General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 4

I don't know where arthwollipot's been all these years, as anti-Israel rallies and actions are all devoted to the same thing: (Which HAMAS has enshrined in their founding documents).

Liberation of Palestine, end of Israel, "fighting the Jews" (Ahed Tamimi just made it clear about that) and here is what their map of "Palestine" should look like --

But instead, they claim all of THIS as "rightful Arab lands"
 
arthwollipot said:
Well, I watched the whole thing (I skipped forward 5sec two or three times) and I heard a lot of criticism of Israeli actions in Gaza, of the Israeli ambassador and of the enforced famine in Gaza City, but I did not hear one single word supporting Hamas terrorism or saying that Hamas was "right" to attack Israel. Not one - but to be fair it might have been in one of those 5-second skips. I'm wondering whether you were watching the same thing I was.

It's the old playbook - again. Criticism of Israel is framed as support of Hamas terrorism. It's dishonest and disingenuous, and exactly what I would expect of Israeli propaganda.
Click to expand...
Any and all criticism is framed as anti-Jew, any criticism of IDF tactics is framed as pro-Hamas, any acknowledgement of inhumane IDF policies is labeled a "blood libel". Its the Masada Doctrine. Sad thing is, all the Jews at Masada eventually killed themselves. Irony, as folks now are claiming Israel's current policies are suicidal.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
A public letter signed by 209 former EU ambassadors, senior diplomatic staff and ambassadors from EU nation states... (pdf)

It's unprecedented for former diplomatic staff be be so open.
Click to expand...

Well, isn't that a lark!

The actions referenced are designed to eliminate the Jewish State.
No other outcome can be anticipated by the 'sanctions' they recommend and urge.

Curiously, not a word in that document about HAMAS having to do a damn thing to end this crisis of their own making.

Israel has been facing these types of International Diplomatic Threats against the Jews living in Eretz Yisroel since the 1940's & 50's

The Arab boycott of Jewish goods and services had been launched against the PalestineJewish community even before the State of Israel was created, and it developed & expanded from year to year. After 1949 (ceasefire), in the Arab countries themselves, all commercial relationships with Israel were forbidden on pain of heavy penalties. In fact, any contact whatever with Israel was prohibited. The governments enforced the suspension of all postal, telephone, and telegraph facilities for communications with Israel and prohibited all communication bysea, air, and rail. The boycott was extended to every corner of the world. A vast machine saw to its organization and operation. Questionnaires and admonitory letters were sent to large numbers of firms in many countries to impress upon them that they would not be allowed to do business with the states of the Arab League if they tried to do business with Israel. Economic warfare was pursued with vigorous zeal against Israel day in & day out, and was the accompaniment to the military and paramilitary siege warfare which Egypt, Jordan, and Syria waged almost incessantly against Israel during those early years of Israel's Independence. In a seven-year period (after the Rhodes Armistices), Arabs carried out 11,873 attacks against the Jews. Israelis suffered 1,335 casualties; of these, over 1,000 were civilians .. . In 1956, the Arabs' genocidal campaign reached a climax. -- 'Battleground' (S. Katz - pub. 1973)
 
Helen said:
I rely on my excellent morning paper, Dagens Nyheter, first and foremost, but I also seek out Ground News, as well as eye witness accounts from various human rights/ aids organisations, and the people I know in Israel. And you can ditch the quotation marks.
Click to expand...
Which human rights / aids organizations do you consider unbiased?
 
webfusion said:
"...folks now are claiming Israel's current policies are suicidal." -- Hercules56

That's not what I'm seeing being claimed:
www.economist.com

Israel “won’t commit suicide”, says the government’s ideologue

In an interview Bezalel Smotrich is uncompromising about the war in Gaza
www.economist.com www.economist.com
Click to expand...

But what is absolutely clear to me right now is that this Israeli government is committing suicide, homicide and fratricide.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Friedman has his opinions.
Always has.

NYT is subscription service, so I had to go read his diatribe about a Pariah State on "The Palestine Chronicle" (you know, the one with their little masthead logo using a graphic map representation of Palestine outlining ALL OF ISRAEL.)

