Israel v Hamas

[Penge Eagle]

I'm starting to wonder, if perhaps the best solution to Northern Ireland was to missile and bomb the hell out of everyone indiscriminately.
So a few civilians might have got in the way of the military action, but could get the rest by denying food and water and medical aid, and opening the border to the Republic.

The UK missed a trick there.

Why would the UK bomb its own citizens and infrastructure? Have you been drinking?

 

[Badadmcmad]

It’s not genocide it’s killing terrorists. If Hamas f***ed off and handed back the hostages the bombing would stop. It’s a war and innocents die and will always die.

Define terrorism.

 

[Badadmcmad]

The guy is so warped by ideology that he will defend Communist mass murderers Pot, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.

Provide the quote from where I defended any of them.

 

[Badadmcmad]

But never replied to my question regarding the Jew Hunt in Belgium. Still he has nailed his colours well and truly to the mast so no surprise

Your question was:

Help me out here, when are Maccabi Tel Aviv playing in Brussels? Or perhaps you can provide another diatribe denying this as a Jew Hunt

The answer is I don't think they are scheduled to any time soon, but I've not looked.


Another paywall article so the only information is of administrative arrest for social media posts. No quotes, no evidence is available, only the headline and a paragraph or two. We can accept it at face value, but these are just words from a media outlet I've no familiarity with, so it's reasonable to maintain a degree of scepticism as with all sources.

 

[Badadmcmad]

Why might people not want Palestinians?

Is it because the country is so full of fake asylum seekers that even real refugees are hardly wanted anymore? Is it because there is far too much influence from Islam already?

Or is it that everyone is a racist moron?

If Palestinians had their homeland, the homes and their families free from occupation they wouldn't need to seek refuge from extermination.

Do you mean the UK or Palestine?

Not everyone, but with unqualified statements like 'there is far too much influence from Islam already', some probably are.

I can't speak to your unqualified statements. If you think there are problems in the field of work you do, then, ideally, you should seek to get them resolved. I can appreciate the sensitivity and complexity of the work as it directly affects people's lives.

 

[Badadmcmad]

The most spouting of moronic racist bigotry is often to be found at pro-Palestine rallies. Let alone what is said at Friday prayers in some mosques. Which has been going on for some time.

Evidence.

 

[ASCPFC]

The United States and Israel now totally isolated at the UN , 95% of the world votes against them, its become the norm.

Is Israel ethnically cleansing Gaza? 94% polled say yes they are, if you asked the man in the street they would probably agree, this is in real time, it cannot be hidden to suit the west's leaders.

The Dutch government could fall over their lies, Schulz precsrious but still arming Israel, probably next.

Biden gone, Harris, Sunak, Macron no power left, Starmer in denial.

And voters are removing them where they can, whether or not their successors could be any better, hence Trump.

The western media seem to think their job is to present their editorial line and not the truth, no apologies from sky or bbc, cbs etc. who blatantly distorted the facts captured by the camera in Amsterdam.

😎

The UN became irrelevant some time ago, arguably the minute it was founded. I've seen several people quoting UN resolutions/ UN definitions. They can sit there and do whatever they like. There are no UN consequences and it has no independent power except as a moraliser. It's relief work may be somewhat useful but I suspect rife with corruption.

 

[Badadmcmad]

The primary source was in the article.

Do you have a translation? I assume you've read one to get an understanding of the data presented.

1992 is a generation ago. Has anything changed in that time?

 

[Badadmcmad]

Saudi Arabia has the land and the money to take care of any refugees. Don't hold your breath though.

Israel has their land and the money to take care of any refugees. Surely the country with the most moral army would do the moral thing and take in innocent men, women and children?

 

[Badadmcmad]

The UN became irrelevant some time ago, arguably the minute it was founded. I've seen several people quoting UN resolutions/ UN definitions. They can sit there and do whatever they like. There are no UN consequences and it has no independent power except as a moraliser. It's relief work may be somewhat useful but I suspect rife with corruption.

