draw wild, ridiculous conclusions about the Israeli state, let alone the Israeli people, having genocidal aims on the basis of ... a misreported facebook post, a professor saying something stupid in an interview, and a well known fringe extremist who is the enemy of the ruling faction in Israel. That sort of shaky evidence is used to make wild claims.
Again, the deputy speaker is hardly a "fringe extremists", and to claim as much is just silly. The example of the Professor, is that they man still has a job. The fact is that such discourse does exist in Israel, and those saying it, aren't being treated as fringe extremists. I would expect the Deputy Speaker and the Professor to find themselves both booted from there positions. Yes, not everyone wants to kill all the Palestinians, but the people who do believe so, seem to be able to make such statement with no repercussions.Meanwhile, Hamas, a terrorist organisation which calls for the genocide of Jews in its charter (election manifestos change and can change back - the charter remains) and *is* widely supported, returning a majority of seats and oh, no, its terrible to drawn any conclusion. Because facebook posts are what the Israeli people vote on, right? Whereas the Palestinians don't actually pay any attention to the actual charter of Hamas.
A politician who was elected making a Facebook post calling for Genocide is still a politician calling for Genocide. I fail to see how the choice of medium is all that relevant exactly.
As for the Hamas charter, well the election manifesto, came long after the charter, and surely the manifesto would signal such a change. Then, there is the unity government, which Hamas has joined, which as a condition of joining that unity government, they have to abide by past agreements, which would include recognizing the state of Israel.
So as before, I agree the charter is awful, but you can't exactly ignore statements and actions that contradicts there charter, that happen afterwards.
As for Hamas being a terrorist organization, well that fair enough, as long as the IDF and the Likud party etc are also to be consider terrorist organizations, if there not, then we have a clear example of hypocrisy.Do you guys ever step back and acknowledge the bias that is blinding your analysis of the situation?
This was apparently broadcast on July 25th by a Hamas controlled TV station. I dont speak Arabic, so I'm relying on the translation in the subtitles, but I'd be interested if you think its merely talking about "the Jews" and "exterminating" them, "not leaving even one" in a metaphorical sense?
Wow Sand, Memri, really? Your taking the piss right? This is a joke. You accuse me of bias, and then post a Memri video..... Really?
Ok, let talk about bias, then Sand. Like Memri, and there bias:Founders
MEMRI was co-founded by Meyrav Wurmser and Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence, "both of whom were early critics of the Oslo accords." [11]
An organization founded by former Israeli intelligence. No possible bias there at all....... I am sorry, but I am amazed that you accuse me of bias, and then pick an organization that was founded by former Israeli intelligence, and apparently done so in all seriousness. I have to say, I have seen some utter bull**** on these threads, but this is some of the worst, I have seen posted.
BTW, they also fake there translations:
Issues of reliability and veracity
Also, threaten critics as well:
Threatening Critics
So, lets get this straight, you accuse me and others of bias, then post a video from Memri, founded by former Israeli intelligence, who try to silence critics with nuisance lawsuits, and have been found to be faking translations. Here is a tip, in future before accusing anyone of bias, don't post a video, from an organization so biased, they may as well be one of the parties in the conflict.No he never actually called for rape. And the Israelis he was with immediately said it was not something they could ever do. Which should tell you enough. He just (stupidly) made a point about the macho culture of the middle east.
Yeah, sure didn't sound like that to me, or a lot of other people.Can you, right now, without going to Google name the Leas-Cheann Comhairle?
I am rubbish with names, I can barely name any politicians at all. My failure in that regard, doesn't change the fact, that a deputy speaker is not a fringe position. I can't name everyone in the cabinet either, but no one in there right mind would call them a member of the fringe, now would they.The government is led by Netanyahu. Netanyahu and this guy are huge political rivals, and Netanyahu has and continues to try to drive him out of Likud.
I fail to see what a political rival trying to get rid of another rival tells us exactly? Is Netanyahu trying to get rid of him due to his extremists views, or because he fears that he will challenge him for the leadership? You don't say which it is.I know you have no idea why I favour an accurate telling of the story. I stated before - I have never encountered anyone who comes to try to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only people who want to pick a side and cheer it on. All heat, no light.
Coming from a guy who post videos from Memri, while accusing people of bias, you no position to lecture anyone in this regard. Everyone has a bias (no matter how small), and to claim otherwise, a person is either a liar, or doesn't have a clue.Yeah, someone takes your parking place. A clear act of genocide!
Removing people from there homes via murder is considered genocide, and your example is rather disgusting and belittling to the suffering of the over 1800 dead, most of whom are civilians.If you keep on throwing around that word carelessly, you're going to entirely devalue it
I am using it perfectly accurate. The goals of Zionism, a settler colonial enterprise, will have to be achieved either via ethnic cleansing and genocide, like every other settler colonial enterprise. They all do the exact same thing, unless there prevented from doing so.
We see in the latest attack on Gaza, by deliberately trying to destroy the infrastructure, that keeps the people there alive, as seen by the destruction of the water infrastructure and power, is an act of Genocide. Just, because others have prevented Genocide so far, due to getting aid to the Palestinians of Gaza, doesn't change the fact of what the IDF has done.0 -
@Rightwing
So, one protester is armed and they drive a tank over the other 50 people?
Sigh. I thought I said to stop thinking about the conflict in cartoon images. You're really grasping at straws with the above to deny that there might be a better idea than firing rockets uselessly at Israel.
I mean, I'm sure there are some utter lowlifes in the IDF - the two guys beating up that Palestinian-American kid for example - but I think the IDF is going to have a real problem finding tank drivers comfortable with driving over unarmed civilians. Israelis are people too you know. They have emotions...and stuff.
If you want to see palestinian peaceful protest and the resulting draconian israeli response in documentary fashion you could watch '5 broken cameras' which was filmed over a number of years. Peaceful protest was met with brutality and glossed over like everything else0 -
R P McMurphy wrote: »If you want to see palestinian peaceful protest and the resulting draconian israeli response in documentary fashion you could watch '5 broken cameras' which was filmed over a number of years. Peaceful protest was met with brutality and glossed over like everything else
No doubt, but I don't think I'd have the stomach to watch it.
I heard the French foreign minister today calling for a solution without Israel's involvement. That's only way out of this crisis as far as I see. Europe needs to get tough.0 -
No doubt, but I don't think I'd have the stomach to watch it.
I heard the French foreign minister today calling for a solution without Israel's involvement. That's only way out of this crisis as far as I see. Europe needs to get tough.
There is another documentary in a similar vein called Budrus.0 -
Hamas's militant strategy is a failure. Everyone acknowledges that it can only result in failure, that Hamas has no chance in a conflict with the IDF. And the cost of the violence is paid in the deaths and injuries to Palestinian civilians whose interests Hamas *ought* to be prioritising. So you're essentially calling for the continuation of a strategy which has seen the Palestinians driven back from the 1967 borders, boxed up in ghettos in Gaza and the West Bank, and causes misery for the Palestinian people as Hamas engages in its futile rocket attacks?
Again, I have to ask - you are Pro-Palestinian right?
Why is it a failure? Is their goal a military victory? Armed resistance to an occupier (who does not negotiate honestly for a permanent resolution to the Palestinian Issue) is the only recourse Hamas have. Now we can assume that Hamas are not total idiots and they will realize that the current confrontation with Israel is not winnable so you you must assume that they are content with the world spotlight being firmly back on Gaza and Israel. This must be because they believe that the continuing oppression of the Palestinian people is so offensive to moral norms and so self evident to everyone (except the most hardline pro-zionists) that it may apply just enough international pressure to force Israel back to the negotiating table.
Now I would contend that the person/state that is responsible for murder is the one with their finger on the trigger. Is Hamas complicit in this murder, maybe, they certainly could have done more to prevent Israel from killing the residents of Gaza but all that would have meant is a return to the status quo of the blockade and no future or hope for the Palestinian people in Gaza.
At some point people have to make difficult choices, do they continue to exist in the limbo that is the prison/concentration camp of Gaza with Israel thwarting any attempts for a two state solution or do they die trying to change things. I think that is a decision that is impossible for someone like me or you to understand and appreciate but it is something we can empathize with as suffering is something common to all human beings and the thought of continued suffering with no hope of an end is something no human should have to endure.
I would like to contend another point you have repeatedly made and that is that this Israeli offensive is one of self defense due to Hamas rocket fire. My reading of how this conflict arose is the detailed below;
Order of Events:
1. Hamas and Fatah form Unity Government in April of this year. No Hamas members form part of that Government and once again the West Bank and Gaza will be ruled by one authority. All of this done as part of the drive towards legitimate statehood which the US and Israel do not want.
"Abbas has already pledged that the new administration will abide by the principles laid down by the Middle East peace quartet in that it will recognise Israel, reject violence and abide by existing agreements."
http://www.theguardi...-in-fatah-hamas
2. 3 Israeli Teenagers are Kidnapped (West Bank Settlers). Israeli Police Force admit later that they knew teenagers were dead almost immediately but didnt release the information. Why? Maybe to garner support for the current offensive? Israel also knew the kidnappings were not ordered by Hamas
http://nymag.com/dai...-after-all.html
3. Mass arrests of Palestinians and civilians killed and injured while Israel searches for the kidnapped teenagers which they have now admitted they knew were dead.
http://www.haaretz.c...efense/1.599757
4. Hamas begin rocket fire in retaliation for for the mass arrests and killings, including the murder of a Palestinian teenager who had petrol poured down his throat and was burned alive.
5. Operation Protective Edge now starts and has all the public support it needs. Wholesale slaughter of women and children begin and the public is told its because Hamas started it and are trying to wipe Israel of the map. From the above order of events that doesnt seem likely now does it? There has been practically zero rocket fire or attacks coming out of Gaza recently and people dont ask the simple question "Why now?" especially when they had just formed a unity government with Fatah.
6. Hamas reject first ceasefire brokered by Egypt
If people follow middle east politics then they will know that Hamas are closely affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood have been the victims of a recent coup in Egypt and have all been but exterminated by the new President Al Sisi. Hamas were not consulted on the ceasefire proposal and are bitter enemies of both the current Egyptian regime and Israel. Hamas look like the bad guy for not accepting the ceasefire.
I think you are being incredibly naive in how you view the Israeli motives for the current conflict. The one and only motive is to break or weaken Hamas, destroy any credibility that Hamas had and make a unity government with Fatah untenable as the focus will now be on rebuilding Gaza and Israel can continue to spout the line that they will not negotiate with any unity Government as long as Hamas are affiliated with it (as those terrorists have just been firing rockets at our civilians). Thus the status quo is continued and Israel can continue to colonise the West Bank, have a huge exclusion zone in the gaza strip thus squeezing the inhabitants further, and continue to negotiate with the US and corporations re exploiting the natural gas reserves of Gaza.0 -
Advertisement
-
This "conflict" is a no brainer for anyone who looks past the propaganda into what is really going on in the region.
Israel can easily "defend" itself by returning to its own country and ceasing all illegal activity in the region.
No illegal occupation and land theft - no violent resistance.0 -
Some clarifications with my understanding of events:
Netanyahu issued a gagging order preventing the press reporting the deaths of the youths, and that the killings hadn't been ordered by Hamas.2. 3 Israeli Teenagers are Kidnapped (West Bank Settlers). Israeli Police Force admit later that they knew teenagers were dead almost immediately but didnt release the information. Why?
Hamas routinely deploy "rocket enforcement squads" whose mission is to STOP other groups launching rocket attacks which may give Israel a pretext to attack (don't hear too much about them in the Western media do you?). After Israel started attacking Hamas targets in Gaza (on the known false pretext of their involvement in the West Bank killings), these squads couldn't function, leading to first other groups, and later Hamas, firing rockets.4. Hamas begin rocket fire in retaliation for for the mass arrests and killings,
Most ceasefires agreed to by Israel essentially require the Palestinian groupings (first the PLO, now Hamas) to completely surrender and disarm, in return for vague mutterings on future agreements by Israel. I don't believe I heard any mainstream news source report Hamas' truce proposal, which they extended a number of times. Far from the "kill all Jews" lies attributed to Hamas beliefs in the media, their truce offered Israel TEN YEARS of peace in return for conditions which can only be described as utterly reasonable - lifting of the illegal blockade, being allowed to develop their economy, build an airport, greater fishing rights off their own coast, etc. That Israel didn't take up the offer (I don't believe they even responded) lays clear their lack of desire for peace.6. Hamas reject first ceasefire brokered by Egypt0 -
Again, the deputy speaker is hardly a "fringe extremists", and to claim as much is just silly. The example of the Professor, is that they man still has a job. The fact is that such discourse does exist in Israel, and those saying it, aren't being treated as fringe extremists.
Repeating yourself doesn't add more weight to your claims. The discourse, as you describe it, clearly exists in Palestine too and in that case, the people making the claims are not fringe extremists. They are the entire, majority elected government who signed up to and campaigned under the charter calling for the genocide of the Jews, and the voters who supported that government and its charter.A politician who was elected making a Facebook post calling for Genocide is still a politician calling for Genocide. I fail to see how the choice of medium is all that relevant exactly.
You cant see the difference between a facebook post by an individual and an official consitution of a state or political organisation? And as I already linked you to (and of course ignored as I presumed) that politician clearly indicates she did not and does not call for genocide.
Tell me, when you make posts here - are you doing so on the basis of your employer or all political organisations you are a member of? Have you been approved to do so?
That is the difference between a facebook post by an individual and an agreed charter or policy by an organisation or state.As for the Hamas charter, well the election manifesto, came long after the charter, and surely the manifesto would signal such a change...So as before, I agree the charter is awful, but you can't exactly ignore statements and actions that contradicts there charter, that happen afterwards.
Changing the charter would signal a change. You're putting a lot of weight on an election manifesto which simply failed to openly state a policy for the genocide of the Jews and taking that as meaning Hamas have completely abandoned genocide.
If that's the case, why haven't they corrected their charter which calls for genocide? A glaring oversight, surely?As for Hamas being a terrorist organization, well that fair enough, as long as the IDF and the Likud party etc are also to be consider terrorist organizations, if there not, then we have a clear example of hypocrisy.
Yeah, everyone is a terrorist, so no one is a terrorist. Right?Wow Sand, Memri, really? ... may as well be one of the parties in the conflict.
Are the subtitles accurate and was it broadcast on Al-Asqa TV? If they are, and if it was, would you expect the Hamas TV producer to lose his job given that Hamas are no longer supportive of genocide?Yeah, sure didn't sound like that to me, or a lot of other people.
Well, there is a difference between objective and subjective reality.I am rubbish with names, I can barely name any politicians at all. My failure in that regard, doesn't change the fact, that a deputy speaker is not a fringe position. I can't name everyone in the cabinet either, but no one in there right mind would call them a member of the fringe, now would they.
Well, respect for being honest. I couldn't name him either. I couldn't even name the Ceann Comhairle. I think that highlights just how influential the position is. Most people can name the political leadership and the various well known, influential politicians. We cant name junior ministers or even the Leas Ceann Comhairle because they are not the political leadership or well known, influential politicians.I fail to see what a political rival trying to get rid of another rival tells us exactly? Is Netanyahu trying to get rid of him due to his extremists views, or because he fears that he will challenge him for the leadership? You don't say which it is.
Well, he's challenged Netanyahu twice already (and lost both times...heavily) so I'd say its the latter. But it indicates that he is outside the tent, not inside it. And his heavy defeats have indicated that whatever it is Likud is looking for from a leader, it is not this guy.Removing people from there homes via murder is considered genocide, and your example is rather disgusting and belittling to the suffering of the over 1800 dead, most of whom are civilians.
*Your* example is rather disgusting and belittling to the 11 million Jews, Slavs and "social undesirables" that were systematically rounded up, taken from their homes, imprisoned in camps, dehumanised and either gassed or worked to death in purpose built murder factories, and then harvested for all economically useful "byproducts". From hair and clothes to goldteeth to medical experimentation. In a single day, at one location, in Babi Ya, just under 34,000 Jews were murdered by machine gun. Men, women and children made to lie down on the bodies of the people killed just before them so to be more convenient for the men killing them to bury them later. They didn't even have the mercy of being surprised by a missile claiming their lives in the middle of the night.
I hope that can put your wild claims of genocide into perspective for you. However tragic and terrible the deaths of the Palestinian people during the military conflict Hamas chose and needlessly and deliberately prolonged, it is not genocide. Its the consequence of war. Hamas chose war. The people of Gaza backed them. War fought in civilian cities inevitably means civilian casualties.
Claiming it is genocide devalues and cheapens the crime of genocide, it lets its participants (men like Himmler and Mengle) off the hook by acknowledging that they are no worse than the IDF, a modern military organisation which adheres to the rules of war. It also implies that the Holocaust was *chosen* deliberately by its victims in the same way the people of Gaza have voted for Hamas which has deliberately rejected ceasefires without concessions.
That's about as politely as I can put it, so you can take it or leave it.Just, because others have prevented Genocide so far, due to getting aid to the Palestinians of Gaza, doesn't change the fact of what the IDF has done.
So, you're saying that the Nazis killed 11 million people simply because the Red Cross didnt *care* enough to get aid through to the victims?
Nothing to do with the Nazis being an actual genocidal regime. Whereas the IDF are not?0 -
Repeating yourself doesn't add more weight to your claims. The discourse, as you describe it, clearly exists in Palestine too and in that case, the people making the claims are not fringe extremists. They are the entire, majority elected government who signed up to and campaigned under the charter calling for the genocide of the Jews, and the voters who supported that government and its charter.
Repeating the same lie won't make it true. Again, the Palestinians elected Hamas, after they changed there election manifesto:
Hamas drops call for destruction of Israel from manifesto
So the claim your making is a lie, that I proved to be wrong earlier, and why you continue to repeat this deliberate lie is beyond me. If you want to torpedo you own credibility, then that your choice, but to claim that Hamas campaigned under a charter calling for the genocide of Jews, when I have shown proof that clearly shows that they didn't, is just the same utter bull**** you have been spouting over and over again.
Its truly sad and pathetic, you keep repeating your lie over and over again.You cant see the difference between a facebook post by an individual
Who is a member of the ruling party........and an official consitution of a state or political organisation?
You mean like the Likud charter, that reject any notion of a Palestinian state, that the "individual" who just so happens to be a member of the ruling governing colalition...... You mean like that.And as I already linked you to (and of course ignored as I presumed) that politician clearly indicates she did not and does not call for genocide.
Not ignored, but I have read her defense, and its not a whole lot better now is it. All she does is try to justify the excuses for murdering civilians on the basis that the other guy does it. BTW, exact same mentality from Hamas, to justify there attacks on civilians.Tell me, when you make posts here - are you doing so on the basis of your employer or all political organisations you are a member of? Have you been approved to do so?
If I made statements like the ones I quoted that while being a politician in this country, I would be kicked out of my party the next day.That is the difference between a facebook post by an individual and an agreed charter or policy by an organisation or state.
Oh you mean like the deliberate destruction of power, water and food sources, for a captive civilian population of 1.8 million living in a small coastal strip under siege. You mean like that?Changing the charter would signal a change. You're putting a lot of weight on an election manifesto which simply failed to openly state a policy for the genocide of the Jews and taking that as meaning Hamas have completely abandoned genocide.
The election manifesto as a document is a far later one, and there is the still later offer of a 10 year truce.If that's the case, why haven't they corrected their charter which calls for genocide? A glaring oversight, surely?
No, Hamas are clearly a bit thick and are hardly lovely people, but then again neither is the other guy.Yeah, everyone is a terrorist, so no one is a terrorist. Right?
No one said that. You either call them both terrorists or neither of them.Are the subtitles accurate and was it broadcast on Al-Asqa TV? If they are, and if it was, would you expect the Hamas TV producer to lose his job given that Hamas are no longer supportive of genocide?
Already dealt with this. Memri are not a trust worthy source of information. Now if you want to keep posting there rubbish, go right ahead.Well, respect for being honest. I couldn't name him either. I couldn't even name the Ceann Comhairle. I think that highlights just how influential the position is. Most people can name the political leadership and the various well known, influential politicians. We cant name junior ministers or even the Leas Ceann Comhairle because they are not the political leadership or well known, influential politicians.
If the Ceann Comhairle called for genocide he would be out of a job. However, in Israel that sadly isn't the case.Well, he's challenged Netanyahu twice already (and lost both times...heavily) so I'd say its the latter. But it indicates that he is outside the tent, not inside it. And his heavy defeats have indicated that whatever it is Likud is looking for from a leader, it is not this guy.
Thats great, so why is he still in the party then? Surely his views should beyond the pale, and he should be out on his ass.*Your* example is rather disgusting and belittling to the 11 million Jews, Slavs and "social undesirables" that were systematically rounded up, taken from their homes, imprisoned in camps, dehumanised and either gassed or worked to death in purpose built murder factories, and then harvested for all economically useful "byproducts".
I never made any comparison to the Holocaust, but so nice of you to invoke it to score some cheap shots on a message boards, now that is truly disgusting.I hope that can put your wild claims of genocide into perspective for you.
Because, there was only 1 genocide in the history of the world? Oh wait there wasn't and I wasn't making a comparison to the Holocaust either, but nice attempt at a straw man.
What is being done to the Palestinians is the same slow motion genocide that was done to the native Americans. That happened over 100s of years, and not over night, but then you knew full well that I wasn't making any comparison to the Holocaust.However tragic and terrible the deaths of the Palestinian people during the military conflict Hamas chose and needlessly and deliberately prolonged, it is not genocide. Its the consequence of war. Hamas chose war. The people of Gaza backed them. War fought in civilian cities inevitably means civilian casualties.
Another lie Sand, Hamas didn't start the current conflict, that was the Israeli government, after the falsely blamed Hamas on killed 3 settler teenagers:
Hamas not complicit in teens’ kidnap: Israeli police
Secondly, the deliberate destruction of power, and water sources is what makes it genocide. People tend to die very quickly without clean water. There is 0 military justification for that.Claiming it is genocide devalues and cheapens the crime of genocide, it lets its participants (men like Himmler and Mengle) off the hook by acknowledging that they are no worse than the IDF, a modern military organisation which adheres to the rules of war.
Again, you seem to keep going back to the Holocaust, as if its the only genocide ever in history. I made no comparison between the Nazi's and the IDF, that is all you.
As for the IDF adhering the laws of war, that is some proper nonsense there. Plenty of examples of them doing exactly the opposite of that in Gaza.It also implies that the Holocaust was *chosen* deliberately by its victims in the same way the people of Gaza have voted for Hamas which has deliberately rejected ceasefires without concessions.
I made no implication and made no such comparison. Your posts are singularly disgusting and deliberate in your attempt to put words in my mouth. You also repeat lie after lie, even after they have been shown to be false.That's about as politely as I can put it, so you can take it or leave it.
So, you're saying that the Nazis killed 11 million people simply because the Red Cross didnt *care* enough to get aid through to the victims?
Your not being polite at all. You deliberately used the holocaust to build a rather large straw man, and then attribute various things to me, that I never said in any way shape or form. Its disgusting that you used the suffering of all those people at the hands of the Nazi's to score cheap shots on a message board.Nothing to do with the Nazis being an actual genocidal regime. Whereas the IDF are not?
Another pathetic straw man. Get back to me, when you actually deal with what I said, as opposed to what you made up to argue against.0 -
Repeating...again.
From your source......The manifesto makes no mention of the destruction of the Jewish state...
That is positive, but it is not a repudiation of the Hamas Charter. It is simply failing to state it openly. I imagine the Palestinian people are aware of *who* and *what* Hamas is. Hamas still adhere to their charter, which still calls for the genocide of the Jews. And I stress: Jews, not Israelis. Jews.You mean like the Likud charter, that reject any notion of a Palestinian state,
Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu, have acknowledged a Palestinian state as solution to the conflict.Not ignored, but I have read her defense, and its not a whole lot better now is it. All she does is try to justify the excuses for murdering civilians on the basis that the other guy does it. BTW, exact same mentality from Hamas, to justify there attacks on civilians.
Critically, she didn't make the claims she was accused of making so the headlines are completely wrong. Deliberately so. She underlines that the killers of the Palestinian teen will be jailed for life and that Israel will not name streets after them. And she underlines that she is against any attack on any civilian, Jewish or Arab.
But you ignored all of that.
And I find it interesting, if unsurprising, that you get so exercised about "lies" above when I point out that Hamas are an elected organisation with a genocide charter, and yet you claim that a politician you accuse of genocidal aims and wanting to kill civilians has "the exact same mentality from Hamas". You're tripping over yourself.If I made statements like the ones I quoted that while being a politician in this country, I would be kicked out of my party the next day.
You didn't answer the question. That says enough.Oh you mean like the deliberate destruction of power, water and food sources, for a captive civilian population of 1.8 million living in a small coastal strip under siege. You mean like that?
Again, dodging the question. That says enough.No one said that. You either call them both terrorists or neither of them.
Not if one of them are terrorists and the other aren't.Already dealt with this. Memri are not a trust worthy source of information. Now if you want to keep posting there rubbish, go right ahead.
No, you didn't. You attacked Memri. You very definitely did not deal with the point that the translation is accurate and that it was broadcast on Hamas sponsored TV in Gaza.If the Ceann Comhairle called for genocide he would be out of a job. However, in Israel that sadly isn't the case.