Thomas L. Friedman’s column strings together a series of indictments—pariahdom, wanton homicide, political cynicism, deliberate immiseration, communal rupture—and treats them as self-evident. They aren’t. Each claim, examined against the public record and the actual logic of the war, fails to bear the weight he puts on it.

Regarding the Nasser Hospital tank shelling --- The right inference is the hardest one: catastrophic error can occur in a war against an enemy that uses a civilian matrix as cover. That outcome demands investigation and accountability; it does not warrant the presumption of design.

He also notes that Israel has already “devastated Hamas as a military force” -- of course that's totally incorrect.
Just today, dozens of HAMAS fighters were killed during IDF combat operations against tunnels where they were ensconsed.
In other words, they keep fighting, despite leadership losses.

Reducing a structural security problem and the hostage file to one politician’s legal troubles is polemic, not analysis.
 
Helen said:
Why do you want to know? To get to dismiss them as biased? And why am I asking, when I already knw the answer?

Here's a list of some of them:
www.humanrightscareers.com

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

www.humanrightscareers.com www.humanrightscareers.com
Click to expand...
Report: Red Cross Statements ‘Overwhelmingly’ Biased Against Israel

The fact that you believe the International Committee of the Red Cross is an unbiased source of information tells us everything we need to know about you.

Related:
Red Cross Will Not Aid in Transfer of Medicine to Hostages in Gaza
The Red Cross is enabling Hamas' hostage crimes
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
Report: Red Cross Statements ‘Overwhelmingly’ Biased Against Israel

The fact that you believe the International Committee of the Red Cross is an unbiased source of information tells us everything we need to know about you.

Related:
Red Cross Will Not Aid in Transfer of Medicine to Hostages in Gaza
The Red Cross is enabling Hamas' hostage crimes
Click to expand...
Who is this we? We who answered me exactly as I predicted, perhaps? And you post a UNwatch report from 2023, and a couple of opinion pieces ( one from almost two yesrs ago) from very biased sources, FDD and Jerusalem Post, to support your claim....

The fact that you think the Red Cross is biased tells me just about all I need to know about your views on this, but please, enlighten me; are there any sources you consider unbiased? You scoffed at one of mine (there were 14 in that article, btw; does one "biased" source make the others untrustworthy as well? Guilt by association, that kind of thing?), now provide yours.
 
There is a reason why the Red Cross doesn't work with Hamas for the hostages: Israel has made it a point to arrest and interrogate any aid worker suspected of having been in contact with groups holding the hostages, including torturing them.
The Red Cross is protecting their own, nothing more.
 
Helen said:
Who is this we?
Click to expand...
We who know the difference between good and evil.
Helen said:
enlighten me; are there any sources you consider unbiased?
Click to expand...
No. Well, maybe John Spencer. But to a very good first approximation, no. And if you don't understand that, then you will simply be a puppet of whatever side's propaganda you happen to lean toward.
Helen said:
there were 14 in that article, btw; does one "biased" source make the others untrustworthy as well?
Click to expand...
No. But I asked you to provide examples of sources you considered unbiased, and you listed one that is absurdly biased—biased to the point that they refuse to carrry out their fundamental mission when the beneficiaries would be hostages in Gaza. The fact that you consider such a blatant anti-Israel organization to be unbiased tells us—like I said—everything we need to know about you.
 
Guilt by association it is then; you could criticise one of the sources mentioned in that article (very dubious critcism, well beyond its sell-by date, I might add), thus all the others are null and void. Possibly my other sources as well; my excellent morning paper and Israeli Jews. Guess your kind of reasoning makes life easier, and since I care about the well-being of other people, I suppose that's a good thing.

I would find it easier to respect you if you didn't hide behind a nebulous we, and if you could provide the kind of unbiased sources you demanded of me, however. But since you have decided that I am a puppet - you have no idea how ridiculous that is, and how devastated I am by having to look at Israel atm, and not be able to say "both sides" with even the tiniest hint of conviction at all - I don't see the point of continuing this.
 