So does your position, that the UN is irrelevant, include all international law that have been ratified under its guise?

Such as self-determination, for example.

I'd be interested to understand further about your interpretation of the articles within the UN charter (Chapter I, specifically), as they pertain to the State of Israel and Palestine and what implications for the conflict are if those articles are irrelevant.

Purposes and Principles of the UN (Chapter I of UN Charter) | Security Council

Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter of the United Nations outline the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

main.un.org

 

[ASCPFC]

So does your position, that the UN is irrelevant, include all international law that have been ratified under its guise?

Such as self-determination, for example.

I'd be interested to understand further about your interpretation of the articles within the UN charter (Chapter I, specifically), as they pertain to the State of Israel and Palestine and what implications for the conflict are if those articles are irrelevant.

Purposes and Principles of the UN (Chapter I of UN Charter) | Security Council

Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter of the United Nations outline the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

main.un.org

It doesn't bother me at all, it's a talking shop and undermined since the Cold War. They can say whatever they like. The articles are irrelevant - exactly as you are seeing. They are being ignored and have been ignored. Pretty much what the US says, goes. Even then, Israel might still do what they like - it's hard to be sure.

 

[Badadmcmad]

The United States and Israel now totally isolated at the UN , 95% of the world votes against them, its become the norm.

Is Israel ethnically cleansing Gaza? 94% polled say yes they are, if you asked the man in the street they would probably agree, this is in real time, it cannot be hidden to suit the west's leaders.

The Dutch government could fall over their lies, Schulz precsrious but still arming Israel, probably next.

Biden gone, Harris, Sunak, Macron no power left, Starmer in denial.

And voters are removing them where they can, whether or not their successors could be any better, hence Trump.

The western media seem to think their job is to present their editorial line and not the truth, no apologies from sky or bbc, cbs etc. who blatantly distorted the facts captured by the camera in Amsterdam.

😎

Do you have references behind those numbers? I have seen the breakdown of a handful of UNSC votes for example, but it's always useful to have the facts to back up assertions.

The number of times the US has used its veto power against motions critical of Israel is a telling statistic also.

"In addition to financial and military aid, the U.S. provides large-scale political support, having used its United Nations Security Council veto power 42 times against resolutions condemning Israel, out of 83 times in which its veto has been used. Between 1991 and 2011, out of the 24 vetoes invoked by the U.S., 15 were used to protect Israel." Israel–United States relations - Wikipedia.


Re. Trump, there are grounds to suspect things will only get worse from a Palestinian perspective. Should we expect a Trump golf course in Gaza/West bank? Maybe a Trump Tower?

"The decision to extend Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria is one “for Israel to make,” according to Mike Huckabee, who was tapped by President-elect Donald Trump last week for the post of U.S. ambassador to Israel."

https://www.jns.org/huckabee-sovereignty-over-judea-and-samaria-is-israels-decision-to-make/

"Trump appoints real estate investor, golf partner as US middle east peace envoy"

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/11/12/congress/from-trumps-golf-partner-to-middle-east-envoy-00189132

Israel has approved ‘largest West Bank land grab in 30 years’, watchdog says

Peace Now says approval of more than 12 sq km is biggest since peace process began in 1993

www.theguardian.com

Sales of West Bank settlement homes to U.S. Jews stir controversy

Pro-Palestinian activists have protested gatherings at synagogues that market properties in Israel and Israeli-occupied land.

www.marketplace.org

 

[Stirlingsays]

So you disagree with the UN's definition of genocide, signed up to by 153 states. So what is your definition? How many states have signed up to that definition? What is contraversial? Why is it ratified by the US, UK, Israel, Russia, Iran, Iraq and a huge number of others?

UNTC

This is the United Nations Treaty Collection homepage. Here you will find related information and links.

treaties.un.org

Well, it's not so much about 'disagreeing' as knowing that when people hear, 'genocide' what they think of doesn't really match all the conditions that the UN mean. It's much like the word 'assault', when people hear the word assault they think 'someone's been beaten up' when the actual technical definition can mean someone touched you lightly.

This difference even shows in the example you give here. So you quote the US and Israel signing up to this 'genocide' definition but neither of them are going to agree that genocide is being fostered onto the Palestinians.

So the reason why I take issue with some of your language is because I believe it to be lacking nuance in its description of the situation.

You reduce Sarkar and Jones' ideologies (despite acknowledging there are differences in social and economic persepective in Jones') to simply being communist ideology which you then say has killed far more people than any other and use that as an argument for not addressing evidence they present...

Well, I was quite clear, I didn't say I believed that Jones was lying but that his ideology meant that he couldn't be objective based upon previous situations I've seen him opine on......However, having since looked into this situation due to this conversation I think he was reasonably accurate here.

That doesn't mean that I would agree with his whole opinions on Israel/Palestine.....but as I'm not a neo communist I don't follow him religiously.

I would contest that any ideology that affects the way you live your life is part of your political ideology.
Social, economic, religious etc. You make the same argument when reducing Jones' social and economic ideologies to simply communism.

Well ok, but again I think that requires far more nuance and an understanding that if there is an effect it's a limited one.
For example, I've already stated that being religious doesn't restrict someone to left or right wing politics....same with being an atheist or agnostic, working class.....but I'd agree on the social it's effects would be larger.

For example, the State of Israel is founded on religious ideology as with Pakistan. Sharia law for another aspect of religious ideology is a more overt part of the local political ideology.

I don't know with Pakistan but I think with Israel it's more ethnic rather than religious.

'Political ideologies' are all encompassing.

So religious ideology does not support sex with children, despite it having happened frequently across different religious groups with the involvement of those high up in the organisations in some cases.

So you contend that 'support' of an action is not dependent on the performing of that action. So there must be something other than just the doing to demonstrate that an ideology actually supports such an act. Maybe if that course of action is written down perhaps? What qualifies for support in your view?

I don't really understand the issue you have here. It's quite clear that none of the Christian theology supports or condones sex with children. Indeed, it's quite austere on sexuality in general. What are you suggesting here? That what was written down was somehow done with a nudge and a wink!

Of course religious organizations are going to have sex perverts who join them. Pray tell me just how would they avoid that? A justified criticism of the modern church can rightly be on how they have handled known cases of suspected peados.....On that I think some churches deserve all the criticism there is.

However, the idea that the ideology I was raised in itself condones this is quite offensive.......not that I would wish to restrict your right to express it.

Religious ideology has also driven wars and killing. Advocacy of killing is present in religious texts. Does an action need to be written down as well as performed before it can be said the ideology 'supports' an action?

I can only think of pacifism that doesn't allow for wars.....and that's not even an idealogy so this charge could be levelled at any social ideology. Also saying that religion advocates for killing is extremely reductive, something you're guilty of quite a lot.....Again it's extremely nuanced in most religions, I mean don't you even know the commandment of 'Thou shall Not Kill', so again I'm dealing with reductive argumentation.

It's certainly true that religions don't ban war, however it's not true to say that they support wars either. So it's another 'crowbar' point that doesn't work.

If a religion hasn't said it then it can't be said to support it. If a religion has conditions then that's what it says. Most religions are quite specific when it comes to sex and wars....of course different people have different extreme interpretations but it's also true that most religions have settled upon mainstream interpretations as well.

Let me make it clear to you, if you can find a passage in a religious text that it supports sex with children....however it defines that....then that criticism is valid. However, if you can't find that instruction then that criticism is invalid and anyone who practices that religion (or doesn't for that matter) and has sex with kids is committing a very grave crime (or sin in the religious context) and is deserving of the consequences.

