- Location
- Surrey
- Country
England
-
Existing user of old message board?
Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.
Israel v Hamas
- Topic starter Forest Hillbilly
- Start date
- Location
- Leeds
- Country
-
England
Plenty of substance that you seem to have completely ignored. The speech consists largely of substantive points that demonstrate the intent and the subsequent atrocities that have been committed by Israel in pursuit of Zionist aims and those of the ruling Likud party - that is to achieve only Israeli sovereignty from river to the sea (as per their charter).
It is profound in its emotive impact as well as its reflection of reality and it's ability to demonstrate the apartheid nature of the conflict by holding up a mirror to the Israeli atrocities and making the point that any of these terrible acts on an Israeli would be reacted to very differently to the way they have been when it's a Palestinian. Which backs up the point that the subject of debate is moot; the genocide and apartheid are indisputable; it's about the value of Palestinian life vs the aims and objectives of the colonial project that is Zionism.
It's naive to expect a full thesis from such a format. Being selective in a 10 min slot is essential. So these are not meaningful criticisms given the known constraints of the discussion. Furthermore, no speaker is going to offer a critique of their side's actions/reactions to a given event throughout the decades long conflict - doing the opposition's job for them and wasting their own time in doing so. Again, naive and unconvincing argument.
Not really sure what you're saying in your second sentence onward. It sounds like you are projecting your own bias and prejudice, but I'll ask you to clarify, save to point out the following:
Nowhere is the speech is the argument that all Jews are Zionists. That is your assertion. Indeed, the distinction is quite clear that it is the Zionist movement and supporters who are the focus of the criticism and she in fact defends Judaism from the blight that is Zionism.
"it is not because you are Jewish, as you try to make the world believe, but because you are depraved violent colonizers who think your Jewishness entitles you to the home my grandfather and his brothers built with their own hands on lands that had been in our family for centuries. It is because Zionism is a blight on Judaism and indeed on humanity."
To make the comment you did, it must surely be quite a profound insight for you that the fight is against Zionism, not Jews?
Equally, not sure why you've made the statement that all Palestinians are victims. Is that a projection of your own beliefs towards Israeli victimhood?
The following sentence seems to be more of the same projection of your own prejudice. You use the word 'feel' when trying to attach your inaccurate and unsubstantiated assertions to me. 'Feel' shows you don't know what my 'angle' is. This leads me to the likely conclusion that this is simply you projecting your own prejudices while making a strawman argument to attribute them, falsely, on me.
It's also worth pointing out the hypocrisy when you complain about a lack of analysis and substance in dismissal of arguments you want to ignore, but then offer no analysis nor substance when offering your own.
If you want to 'know' what my 'angle' is, ask.
- Location
- Leeds
- Country
-
England
Oversimplistic and doesn't demonstrate ethnic cleansing.
There is no explanation why or how the supposed movement of Jews from those territories occurred. They may all have simply decided to move to the new State of Israel.
I posted this one before, maybe you missed it:
I refer you to the quote around 11:21 attributed to Roosevelt's democratic party in 1944 and then 11:32.
That may offer some wider context for you. Of course, you've posted what we can likely only assuming is some anonymous pro-Israeli source so there's plenty of ambiguity and lack of analysis.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Even if you account for the Jews who moved to Israel it's a valid criticism that you don't hear from the mainstream sources because they allow no mainstream criticism of Islam.
It's much more stark for Christians, in fact every other religion also....Even variations of Islam have to back their backs depending upon the particular country. This has happened over centuries and only worsened once 48 occurred. The statistics don't lie over life for other religions in most Islamic countries.
Excuses for Islam's treatment of other religions as they only want to focus on what happens in Israel/Palestine.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Last edited:
ASCPFC
Member
- Location
- Pro-Cathedral/caravan park
- Country
Ireland
I'm not going to get into a huge analytical debate about it. You're lecturing at people but can't seem to see where much of it is more emotive than substantive. Much of it is making a case using convenient examples.
But mostly for me, I have little regard for Israel or Palestine. I suppose it becomes tiring for people after nearly 80 years of trouble between people who hate each other. You get fed up with it - like Northern Ireland. Everyone was fed up with it in the end. Including the protagonists. I expect most Palestinians currently have had enough and perhaps most Israelis but no side is ever going to "win". Whatever that might look like to either side.
The arguments in the meantime are going to be from one extreme: wipe Israel out, wipe all Jews out even, to another extreme: wipe all Palestinians out, wipe all Arabs out. Or somewhere in between. I won't take any side for sure. However, I think it's fair enough to think Israel's response is perhaps disproportionate but also the counter argument is going to be for the HAMAS attack to be highlighted. Again, the inherent bias in people might make them gravitate towards one side or another.
I'm not keen on religion and personally don't agree with either Islam or Judaism although I tolerate them. Shame maybe that many people in these countries of conflict won't tolerate difference in the same way.
However, one bias in me - that you do point out, is that Islam often causes attacks in the West, even in my quiet country. Whereas, Judaism seems largely to be causing nothing here and I don't remember any Jewish motivated attacks. Although in the Palestine mandate, for instance, British soldiers were targeted probably more by Zionist forces than they were by Arabs. Which I suppose I have largely consigned to history - it's certainly not a current concern.
But overall, I have little skin in the game as it were. It's never been a main interest of mine personally. If you want some current analysis of the kind of thing I'm interested in - and Stirlingsays alluded to - Britain is no real supplier of arms to Israel anymore and, in fact, has far more lucrative ties and defence contracts with Arab countries. You could see a realignment there.
Its relatively interesting as in previous wars most of Israel's equipment was British. Often modified by the Israelis. Now, it's all US equipment, but interestingly countries like India and Turkey supply more to Israel the Britain does. So Britain has gone from being a major supplier to Israel to being almost nothing in a forty-fifty year period. Which sometimes makes me question the marches and protests in England. Is it really Britain's business anymore? I'm unconvinced of that.
I'm probably totally wrong in your book. Not sure I'd be able to be correct. But I do see your points - not that I necessarily agree completely but much is, as I say, going to depend on emotions and interpretations of evidence. I expect it's hard to be genuinely objective here - although some people could perhaps try to be more objective. No doubt, they believe they are.
- Location
- Surrey
- Country
-
England
So there was no religious persecution, violence against Jews and expulsions from Arab countries then? 🤔
The Christian population in the region has also been reduced dramatically...
You don't need analysis, just read a history book.
steeleye20
Member
- Location
- Croydon
- Country
-
England
'Hitler has won'.
Miriam Margolyes, jewish actress.
Miriam Margolyes, jewish actress.
Given her sexuality I wonder what the Palestinians would think of her. Horrible nasty woman
ASCPFC
Member
- Location
- Pro-Cathedral/caravan park
- Country
-
Ireland
When most people didn't want the Vietnam War, The Iraq War, The Afghanistan War - could they stop it? Even the first and second world war - who exactly wanted that? Chamberlain's views were the majority view. Even if most Jews didn't want the war it's not up to them. This hardly means Hitler has won, it's one of the least sensible arguments I've heard. Hardly surprising from her. There would be no Jews at all if Hitler had won. Of course, it usually takes the people who start the war to end it. That's something constantly dodged here.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Hitler might feel somewhat differently I think.
Obviously we know what she means but I have to say.....she's a well to do woman who doesn't live there....it's the usual luxury take from someone who has no downside to live with day to day.
Most Jews living in Israel aren't against what their government has done because they feel threatened and think they have the right to destroy what threatens them.....Something that is often found in the motivation for most wars: it was even Hitler's.
The motivation of both sides is plain as the nose on our faces. If any of us had been born into the circumstances of either it is highly likely we would be taking on the grievances of that side. If you are a Palestinian then the land under your feet has literally been taken from you. I know how I'd feel about losing my home....Extremism comes as a response to extreme situations.
Einstein was right about the creation of Israel and the reasons he gave for turning down the leadership make sense.....Essentially it's a continual war position. A binary where one side has to win against all resistance or it has to lose completely. People talk about the two state solution but it's a fantasy divorced from day to day reality. The conditions required to make it happen aren't going to be implemented and Israel know that when their enemies get nukes they become sitting ducks.....hence regime change policy.
Unless someone wants to get their hands dirty it's best to stay out of it.
I've said it before but I'll say it again. War is a cost/benefit analysis. Its cost is so far reaching and devastating in both human and economic terms that unless it literally is existential you'd have to be an idiot to engage in it.
I think unless someone is prepared to get their hands dirty then stay out of it. Unless you are prepared to be accountable for children you never knew dying under rubble then it really isn't your business.
I understand why both the Palestinians and Jews in Israel feel like this.....but this isn't my war.
Last edited:
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Yep, no Jews in Europe anyway.
Last edited:
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
I have a slightly weird take on Miriam Margolyes.
I disagree with her on nearly everything she ever says.
But I instinctively like her.
She's was always a talented actress, she's funny (a rare gift especially in a woman) and she says what she thinks without caring what others say....an important attribute to cultivate if we care about freedom and truth.
She's a dotty b1tch who's wrong about most things but I'll live with that.
silvertop
Member
- Location
- Portishead
- Country
-
England
You are usually difficult to agree with but I will this post. I have met Christians Jews and fringe religious people who used to be Iranian to support that.
However consider this. Of those children buried under rubble in "precision" Israeli bombing one in eleven are Christian.
I am not taking a firm stance. I think only those who are informed wholly by religion and/or islamaphobia or antisemitism can comfortably stand on either side. However I am saying it is very very complicated!
silvertop
Member
- Location
- Portishead
- Country
-
England
Disapora Jews largely punch above their weight in all areas of thinking, science, culture etc and their views on anything must usually be respected.
Except Israel. That is likely the only subject Jews agree on and on which their views must be treated with caution.
This to the extent that even saying this could be attacked as antisemitic.
- Location
- Surrey
- Country
-
England
According to you, "there is no explanation why or how the supposed movement of Jews from this territories occurred."
Let's take Iraq as one example... Jews had lived in Iraq for over 2,500 years and made up about 25 per cent of the population of Baghdad.
In 1941, anti-Jewish riots killed hundreds of Jews and in 1948 the Iraqi government took away their rights, stripped them of their citizenship and confiscated their property as part of anti-Jewish laws.
Around 120,000 Jews lost their homes, assets and had to be airlifted to the safety of Israel. That's what you call ethnic cleansing.
When not acting she is an awful person robbing a living from the BBC now
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
If you don't have those horrible opinions they don't want you in thespian land, BBC or otherwise.....Look at what they did to Lawrence Fox because he wasn't the usual commie lovee.
- Location
- Leeds
- Country
-
England
Entirely plausible. But to what extent?
Cite a history book with the appropriate evidence then, not just some vague propaganda that says 'this number went down therefore ethnic cleansing'.
- Location
- Leeds
- Country
-
England
The use of examples is substantiation. If you are unfamiliar with the 'convenient' examples she cites then reading through the examples in the following document from an Israeli academic will provide further substantiation of the case against the Israeli state:
Bearing Witness to the Israel-Gaza War (updated to 18 June 2024)
I, Lee Mordechai, a historian and an Israeli citizen, bear witness in this document, as events are unfolding, to the horrible situation in the Gaza Strip. I write my personal opinion out of a sense of double responsibility: as a citizen whose
www.academia.edu
Amnesty International has also concluded the genocide is happening: Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territory: ‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza - Amnesty International
Sharing information is what a lecture is about. I'd rather hear a lecture with substantiated evidence than lazy, empty rhetorical propaganda or talking points.
Re taking sides. There is only one side effectively enacting a genocide. The cessation of genocide, which we're all educated about as children in this country as being among the most abhorrent crime, is what is important.
Claiming to having no skin with also complaining about migration/asylum are somewhat contradictory. Conflict is certainly a factor in generating refugees. It is a weapon that malign political influences can weaponise and use to promote their agendas and spread influence and cause unrest: When migrants become weapons | MIT Center for International Studies
The UK is undoubtedly a 'real' provider of arms (in the wider sense including intelligence and expertise as well as political assistance) to Israel hence the cessation of some arms licences. The UK has international obligations to prevent genocide, by failing to cease all militaristic assistance to Israel, there is a strong argument to say the UK is in breach of those obligations.
You're argument is a common line I've heard from pro-Israel actors. The implication of your argument is that an arbitrarily determined 'small' amount of supply doesn't matter and makes it somehow 'unreal'. Supporting genocide a little bit or a big bit, is still supporting genocide. The cliche question to ask you is how much is a 'real' amount that would qualify as assisting genocide? How do you appraise the value of that aid? For instance, the logistical benefit of having an airbase within a short flight from Israel is significant. The supply of British specialised engineering capability and infrastructure for the manufacture of F35 fuselages and missile release mechanisms, is significant.
Reference to arms sales to Arab countries seems like 'whataboutery' and irrelevant.
The question is if the UK supplying arms to Israel. It does and it does so in the knowledge and understanding that Israel will use those resources to commit war crimes and genocide.
If it's not Britain's business, why are we supporting genocide politically and materialistically? You don't want any more Arab/Muslim refugees coming to our shores (nor do I), imagine if they could still live in the country they were born in instead of coming here?