Israel/Palestine Thread

Thank you for taking the time to answer. When a flotilla is taken out of international waters, it is seen to be an extreme action and in violation with norms. I ask, what is the harm that the Israelis were preventing, in terms of specifics? What were the actual harmful consequences to the Israelis in allowing the passage of peaceful protesters to attending Gaza? Not nebulous it causes harm- I want examples please?

https://msf.org.uk/article/gaza-deliberate-restriction-food-and-aid-led-malnutrition-crisis

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/22/gaza-israel-deliberate-starvation-ceasefire-aid

The surgeon gave firsthand testimony of the prevention of the delivery of food through the drip for patients that cannot eat. He asked the question that I ask you. What is the risk of letting doctors bring in food through the drip for patients?

Israel can only answer that. Israel denied them.

But does it not concern you that this denial of entry in May 2022 preceded any current tensions? Grace was ready to go and they denied access to the EU delegation. Does it make you question any nefarious intent to preventing access of democratically elected delegates from the EU?

I can only assume that Israel viewed these flotillas as being full of agitators that were in no way coming in peace towards Israel. And who can blame Israel thinking this. I mean the people on the flotillas were very vocal in showing their contempt and disdain for Israel.

And it’s Israel who are controlling the situation in Gaza as regards who can enter.

So seems very reasonable to me that Israel would deny people that are so anti-Israel access to areas that are under their control. They cannot vouch for all these people and they cannot that say tfhat they won’t be a threat to them.

yup. Vile. And completely off topic, but I’m always astounded that Jamie Carragher wasn’t proper fooking cancelled after his vile spitting on a child a few years ago.

"the resolution was passed by 86% of those who participated in the vote, which was 28% of the membership"

• Ok, I'll take your point that the turnout was low.

" In other words, 72% of accredited members didn't even bother voting on this resolution such was the demonstrable bias in the premise against Israel."

• You should enter the Olympics, that is a world record leap you made there
• I'd say it is much more likely 72% didn't vote due to pressure from Israel/America who have a habit of punishing people for speaking up against this genocide
• You can accuse me of antisemitism all you want, I've proudly marched alongside wonderful Jewish people in Dublin against this genocide, people like you have diminished the meaning of the word
• Weaponising antisemitism is fuelling antisemitism, there's no 2 ways about it
• While Israel has invited Nazis to an antisemitism conference

death penalty anywhere on earth if convicted of terrorism offences I’d have no issue with. Couldn’t care what nationality or ethnicity the people are.

I am a Deontologist and do not agree with the slaughter of any civilians. I cannot condone it. Life is something that is precious and I respect in all people, regardless of race, religion or status.

My fear is that when any people and in this case the Palestinians are oppressed for decades and they have nothing to lose and feel like their voice counts for nothing, they resort to extreme means to make their voice heard.

Hatred only breeds more hatred. Do you think that the actions of the Israelis will quell the hatred in the hearts of the Palestinians.

Nelson Mandela approached those that persecuted him with compassion. The truth and reconciliation approach was incredible and saved the complete destabilisation of the region into a complete mess.

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you” Nietzsche.

Somebody close to me lost a family member in a concentration camp in WWII. He was a brilliant scholar and died before he had a chance to truly live. His brother did not want the hatred towards the Germans to be perpetrated to the next generation and made all his children study German. Most of them became German teachers and one married a German. They all love Germany now and holiday regularly there.

The Treaty of Versailles was completely avaricious and disproportionate. It sought to scapegoat the German people. This embittered the German people and led them to choose a young Austrian who promised them that he would restore their glory. This gave rise to some of the worst war and crimes that this world has ever seen. Post-WWII, it was recognised that the treaty of Versailles contributed heavily to the war and instead the Marshall plan was spearheaded to prevent future animosity.

Excessive severity never ends well. In order for a society to work, people need something to live and strive for. The most dangerous people to society are those with nothing to lose

"…instead the Marshall plan was spearheaded to prevent future animosity. "

The Marshall Plan had nothing to do with preventing future animosity at all. It was purely about building up West Germany as a buffer against the Soviet Union. It was entirely a practical solution to the impending divide that was to happen in Post Europe. If the Soviets weren't viewed as a threat in last half of the 1940's, it would have been the Morgenthau Plan (or a variation of it) that would have been put into effect instead.

I don't need a WIKI article about the Marshall Plan Betty. I know exactly what it is.

The simple fact is, however, that it was the Morganthau Plan that was on the table before it became obvious that a thoroughly and permanently weakened Germany would be a disastrous policy in the light of the fact that the Soviet Union had no plans to withdraw behind their established pre-war borders.

The Morganthau Plan was scrapped after the war ended and the Marshall Plan was put into effect to strengthen Germany so she would act as a buffer against any future possible Soviet incursion further into western Europe.

It was decided that a weak Germany would be of no help to anyone if any altercation was to kick off in Europe again.

Likewise I'd also argue no to both of the above.

In the current Israel/Hamas conflict you could argue that if Hamas didn't attack that festival then Israel wouldn't have retaliated. But that then misses the point that Netanyahu and Hamas are in kahoots and it's likely the Israeli government were actually the real brains behind those attacks

It doesn't help that supposed anti war politicians come out from hiding all guns (figuratively) blazing when Israel is involved but those same politicians were relatively quiet on criticism of Ukraine

I'd say it is much more likely 72% didn't vote due to pressure from Israel/America who have a habit of punishing people for speaking up against this genocide

This is entirely a figment of your own imagination, but consistant with a persistant antisemitic trope that the Jews rule the world, and predictably you brought it up. In your mind the only possible reason that accredited members of the IAGS didnt vote was because the insidious Jews got to them somehow. Its your fist port of call and says everything about your mentality.

They are accredited member of the IAGS. Their only fuction would be to debate Genocide. If 72% didnt even bother to vote it speaks volumes about the resolution itself, and there is no getting away from it, no matter how decimating that fact is for your argument. I mean, what the hell else were they doing?

Ignoring antisemitism is feuling antisemitism. Its because of posters like you and your wilful desire to ignore outright racism/antisemitism - and thats all antisemitism is when you boil it all down - that other posters can post that Jews are an abhorrent tribe and be both applauded and defended by fellow travellers on here.

Lets try this anothjer way.

Maoris are abhorrent tribe. Outright racism.

Aboriginal people are an abhottent tribe. Outright racism.

Jews are an abhorrent tribe, on the other hand. Well said, sir, Bualadh bos.