Double standards wrt your position on sources and 'political ideology'. OK for you to reduce a person's ideology. OK to reduce a political ideology to who's killed the most and to attribute the killing simply to the ideology being communism vs the nationalistic, economic, ethnic, environmental factors etc.

Many double standards in your arguments.

Or rather in my view you are kind of suffering from intellectual double vision.

Natural, I would tend to agree with - speaks to tribalism etc.

Vital to human survival!? You need to elaborate on your theory here. Especially as you've acknowledged that nationalism and ethnocentrism are both factors in war and I was of the impression that war is antithesis of human survival.

If war was the antithesis of human survival then you wouldn't be here would you.

War is to be avoided in all but existential circumstances due to the economic, social and human costs obviously inherent within it. However, war is inevitable within the human condition precisely for the reasons I gave previously. War however represents the failure of leaders to find reasonable agreement. Sometimes at the extremes it will mean war as that's the nature of humans...and all animals for that matter.....So it will always find its expression from two drunks fighting outside a pub to two nations over territory.

The task of humans is to limit its expression without worsening the situation.....Hence the need to recognise rather than punish human nature.

It would be very interesting to put context to your theory. I propose using Israel/Palestine as a Case Study.

Israel, as an ethnocentric state with nationalism as a dominant ideological concept, is responsible for killing tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people and creating conditions unfit for human survival in Gaza and elsewhere through systematic destruction of schools, hospitals, civil infrastructure and by restricting aid. In terms of the modern day middle-East, theirs' could be considered as your communist ideology, if you permit the reduction to simply who's killed the most.

Explain how nationalism and ethnocentrism is vital to the survival of the Palestinians people.

Well, they aren't currently a nation but ethnocentrism is what emboldens them to fight back. Just as it was what emboldened the Arab nations in their previous wars with Israel.

My personal view is that nationalism is fine for sport, but should - ideologically - be redundant from a political standpoint. We are all human. What's vital for human survival is to address the largest existential issues that face us as a species. Distribution of resources is of paramount importance, but should be based on need, not greed.

I would mostly agree with that while saying that nationalism only ever becomes a factor within politics when the nation itself is being attacked in some fashion....You for example in a few posts earlier attacked this country's history and heritage. Well, that is obviously going to result in a nationalistic reaction by those who disagree with you.

As I explained earlier nationalism is the natural outgrowth and extension of family protection and all things working properly then sport and the military would indeed be its normal locations.
Militaries requiring a certain amount of nationalism to function properly.

Ethnocentrism, is fundamentally a racist and discriminatory concept; reliant on the planned and forced displacement on other humans based solely on accident of birth. The existential problem that comes from an ideology of ethnocentrism, is that another ethnocentric society can just as well justify persecution of yours for exactly the same reasons. The result, inevitably, is conflict and existential threat to human survival... as has been the history of human civilisation...

This is how it's meant to work dude.

It's why all attempts to change this have ended in failure.....All that can be done is to limit the negatives of human nature, not try to change it, which is a extremely disastrous pursuit for anyone conversant with history.

It's not quite clear what you think I've assumed. You say it after a comment about disagreeing with the framing I used of Israel and asked if you think the actions of the Israel regime as described are familiar with those of the Nazis.

Please offer your alternative framing and whether or not what the Israeli regime is and how it acts is/is not reminiscent of the Nazis.

It's a 'crowbar' point, anyone who attacks another someone else could be described this way. Saddam was called a Nazi, Assad was called a Nazi, Trump was and is called a Nazi it's just a child like understanding of history.

I'm not sure if you are actually bothering to read replies much. I've already stated that Israel's leadership is currently involved in the 'greater Israel' project as that's how they have determined how Israel will survive into the future....that's the only parallel with national socialism.....which said it had to destroy communism for the German people to survive......Mmmmm.

The human nature debate is going to be full of nuance especially when you want to talk about how you 'feel' about it.

So you can avoid assumption - as evidence by you use of the word 'probably' - I 'feel' human nature is an ambiguous terminology. It could simply be defined as anything humans can do - from love, compassion and generosity to murder, extortion or genocide.

