Israel/Palestine Thread

So you are wrong and have decided to move the goalposts?

Why are Starmer, Macron and Merz describing Israel as an "ally" then? You've just conceded that Netanyahu doesn't give a toss about them or value their opinion on anything.

The western world, with some exceptions, back Benjamin Mileikowsky and his genocidal regime in Israel. It's a morally indefensible position but they do it anyway. Israel is seen as a Western democratic outpost in the middle east. I'm not sure it ever really was. I think it's always been a Zionist supremacist entity which has looked to settle lands outwit its borders for decades.

I don't see the current version of Israel ever co-existing with it's neighbours given it's Zionist outlook. In all likelihood Israel as we see it today is going to end in the next 10-15 years and be replaced by a more inclusive country from the river to the sea where all are equal before the law and in actuality.

"Death to the IDF" is not anti Semitic. It is an organisation that is carrying out genocide. It needs to be disbanded and all those involved in killing in Gaza are war criminals. If Bob Vylan had said death to IDF personnel then that's arguably anti Semitic as it is essentially a Jewish populated entity.

Anti Semitism has been weaponised by successive Israeli regimes to where the term is arguably meaningless. Israel can be and should be criticised when it breaks law which does so frequently.

Aside from the moral argument + the pall Gaza casts over all relations of European countries with Israel, it is probably a mistake for them to be doing that (increased and deeper cooperation with Israel on weapons systems).

I get the fear abour Russia "trying something stupid" in a fairly short time window (next few years - 1 decade) but I still doubt if speed gained in developing/deploying new systems due to benefitting from Israeli expertise is worth it (?).

They will be beholden to Israel in future when they want to use these systems or supply them to allies like Ukraine.

This kind of thing (the dependence of weapons systems on parties outside the EU) has hampered the member states ability to assist Ukraine in several instances due to the countries involved vetoing supply onwards (e.g. Israel blocking Spike missiles from being sent, Switzerland preventing Gepard ammunition and also if IRC Leopard I tanks from being sent to Ukraine).

I don't know who the mods are but can one please contact me regarding a slanderous post made on this thread against me which has not been retracted or apologised for. Please and thanks.

Can you engage in 'hate speech' against an army currently at war against civilians and accused of multiple war crimes? It's surely a moot point.

'Hate speech is a term with varied meaning and has no single, consistent definition. It is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".'

Given that that the IDF is a heavily armed and extremely violent group or organisation that kills large numbers of people daily, we are into a grey or unprovable area.

The settlers were committing a hate crime by attacking the IDF!

what would you like them to do? Declare war, say some more words, but this time a bit nastier what?

But how does one 'incite violence' against a large, very heavily armed army that is currently at war with several different countries? The concept seems a most bizarre one legally.

I'm assuming hate speech laws were never intended to be utilised in the case of armies currently in conflict in a warzone or against terrorist groups currently engaged in violence.