If the Leas Ceann Comhairle called for genocide, no one would know because no one would turn up to the press conference.
I agree that Feiglin is a piece of work, but he is outside the tent.Thats great, so why is he still in the party then? Surely his views should beyond the pale, and he should be out on his ass.
Because Netanyahu hasn't yet managed to drive him out? There is clearly a fringe extremist element in Israel - Feiglin is representative of it, and the fractured nature of Israeli politics means they cant be entirely dismissed.I never made any comparison to the Holocaust, but so nice of you to invoke it to score some cheap shots on a message boards, now that is truly disgusting.
No, when you were throwing around terms like genocide in relation to the actions of the Israelis I'm sure you weren't drawing on the perhaps the best known, and most ironic example of genocide you could for the Israelis.
Afterall, I've never heard the old comment about how the Israelis are doing to do the Palestinians what the Nazis did to the Jews. That's never been said for cheap points.0 -
From your source...
That is positive, but it is not a repudiation of the Hamas Charter. It is simply failing to state it openly. I imagine the Palestinian people are aware of *who* and *what* Hamas is. Hamas still adhere to their charter, which still calls for the genocide of the Jews. And I stress: Jews, not Israelis. Jews.
The charter, I will stress is talking about Israeli and the lands that was taken from them, when they refer to Jews. It pretty clear that there talking about Israel. Honestly it doesn't matter either way I agree the Hamas charter is awful document, and they need to get rid of it.
However, the fact remains btw, that you made the following claim:Repeating yourself doesn't add more weight to your claims. The discourse, as you describe it, clearly exists in Palestine too and in that case, the people making the claims are not fringe extremists. They are the entire, majority elected government who signed up to and campaigned under the charter calling for the genocide of the Jews, and the voters who supported that government and its charter.
and that is what I was saying was untrue. The Palestinians did not vote on that basis at all.Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu, have acknowledged a Palestinian state as solution to the conflict.
Yes, and unfortunately he has done the opposite of what he says (same goes for various other Prime Ministers in the past) and has increased settlement activity, which is putting his own countries citizens in harms way, by dropping civilians into occupied territory.Critically, she didn't make the claims she was accused of making so the headlines are completely wrong. Deliberately so. She underlines that the killers of the Palestinian teen will be jailed for life and that Israel will not name streets after them. And she underlines that she is against any attack on any civilian, Jewish or Arab.
But you ignored all of that.
Yes, and that ignores all the other stuff she said as well, doesn't it....And I find it interesting, if unsurprising, that you get so exercised about "lies" above when I point out that Hamas are an elected organisation with a genocide charter, and yet you claim that a politician you accuse of genocidal aims and wanting to kill civilians has "the exact same mentality from Hamas". You're tripping over yourself.
The specific lie I was replying to was this one:Repeating yourself doesn't add more weight to your claims. The discourse, as you describe it, clearly exists in Palestine too and in that case, the people making the claims are not fringe extremists. They are the entire, majority elected government who signed up to and campaigned under the charter calling for the genocide of the Jews, and the voters who supported that government and its charter.
You are saying they were elected on the basis of the manifesto Sand, that was what I was saying is a lie. Now if your going to criticize me, then do so on what I was actually calling a lie.You didn't answer the question. That says enough.
Question was answered. You not liking the answer, well I could care less.Again, dodging the question. That says enough.
Same as above.Not if one of them are terrorists and the other aren't.
Seems pretty clear that if Hamas are terrorist, then so are the IDF. Any other position is hypocrisy.No, you didn't. You attacked Memri. You very definitely did not deal with the point that the translation is accurate and that it was broadcast on Hamas sponsored TV in Gaza.
Memri provide the translation and are known to fake them..... Why should I accept anything from such a source....? They were also founded by former Mossad as well.
BTW, you rejected Electronic Intifada, despite the fact that no one posted a link from them. So seeing as you are happy to not except what you consider a biased source (even if no one referred to ), then why should I accept not only a biased source, but one known to fake there translations?I agree that Feiglin is a piece of work, but he is outside the tent.
Again, he isn't completely outside the tend. Deputy speaker isn't exactly a bank bencher.Because Netanyahu hasn't yet managed to drive him out? There is clearly a fringe extremist element in Israel - Feiglin is representative of it, and the fractured nature of Israeli politics means they cant be entirely dismissed.
He is a member of his party, and I have yet to see why Netanyahu want rid of him. It seems to be due to him challenging his leadership more than anything.No, when you were throwing around terms like genocide in relation to the actions of the Israelis I'm sure you weren't drawing on the perhaps the best known, and most ironic example of genocide you could for the Israelis.
No, I wasn't because I am not an idiot, who is aware of only 1 genocide. I have often used the example of the Native Americans due to obvious similarities, and I made 0 mention of the holocaust or Nazi's in relation to my point, as it would be stupid.Afterall, I've never heard the old comment about how the Israelis are doing to do the Palestinians what the Nazis did to the Jews. That's never been said for cheap points.
Yes, and I never said anything of the sort. Unlike you I don't immediately jump to Nazi's when its suits.0 -
The charter, I will stress is talking about Israeli and the lands that was taken from them...The Palestinians did not vote on that basis at all.
Of course they voted for them on the basis of the charter. Its the basic structure of the organisation, upon which everything else is built. Clearly the Palestinians are aware of it. And they voted to give Hamas a vast majority of seats despite (or maybe because) Hamas having the call for genocide of Jews (again, Jews, not Israelis) in their charter. You expend a great deal of time and energy trying to disprove that an organisations well known and public core documents and charter implies anything about the Palestinians that votes for that organisation.
And then without a pause for breath you spend a similar amount of time trying to prove that facebook posts and wild statements by the Israeli equivalent of the Leas Ceann Comhairle imply genocidal intent by the wider Israeli state and genocidal support by the Israeli population.Yes
Thank you for accepting that they don't reject any notion of the Palestinian state.Yes
Thank you for accepting that the original story was false and that the politician, whilst no doubt on the Israeli right, has made it clear that she does not call for the genocide of the Palestinians or attacks on civilians.Question was answered...Same as above.
Yes it was. Hamas sponsored TV, the government in Gaza, broadcasts calls for genocide against Jews. Their policy in that regard has not changed. That is why the charter has not been updated. And the Palestinians are well aware it has not changed, because Hamas have their own TV station to keep them informed on that point.
That really rips a hole in your argument, so you want to ignore it.Seems pretty clear that if Hamas are terrorist, then so are the IDF. Any other position is hypocrisy.
No, its not. Does it follow that if Hamas are terrorists that the Red Cross must also be terrorists? Two different organisations, with different ROE and outlooks can result in two different judgements.
Otherwise we are back to the "Everyone is a terrorist, so no one is a terrorist" strategy.Memri provide the translation and are known to fake them
Have they faked this one?BTW, you rejected Electronic Intifada, despite the fact that no one posted a link from them. So seeing as you are happy to not except what you consider a biased source (even if no one referred to ), then why should I accept not only a biased source, but one known to fake there translations?
Electronic Intifada was Gideon Resnick's original source for his story on Ayelet Shaked's facebook post. You (and others) happily gulped down a almost entirely fabricated story from Electronic Intifada (at least they wear their bias on their sleeves).Again, he isn't completely outside the tend. Deputy speaker isn't exactly a bank bencher.
Thank you for acknowledging that he is outside the tent, and that it is just a matter of how far outside the tent he is.He is a member of his party, and I have yet to see why Netanyahu want rid of him. It seems to be due to him challenging his leadership more than anything.
I would say that is the primary cause.No, I wasn't because I am not an idiot, who is aware of only 1 genocide.
Right, so when you use the term "genocide" on a European forum on an Israeli topic, you're excluding the best known and relevant genocide that all Europeans (and Israelis for that matter) would be aware of?
And you think its appropriate to use it when 1 in 5 Israelis are Arab/Palestinians? With citizenship, voting rights, serving in cabinets, as judges and in the police and army? When Arabic is one of the official languages of the Israeli state, and supported as such? Is that what genocide is to you?
As I pointed out to you originally - genocide is a very loaded term that needs to be carefully considered before throwing it around. Describing 1,800 deaths in a war as genocide is completely reckless. It devalues the term. It devalues the crime. And it devalues the victims of genocide. It is not worth it just to score some points.0 -
Of course they voted for them on the basis of the charter.
According to you only it seems.
Before being elected Hamas dropped its call for the destruction of Israel from there manifesto, which was what they campaigned on. They were also seen as being less corrupt than Fatah. So again, they were elected on the basis of there election manifesto, which is where as you know a party details what they hope to achieve if they win.And then without a pause for breath you spend a similar amount of time trying to prove that facebook posts and wild statements by the Israeli equivalent of the Leas Ceann Comhairle imply genocidal intent by the wider Israeli state and genocidal support by the Israeli population.
I think all the deaths in Gaza, and the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure such as power and more importantly water is proof in regards to genocidal intent. People tend to die very quickly without clean water.
The quotes were just examples of some politicians stating the intent clearly.Thank you for accepting that they don't reject any notion of the Palestinian state.
I never accepted that at all. The ongoing settlement expansion clearly shows a rejection of exactly that. Saying one thing and then doing something that undermines that, is proof that what there saying is worthless.Thank you for accepting that the original story was false and that the politician, whilst no doubt on the Israeli right, has made it clear that she does not call for the genocide of the Palestinians or attacks on civilians.
The fact is her defense isn't a whole lot better either....Yes it was. Hamas sponsored TV, the government in Gaza, broadcasts calls for genocide against Jews. Their policy in that regard has not changed. That is why the charter has not been updated. And the Palestinians are well aware it has not changed, because Hamas have their own TV station to keep them informed on that point.
That really rips a hole in your argument, so you want to ignore it.
Again, your source for this was Memri, and they are known to fake translations. I refuse to believe anything they claim on that simple basis. As such your point is meaningless, when you choose to use a source known for faking there translations.No, its not. Does it follow that if Hamas are terrorists that the Red Cross must also be terrorists? Two different organisations, with different ROE and outlooks can result in two different judgements.
That is utter nonsense. The IDF have murdered civilians repeatedly. Just because you choose to ignore, doesn't make it go away.Otherwise we are back to the "Everyone is a terrorist, so no one is a terrorist" strategy.
No, we are back to Hamas targets civilians, as does the IDF (albeit killing far more than Hamas have). Hence, its hypocrisy to not refer to both as such.Have they faked this one?
They have faked them in the past, so why should I trust them at all?Electronic Intifada was Gideon Resnick's original source for his story on Ayelet Shaked's facebook post. You (and others) happily gulped down a almost entirely fabricated story from Electronic Intifada (at least they wear their bias on their sleeves).
They screwed up, but its was hardly completely fabricated.I would say that is the primary cause.
I have yet to see anything to suggest as much.Right, so when you use the term "genocide" on a European forum on an Israeli topic, you're excluding the best known and relevant genocide that all Europeans (and Israelis for that matter) would be aware of?
I am sorry, since when have all genocides been exactly the same? I never used the holocaust, and wouldn't as its not comparable to what is going on in Gaza and the West Bank.
You deliberately put words in my mouth in this regard. I didn't refer to the holocaust, and I have in the past on this topic used the comparison of the Native American genocide.
Again, if you want to jump to talking about Nazi's, then your welcome to do so, I won't be bothering with it in future.And you think its appropriate to use it when 1 in 5 Israelis are Arab/Palestinians? With citizenship, voting rights, serving in cabinets, as judges and in the police and army? When Arabic is one of the official languages of the Israeli state, and supported as such? Is that what genocide is to you?
You could say similar things about Native American's in the US, some of them were treated far better than others, and still we all acknowledge that genocide was committed against them.
Some tribes were treated just fine at time, all the while the US state would be butchering other groups at the exact same time.As I pointed out to you originally - genocide is a very loaded term that needs to be carefully considered before throwing it around. Describing 1,800 deaths in a war as genocide is completely reckless. It devalues the term. It devalues the crime. And it devalues the victims of genocide. It is not worth it just to score some points.
Except that the genocide I speak of isn't predicated on a single event, but rather one that is ongoing. Also, 1,800 can be seen as an act of genocide, after all the murder of Bosnian men and boys at Srebrenica is considered genocide and number killed there was estimate at 8000 if I remember right. So you defense on the basis of numbers is rubbish. You don't have to kill millions to be guilty of genocide, nor do you have to do it in a short time frame either.
I am talking about settler colonial regime slowly committing genocide. Much like what was done against the Native Americans, its a slow process that will take a long time, and the denial of this type of slow and deliberate genocide is very dangerous, as it lets the perpetrators off scot free, due to them taking there time.0 -
According to you only it seems... should I trust them at all?
Again, simply repeating yourself doesn't make your claims any stronger.They screwed up, but its was hardly completely fabricated.