I 'feel' that discussions as such are not really objectively useful, unless you want to put forward an argument that is relevant to the subject of Israel and Palestine that provides pertinent insight.

Well, I have opined on the Israel/Palestine tragedy previously....even offering what I regard as the only realistic solution that ensures the survival of both peoples (not that it'll happen) and while I respect the opposing opinions I don't think it can be said that I haven't had any of my own. I was just replying to why I don't trust Jones that much and why.....which opened up some philosophical lanes where we differ.

That's cool.

 

[cryrst]

Define terrorism.

Hamas

 

[Penge Eagle]

Do you have a translation? I assume you've read one to get an understanding of the data presented.

1992 is a generation ago. Has anything changed in that time?

You asked for the primary source. Now the source is not good enough. Another deflection tactic.

As for what has changed in that time, well that's another issue. I'd say things have got worse in terms of radical Islam. "BUt WhErE iS yOuR sOuRcE?"

 

[Penge Eagle]

Provide the quote from where I defended any of them.

OK, do you disavow Communism? Do you disavow all of the said Communists?

Let's see if you can answer a simple 'yes' or 'no' – instead of responding with a question...

 

[Spiderman]

The answer is I don't think they are scheduled to any time soon, but I've not looked.


Another paywall article so the only information is of administrative arrest for social media posts. No quotes, no evidence is available, only the headline and a paragraph or two. We can accept it at face value, but these are just words from a media outlet I've no familiarity with, so it's reasonable to maintain a degree of scepticism as with all sources.

All sources or just those you don’t agree with?

 

[Badadmcmad]

Well, it's not so much about 'disagreeing' as knowing that when people hear, 'genocide' what they think of doesn't really match all the conditions that the UN mean.

I think it would be more accurate to argue that some people hear genocide and have their own ideas about what that is to suit their prejudice. You can see in the discussions here that those from the pro-genocide camp refuse to engage on discussions around the definition of genocide (the internationally agreed upon version, or whatever their own personal version is). For instance, the arguments along the lines of Israel hasn't killed enough Palestinian civilians to be a genocide/it could have killed more hence not a genocide.

I for one heard the word genocide, investigated the evidence of mass murder, destruction of civilian infrastructure, withholding of aid, forced displacement and then upon reading and understanding the UN definition, find myself agreeing with the UN representatives who have described what is going on as a genocide. So, again, you can only refer to knowing that some people.

Your argument here is simply apologetics. Crap argument.

This difference even shows in the example you give here. So you quote the US and Israel signing up to this 'genocide' definition but neither of them are going to agree that genocide is being fostered onto the Palestinians.

Disagree 100%. The side doing the genocide is not going to admit to doing genocide. You need only watch the Whitehouse reps refuse to offer their alternative definitions of genocide when asked directly following their contention of the UN description. I feel there are significant and fundamental gaps in your knowledge of the situation.

Here is the Whitehouse representative refuting the UN genocide claim while refusing to provide the US administration's definition of genocide.

So the reason why I take issue with some of your language is because I believe it to be lacking nuance in its description of the situation.

Which description? What nuance is being missed that needs to be taken into consideration that would challenge the UN (and my) position?

The UN describe it as genocide, I agree based on the hundreds of hours of evidence and analysis I've seen over the last year. Make specific criticisms with evidence and I can respond.

A nuanced argument would recognise the difference between the ideology of a regime that commits mass murder and a commentator's personal ideology that goes by a different name, doesn't advocate mass murder (as he consistently advocates peace and denounces killing and abuse) and exists in a time a generation or more since those regimes existed.

I think with Israel it's more ethnic rather than religious.

That might be a fair statement to make.
This is a very enlightening interview that speaks to the beginning of the Zionists movement driven by the European Evangelical Christian group called The Restorationists. It speaks more about the influence of the Israel lobby. My first post included more information about the US decision making by Truman on the creation of Israel.