Helen said:
Guilt by association it is then; you could criticise one of the sources mentioned in that article (very dubious critcism, well beyond its sell-by date, I might add), thus all the others are null and void. Possibly my other sources as well; my excellent morning paper and Israeli Jews. Guess your kind of reasoning makes life easier, and since I care about the well-being of other people, I suppose that's a good thing.
Click to expand...
You are confused. I am not criticizing your sources. I am criticizing you for believing a blatantly biased source.
Helen said:
I would find it easier to respect you if you didn't hide behind a nebulous we, and if you could provide the kind of unbiased sources you demanded of me,
Click to expand...
You are either really confused or a liar. As anybody who can read English can see, I have not demanded any unbiased sources from you. You claimed your sources were unbiased. I said, name them. You then named just about the most biased source this side of Hamas itself, proving that you unwittingly (at best) believe biased sources.
 
Last edited:
The Red Cross is the most biased source this side of Hamas? That is an anstonishing claim from you, or possibly from your we/us, as in you, the Jerusalem Post and FDD. Fine. You are unreasonable in every sense of the word, and can have the last word here, if you like; mine are better spent elsewhere.
 
Helen said:
The Red Cross is the most biased source this side of Hamas? That is an anstonishing claim from you, or possibly from your we/us, as in you, the Jerusalem Post and FDD. Fine. You are unreasonable in every sense of the word, and can have the last word here, if you like;
mine are better spent elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Don't let the door hit you in the ass.
 
I find it interesting that people who will decry legitimate sources as Hamas propaganda will uncritically uphold sources that are obvious Israeli propaganda. And I'm not referring to one particular person.
 
It was a known fact that in Gaza, you couldn't even take a pee without permission or aquiescence from HAMAS.

Wire-services stringers had to follow the instructions and directives of HAMAS about what their stories and photos need to show (and what they don't allow to be shown). Those Jihadists orchestrate everything. Back in the day, the term was "Pallywood" --- which has morphed into Gazawood.


\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
There was a discussion ongoing during five or six exchanges here -- starting at post #2522 (my bad- I provided a derail myself in post #2490 in the Humanitarian Aid thread about the Nasser Hospital incident)

New information has come out in the last few hours about the apparent target of the attack.
I'll post it here, because I'm sure most readers are covering both tracks of these Gaza discussions, and it may more properly be categorized in a General Conflict topic, at this point.

Mohammed Fayeq — aka Abu Mostafa.
That's probably who the IDF was trying to kill, in his hospital bed.
That's why the tank shelling became an issue (an operational mistake) because a drone would have been able to fly through the windows and hit him directly.

Curiously, only very few media reports even mention this.
My source? X
 
Last edited:
webfusion said:
It was a known fact that in Gaza, you couldn't even take a pee without permission or aquiescence from HAMAS.

Wire-services stringers had to follow the instructions and directives of HAMAS about what their stories and photos need to show (and what they don't allow to be shown). Those Jihadists orchestrate everything. Back in the day, the term was "Pallywood" --- which has morphed into Gazawood.


\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
There was a discussion ongoing during five or six exchanges here -- starting at post #2522 (my bad- I provided a derail myself in post #2490 in the Humanitarian Aid thread about the Nasser Hospital incident)

New information has come out in the last few hours about the apparent target of the attack.
I'll post it here, because I'm sure most readers are covering both tracks of these Gaza discussions, and it may more properly be categorized in a General Conflict topic, at this point.

Mohammed Fayeq — aka Abu Mostafa.
That's probably who the IDF was trying to kill, in his hospital bed.
That's why the tank shelling became an issue (an operational mistake) because a drone would have been able to fly through the windows and hit him directly.

Curiously, only very few media reports even mention this.
My source? X
Click to expand...
You do realise killing a patient in a hospital bed is explicitly a war crime. Once they are hors de combat killing them becomes murder (even on the battle field). Hospitals may be military hospitals staffed by members of the military and with patients who are members of the military, they are still protected places and persons.

This is an explicit acceptance that a war crime has been commited. The order to attack the hospital would have been an illegal one under Israeli miltary law and should have been refused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom