Israel v Hamas

[Badadmcmad]

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?"

You've not read and understood the document then?

 

[cryrst]

Lazy, moronic.

And…… has a different opinion which clearly in some worlds isn’t allowed !

 

[Spiderman]

Lazy, moronic.

How pleasant

 

[beak]

Lazy, moronic.

I have to say that Cryst usually puts up a cogent argument that normally disagrees with my beliefs. A two word answer can be very potent,the dowager in Downton Abbey (Maggie Smith) has some very short and pithy retorts.minimalism can pay off Ernest Hemingway never wasted words.Both words do not apply to Cryst.

 

[georgenorman]

Lazy, moronic.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

 

[Spiderman]

I have to say that Cryst usually puts up a cogent argument that normally disagrees with my beliefs. A two word answer can be very potent,the dowager in Downton Abbey (Maggie Smith) has some very short and pithy retorts.minimalism can pay off Ernest Hemingway never wasted words.Both words to not apply to Cryst.

I don’t agree with many of your posts but on this, I am 100% in agreement. Although he will be upset you spelt his username incorrectly 😂

 

[beak]

I don’t agree with many of your posts but on this, I am 100% in agreement. Although he will be upset you spelt his username incorrectly 😂

I think he can tell his"r"s from his elbow.😱

 

[Stirlingsays]

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.

Well, my points around the word 'genocide' were more related to fact that when most people hear it they think it means that a people have been wiped out. I explained this difference in perception by comparing it with the word, 'assault', which can often confuse people on what actually happened.

What I will say to be fair to you here is that this particular Israeli government is attempting a 'genocide' (in terms of movement of people out) in Gaza and to a lesser slower extent in the West Bank. Based upon greater Israel project principles, I've been saying that for a long time.

Once again, I'll make the factual statement that what Israel are doing many Islamic nations themselves have done previously to both Christians, Jews and other religions, including differing versions of Islam. This should not and frankly cannot be batted away.

I think that unless someone is a Zionist there is no moral way to defend what is happening in Israel/Palestine. On a moral footing I've never defended it. I will never defend the killing of women and children...well civilians in general. I know what happens in war however it's a failure of humanity everytime it happens.

In war there are no clean hands...It means babies dying under rubble, no one should ever allow generations of peace in their own country to convince them otherwise. .It is why avoidance unless genuinely existential is always better.

What I have said is that I understand what Israel is doing from an outsider's perspective. Just as I understand what the Palestinians and/or Hamas are doing.

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.

I would agree that combatants never admit blame, fingers are always pointed outwards because of the repercussions of admitting a more nuanced truth. However my point itself was regarding perspective.

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've described the nuances, you disagree on some of them and prefer the blanket one side is pure evil take. I know the reality is that if Hamas had the chance it would do even worse to the Jews in Israel and that given a short amount of time that whole area would be near or 100 percent Islamic just as many Islamic countries in the middle east are.

To the river to the sea is the truth of the leadership of both sides.

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.

As I've made my position clear on my rejection of foreign lobbies and financial interests in terms of significant influence on any country I think you may deduce my opinion on this.

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.

It's certainly not the case that I think all communists want to commit mass murder. I've known communists who....while I disagreed with them on politics certainly weren't violent nor supportive of it. You can see this in the 'Bernie Sanders' type. This is also true of some in the far right.

What is certainly true about my prejudices is that I regard the both communism and fascism as statist and both require authoritarian regimes to survive long term. They both need to contain dissent and control media and lie to their peoples. I also comment that...to paraphrase Marx, the natural conclusion of socialism is communism and the natural conclusion of capitalism is fascism.....both being a long journey to natural ends. While the nature of both ideologies is different from his times I think his understanding of the inherent direction of travel for both is accurate.

So yes, in practice both systems require a mountain of skulls to rule in the real world....something history has shown....but no, individual communists or fascists can be nice people who just desire different types of society.....People are people at the end of the day.

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.

Zero issues with you questioning anything, it is your right...or at least should be as part of the fabric of western culture.

The crowbar attempt to link Church teaching with an acceptance of child abuse though.....well, I can only strongly refute it. I went to Sunday school as a child and I regard the charge as nonsense.

Anyone having sexual relations with minors, connected to the church or otherwise, should be beaten black and blue and jailed.

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?



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.

These are old testement examples and Jesus brought the new covenant that.....while not being devoid of aggression....was certainly different.

What needs to be understood here is that the Bible is not the word of god, as say the Qu'ran' says it is. It doesn't claim to be perfect and God's direct words as Islam claims. Instead both the old and new testament are agreed as the writings of prophets 'inspired' by god, interpreting his will. This explains how there can be much picking and choosing by different groups on what to emphasize and abide by in the Bible.

So when you suggest that Christians are using double standards what you are really saying is out of context to how they have interpreted their book. There is much in the old testament that they just don't follow because the 'interpretation by prophets' basis allows them to.

As for Judaism, the old testament contains justifications for wiping out its enemies, just as the Qu'ran does for Islam....Christianity is more for living with them but I would also agree that it's a moot point. All of these groups justify what they want to do....Christianity with the 'just war' pretext for example. If they were all purely pacifist none of them would have survived.

Meaningless without explanation.

I can lead you to the water but I can't make you drink.

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.

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

The people who should fight for the Palestinians are Arabs. But the nations themselves care, but obviously not enough. That is their decision.

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



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.

Early Israel was pretty communist yes.....Communism has a heavily Jewish origin but it hardly exclusive is it.

Also I think I have acknowledged that the greater Israeli project exists.

In terms of the Nazi parallels I just bulk at this continual desire to revoke everything back to a world war eighty years ago. Everything gets called a Nazi. Were the Muslims who took mixed religious countries and made them 100 percent Islamic being Nazis? I'd doubt you'd agree. The far left are more obsessed with Hitler than the actual neo Nazis are.

I think the debate should deal with the here and now.

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

I'm enjoying your sense of superiority on this topic, however we will have to politely disagree.

Indeed, live your best life.

 

[Penge Eagle]

Where is the quote?

Another swerve of the question. That speaks volumes. If you're a Communist - own it!

 

[cryrst]

Fellow holers from both sides. I thank you for your replies it is flattering indeed.
Ironically I am tongue tied so r’s definatly do not roll off my tongue 😂👍

 

[Penge Eagle]

Yes let's welcome "refugees" from Gaza, that will work out well.

Jews and gay people should hide identity in ‘Arab neighbourhoods’, says Berlin police chief

Barbara Slowik says some residents are openly hostile towards Jews and ‘have sympathies for terrorist groups’

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Badadmcmad]

...Cryst usually puts up a cogent argument...

As you imply, it's a pity they've not done so this time.

 

[Badadmcmad]

Yes let's welcome "refugees" from Gaza, that will work out well.

Jews and gay people should hide identity in ‘Arab neighbourhoods’, says Berlin police chief

Barbara Slowik says some residents are openly hostile towards Jews and ‘have sympathies for terrorist groups’

www.telegraph.co.uk

German policing has been pretty controversial, especially the “Besondere Aufbauorganisation” (BAO) task force set up on 30th Oct last year.

I would imagine anyone interested in free speech/freedom of expression may raise an eyebrow at the treatment of some Jews by the Berlin police.

‘We Jews are just arrested; Palestinians are beaten’: Protesters in Germany

In Germany, phrases including ‘from the river to the sea’ are banned and police are arresting people for using them.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Spiderman]

German policing has been pretty controversial, especially the “Besondere Aufbauorganisation” (BAO) task force set up on 30th Oct last year.

I would imagine anyone interested in free speech/freedom of expression may raise an eyebrow at the treatment of some Jews by the Berlin police.

‘We Jews are just arrested; Palestinians are beaten’: Protesters in Germany

In Germany, phrases including ‘from the river to the sea’ are banned and police are arresting people for using them.

www.aljazeera.com

Ah alhazeera, that bastion of impartial reporting, just following the lead of lefties if someone posts a link to the Daily Mail….fact