I don't really understand the issue you have here. It's quite clear that none of the Christian theology supports or condones sex with children.

It's an analogy with the point to show the problem with the prejudice you show in your answer as well as the lack of nuance applied.
You associate all who hold Communist or a related ideology with mass murder. I doubt communist ideology explicitly supports or condones mass murder. I would be surprised if it does so but have not studied it.

But what you have said is that because regimes following Communist ideology have committed mass murder, all who prescribe in whole or in part to communists ideology, condone mass murder.

If you apply your logic to child abuse in churches, you can, hopefully, see the folly of your argument.

My best friends are religious. I will defend your or anyone else's freedom to believe anything they've been brought up on, or have decided to follow through their lives.

That does not mean beliefs are unquestionable and cannot be critiqued. Especially if/when they impinge on the freedom or well being of others.



While not condoning certain acts of child molestation, religious texts do contain some spicy stories. Such as Lot with his daughters.

But then there is 1Sam15 where God was angry at Saul for not killing all the sheep and oxen etc along with the Ameleks.

"[3] Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

"[18] And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed."

This is a pertinent passage as this command from God to commit the genocide of the Ameleks was referred to by Netenyahu:

"You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible"

Perhaps your offence at my comments is misplaced?

don't you even know the commandment of 'Thou shall Not Kill'

See 1Sam15 and Netenyahu.

I know there are many and varied interpretations of ancient texts. Netenyahu has done so in order to liken Palestine with Amalek. What has followed Netenyahu's statement is only getting closer to what Saul achieved. Perhaps Netenyahu sees himself as Saul. He is after all hell-bent on taking the finer things the Palestinians have - their land. Do you think God will be as miffed with him if he doesn't kill all the Palestinians?

Bible, King James Version

Also, I needn't go into the obvious paradox of commanding people not to kill, but then God commanding Saul to kill. Pfff. Let's leave religious debate to elsewhere.

Or rather in my view you are kind of suffering from intellectual double vision.

Meaningless without explanation.

If war was the antithesis of human survival then you wouldn't be here would you.

Many people aren't here because of war. Tens of thousands of Palestinians are no longer here because of the Israeli regime who are committing genocide against them.

the need to recognise rather than punish human nature.

So recognise that this genocide is human nature, but not punish it? That's your position?

ethnocentrism is what emboldens them to fight back

being an occupied people subject to apartheid oppression and then being bombed is probably right up there as motivation.

I'm not sure if you are actually bothering to read replies much. I've already stated that Israel's leadership is currently involved in the 'greater Israel' project as that's how they have determined how Israel will survive into the future....that's the only parallel with national socialism

Apart from the parallels I described and then referred you to in the message you responded to where you ignore the parallels.

Again, your argument is reductive. All Israel is doing is the greater Israel project. It's about how they have been going about it - as I presented and you evidently ignored.

Interestingly, the Novara interview above highlights how socialist were key in the early creation of Israel. A kind of nationalism with socialism. With expansionist ideas, with ethnocentricity thrown in, strong cultural ties to the Nazi regime (in so far as the subject is undoubtedly widely studied and ingrained in their politics etc).

I do suspect you are suffering from cognitive dissonance. As evidenced by this response. You did not address any of the points I raised, offering no rebuttal to what are quite obvious parallels.

opened up some philosophical lanes

Yes, it was an interesting peak into your views.

I hope you learned something new about the conflict - you certainly should have as it's quite evident that you are lacking in detailed information. As such you almost always avoid giving straight answers in preference to quite weak generalisations which do nothing to challenge or advance the actual subject.

That's my take away. All the best to you

 

[Badadmcmad]

Hamas

Lazy, moronic.

 

[Badadmcmad]

OK, do you disavow Communism? Do you disavow all of the said Communists?

Let's see if you can answer a simple 'yes' or 'no' – instead of responding with a question...

Where is the quote?