It was completely fabricated. Going from "Israeli politician calls for genocide of Palestinians" to "Israeli politician never made call for genocide, and confirms she strongly disagrees with genocide or targeting civillians" is a complete collapse.
Though from a propaganda point of view, it was well played by Electronic Intifada. There is a certain demographic that will believe *literally* anything negative stated about Israel. And even though the story has been disproven, its too late. All anyone will remember is "Israeli politician calls for genocide of Palestinians". Certainly international papers and media wont carry the correction.I have yet to see anything to suggest as much.
I get the impression you're just instinctively disagreeing with me by this point. Do you really think Netanyahu wants Feiglin out of Likud because he disapproves of Feiglins crazy views? Because that's a more generous interpretation of Netanyahu than I gave.You deliberately put words in my mouth in this regard. I didn't refer to the holocaust, and I have in the past on this topic used the comparison of the Native American genocide.
No, you used "genocide" multiple times and continue to use it. You could have made a direct comparison between the Native Americans and the Palestinians, but you didn't. You instead used "genocide" without any qualification. And you cant justify it when challenged on it.Also, 1,800 can be seen as an act of genocide, after all the murder of Bosnian men and boys at Srebrenica is considered genocide and number killed there was estimate at 8000 if I remember right. So you defense on the basis of numbers is rubbish. You don't have to kill millions to be guilty of genocide, nor do you have to do it in a short time frame either.
I'm not defending it on the basis of numbers. I'm defending it on the basis of the act. The men and boys at Srebrenica were deliberately rounded up, taken away and murdered en masse.
You on the other hand are talking about 1800 people who were killed during a war where they were hit by missiles, either stray or otherwise. They weren't rounded up. They weren't disarmed. They weren't then gunned down en masse. And they weren't targeted.
They were unfortunate civilians who were caught in the crossfire between Hamas and the IDF. Just like millions of others of unfortunate civilians who have been killed in conflicts for centuries. A conflict instigated and uselessly prolonged by Hamas which refused opportunities for an early ceasefire because they wanted concessions. A conflict which contributors to this thread have eagerly supported and called for - ruling out peace.
When you fight a war in a heavily populated area like Gaza, civilian casualties are inevitable. Claiming its "genocide" is just for shock value.0 -
Again, simply repeating yourself doesn't make your claims any stronger.
Well, no I actually mentioned some other stuff. You, however have in response just posted the same thing.It was completely fabricated. Going from "Israeli politician calls for genocide of Palestinians" to "Israeli politician never made call for genocide, and confirms she strongly disagrees with genocide or targeting civillians" is a complete collapse.
Though from a propaganda point of view, it was well played by Electronic Intifada. There is a certain demographic that will believe *literally* anything negative stated about Israel. And even though the story has been disproven, its too late. All anyone will remember is "Israeli politician calls for genocide of Palestinians". Certainly international papers and media wont carry the correction.
Fair enough.I get the impression you're just instinctively disagreeing with me by this point. Do you really think Netanyahu wants Feiglin out of Likud because he disapproves of Feiglins crazy views? Because that's a more generous interpretation of Netanyahu than I gave.
I have no idea actually, as I don't have enough information to come to any kind of conclusion on the matter.No, you used "genocide" multiple times and continue to use it. You could have made a direct comparison between the Native Americans and the Palestinians, but you didn't. You instead used "genocide" without any qualification. And you cant justify it when challenged on it.
You'd have a point if I used the term Holocaust. I didn't, you jumped to that conclusion, head first.I'm not defending it on the basis of numbers. I'm defending it on the basis of the act. The men and boys at Srebrenica were deliberately rounded up, taken away and murdered en masse.
Yes, and we have seen multiple example of Israel targeting civilians during the current Gaza war, and your ignoring years worth of other examples.You on the other hand are talking about 1800 people who were killed during a war where they were hit by missiles, either stray or otherwise. They weren't rounded up. They weren't disarmed. They weren't then gunned down en masse. And they weren't targeted.
They were targeted. For example the UN warning the IDF 17 times the location of there school holding fleeing civilians was still attacked. That is just one example of the deliberate attack on civilians.
Here is another example from Amnesty:
Mounting evidence of deliberate attacks on Gaza health workers by Israeli armyThey were unfortunate civilians who were caught in the crossfire between Hamas and the IDF. Just like millions of others of unfortunate civilians who have been killed in conflicts for centuries.
A defense that has collapsed in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. No one is buying it anymore.A conflict instigated and uselessly prolonged by Hamas which refused opportunities for an early ceasefire because they wanted concessions.
It was the Israeli government who instigated the conflict, when they attacked Hamas after falsely blaming them on killing 3 teenage settlers.
Secondly, Hamas rejected the first ceasefire as no you know told them about it..... Finally, Israel also rejected ceasefires, when they didn't suit them as well.When you fight a war in a heavily populated area like Gaza, civilian casualties are inevitable. Claiming its "genocide" is just for shock value.
No, its a statement of fact. Deliberate attacks on civilians by the IDF, deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure, including water, which as I pointed earlier, without clean water, people will die very quickly. Also, this is just the latest in a long list of atrocities carried out by a colonial settler state, that want to be rid of as many Palestinians as they can manage.0 -
Advertisement
-
Again, simply repeating yourself doesn't make your claims any stronger.
It was completely fabricated. Going from "Israeli politician calls for genocide of Palestinians" to "Israeli politician never made call for genocide, and confirms she strongly disagrees with genocide or targeting civillians" is a complete collapse.
Though from a propaganda point of view, it was well played by Electronic Intifada. There is a certain demographic that will believe *literally* anything negative stated about Israel. And even though the story has been disproven, its too late. All anyone will remember is "Israeli politician calls for genocide of Palestinians". Certainly international papers and media wont carry the correction.
I get the impression you're just instinctively disagreeing with me by this point. Do you really think Netanyahu wants Feiglin out of Likud because he disapproves of Feiglins crazy views? Because that's a more generous interpretation of Netanyahu than I gave.
No, you used "genocide" multiple times and continue to use it. You could have made a direct comparison between the Native Americans and the Palestinians, but you didn't. You instead used "genocide" without any qualification. And you cant justify it when challenged on it.
I'm not defending it on the basis of numbers. I'm defending it on the basis of the act. The men and boys at Srebrenica were deliberately rounded up, taken away and murdered en masse.
You on the other hand are talking about 1800 people who were killed during a war where they were hit by missiles, either stray or otherwise. They weren't rounded up. They weren't disarmed. They weren't then gunned down en masse. And they weren't targeted.
They were unfortunate civilians who were caught in the crossfire between Hamas and the IDF. Just like millions of others of unfortunate civilians who have been killed in conflicts for centuries. A conflict instigated and uselessly prolonged by Hamas which refused opportunities for an early ceasefire because they wanted concessions. A conflict which contributors to this thread have eagerly supported and called for - ruling out peace.
When you fight a war in a heavily populated area like Gaza, civilian casualties are inevitable. Claiming its "genocide" is just for shock value.
The US state department called on Israel to do "more to meet its own standards and avoid civilian casualties".
Do you think Israel did enough to avoid civilian casualties?0 -
You'd have a point if I used the term Holocaust. I didn't, you jumped to that conclusion, head first.
Your weak defence ("I didn't mean that genocide, not the one everyone thinks of when we talk about genocide") would be somewhat useful if you had actually referenced the specific case you meant instead of referencing *all* genocides. The holocaust was a genocide. You referenced it when you used the term genocide.
The sheer fact that you have to differentiate between different levels of genocide shows the problem with casually throwing terms like genocide around.
I mean, even in comparison to the native american case the comparison doesn't hold up: did the US offer citizenship to Native Americans of the era? Did Native Americans serve in the government of the era? Did they serve in the judiciary of the era? Did the US adopt Native American languages as official languages of the US and implement support for them?
Whatever way you try to spin it, Israeli behaviour towards the Palestinians can be described in a number of ways, but "genocide" cant be justified. You cant justify it without back-peddling.
@RightwingThe US state department called on Israel to do "more to meet its own standards and avoid civilian casualties".
Do you think Israel did enough to avoid civilian casualties?
There is always room for improvement, and there was some dubious cases where the IDF hit UN facilities despite repeated warnings, but overall yes - I think the IDF did as much as could be expected from an army fighting in the midst of a densely populated urban area.0 -
Your weak defence ("I didn't mean that genocide, not the one everyone thinks of when we talk about genocide") would be somewhat useful if you had actually referenced the specific case you meant instead of referencing *all* genocides. The holocaust was a genocide. You referenced it when you used the term genocide.
Weak defense? Nonsense. Again, the term Holocaust is used to describe the Nazi genocide against the Jews, Roma, Homosexuals etc, when someone is referring to that genocide they use the term Holocaust. It is a well known term, and it is almost exclusively used in relation to the genocide against Jews, Roma, Homosexual committed by the Nazi's.
The term genocide is a general term, that I was using, and not the well know specific term Holocaust.
The fact that the term Holocaust exists, and the fact that I didn't use, clearly shows that I wasn't referring to the Holocaust, as if I was, I would use that term.The sheer fact that you have to differentiate between different levels of genocide shows the problem with casually throwing terms like genocide around.
What are even talking about? Of course there are different levels of genocide. Every single genocide is hardly going to be the same. Also, I am not using the term casually at all, as you claim. Just using to accurately describe what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians.I mean, even in comparison to the native american case the comparison doesn't hold up: did the US offer citizenship to Native Americans of the era? Did Native Americans serve in the government of the era? Did they serve in the judiciary of the era? Did the US adopt Native American languages as official languages of the US and implement support for them?
You would have a point if I said it was exactly the same, I used the word similar. Do keep up.
Still you do leave out the discrimination faced by Palesitnians in Israel, the racist marriage law, the Knesset member only seemed to be allowed in if they tow the line, and a whole bunch of discriminatory laws. Now, things are all rosy if you ignore all of that, and a bunch of other stuff I have left out.
Still, if you look at history different Native American tribes were treated differently. Some were treated better than others. So my example still stands.Whatever way you try to spin it, Israeli behaviour towards the Palestinians can be described in a number of ways, but "genocide" cant be justified. You cant justify it without back-peddling.
It most certainly can be justified. All you have to do is look at the deliberate destruction of the civilian infrastructure of Gaza, to see why the term i appropriate, but then you seem to be ignoring the deliberate nature of what the IDF has done to Gaza.0 -
when someone is referring to that genocide they use the term Holocaust.the term Holocaust is used to describe the Nazi genocide against the Jews, Roma, Homosexuals etc,
You're tying yourself up in a lot of knots there. You cant even describe the holocaust without referring to it as genocide. Yet you claim using the term genocide doesn't reference the best known genocide of all time.
And now you're back-peddling from the comparison (your words) you made to the Native American case as well. In fact, I imagine we could go through many examples of genocide and you would backpeddle from all comparisons between them.
The reason you find it so hard to make a sustainable comparison between Israeli policies and *actual* cases of genocide, is that Israeli policies do not amount to genocide.0 -
You're tying yourself up in a lot of knots there. You cant even describe the holocaust without referring to it as genocide. Yet you claim using the term genocide doesn't reference the best known genocide of all time.
The term genocide is a general term, and you know this. If I wanted to refer to the Holocaust specifically, I would have used the term Holocaust, or referred to the Nazi genocide of Jews, Roma, & Homosexuals etc. Of course the Holocaust was a genocide, but again that term is not a specific term that refers to just the one genocide.
You can continue to tilt at windmills all day, but you jumped to the Holocaust, and that was all you, and that was a deliberate straw man, and now you desperately trying to justify it, by some how assuming that everyone the world over solely associates the term genocide with Nazi's genocide against Jews, Roma, & Homosexuals etc, despite the fact that a specific term Holocaust exists.And now you're back-peddling from the comparison (your words) you made to the Native American case as well. In fact, I imagine we could go through many examples of genocide and you would backpeddle from all comparisons between them.
Again, if I said they were exactly the same you would have a point. No 2 events in history are identical, and to suggest that they need to be is absurd. So no back peddling here at all, just you inventing stuff to argue against.The reason you find it so hard to make a sustainable comparison between Israeli policies and *actual* cases of genocide, is that Israeli policies do not amount to genocide.
Except that they do, as per the fact of deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the ongoing settler colonial project. Something you refuse to acknowledge, as its simply doesn't suit you world view.
Instead you jump to the Nazi's Holocaust against Jews, which again proves old Godwin right, that someone sooner or later someone will invoke them in some way, in a Internet discussion.
Again, if you want to talk about Nazi's Holocaust against Jews, go right ahead, I wasn't talking about that, and your welcome to continue the conversation you clearly having with yourself, as I sure as hell wasn't involved in that.0
Advertisement