Israel v Hamas

[CPFCSaturn]

What is described there is not starvation. I think anyone can see that. It might not be wonderful but clearly enough to live on.

What would bother me is that Hamas will have cross border tunnels to supply themselves. So any rationing or starvation policy would be quite pointless.

Sorry, how is it not? The claim was not 'starving them to death' the claim was 'starving them' which is very evidently what he is describing when he refers to the 'bare minimum' being allowed to reach the population.

Starvation - suffering, or death, caused by lack of food.

 

[eaglesdare]

Israel has consistently facilitated humanitarian aid to Gaza including food water and medical supplies. This is despite ongoing security threats like rocket attacks and the misuse of aid by Hamas.

 

[ASCPFC]

Sorry, how is it not? The claim was not 'starving them to death' the claim was 'starving them' which is very evidently what he is describing when he refers to the 'bare minimum' being allowed to reach the population.

Starvation - suffering, or death, caused by lack of food.

Because it's nowhere near a starvation ration that is described. As I said, anyone can see that.

 

[steeleye20]

Because it's nowhere near a starvation ration that is described. As I said, anyone can see that.

You are needed at the BBC.

They talk your language.

 

[ASCPFC]

You are needed at the BBC.

They talk your language.

Not sure they're that interested in English these days.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Sure, people champion different causes throughout their life, and pretty much everyone can be accused of ignoring other causes - we are all hypocrites in that regard.

Any suggestion that double standards only exist amongst people you disagree with is just projecting your own bias.

If you want a really obvious example of double standards on the right, go and read the thread about the lunatic who mowed down dozens of people in Liverpool and contrast that with people's reaction to a non-white person doing something similar - to be very clear, I am not looking to turn this into a broad left vs right exchange, nor indeed get into why this guy in Liverpool is so much more deserving of sympathy than other violent lunatics - it's just a very recent example of double standards I am referencing.

The difference here is typical of many social liberals and of those on the left insomuch as they don't really get the right's worldview.

The reason the left are accused of double standards is because they claim to be egalitarian and believers in equality, when in reality that's only for themselves and their client groups. To many on the right we view their claims as mainly performative and wrapped up in moral narcissism and which regularly fall apart at the first sign of having to commit to a principle that costs them.....eargo Ricky Jones v Lucy Connolly being a recent example.

The right puts its own first and is thus far more honest. While there may be parts of egalitarianism and its vaulted 'equality' that are accepted on the right, it doesn't extend to a worldview and hence there is no hypocrisy involved. I call out the double standards on the left, not because I don't see the purity of their worldview but because it's a facade.....a story they tell themselves for their own aggrandisement.

Where the right regard egalitarianism as an attempt to remake the world as a Disney movie ignoring the fact that humans aren't convenient concepts you can stage manage, the left actually think that the world should actually be a Disney movie and will cover their ears and eyes to any feedback that disproves it.

Another example would be how you can make similar observations to left-leaning posters about Israel's actions without a barrage of accusations that you hate Jews and love terrorists - the posters who engage in that behaviour all seem to go very quiet when you share your view.

Well, my criticisms of Israel are from the right, not from the left...I'm not the only right winger on Hol to comment that 1948 was wrong and the root cause....I also recognise that once you do that there's no realistic 'two state solution' that works because of the same reasons Machiavelli wrote about centuries ago in the Prince.

But sure, I'm not someone who just regards Israel as an ally...I regard Israel as just caring about its own interests. I am probably the only one still annoyed about how our troops were butchered back then without any justice, while Israel promoted the terrorists who did it and still to this day don't apologise. No one on the left talks about this because they don't give a monkey's.....Yeah, it pains me to see innocent children die whatever human tribe they come from....but this happens all over the world everyday and it's only when the camera is on what people suddenly get animated.

Unlike you I've been on Hol a long time and so I have a back record of positions....I'm probably one of the largest critics of mainstream Islam on Hol...not anything the left on Hol focus on. I make it plain that I regard Jews in Britain as justified in their concerns on real antisemitism from imported populations in Britain. Also as someone who regards Mike Benz as a major influence it's hard to see myself as disliking Jews. There are lots of Jews on the right I like and who share the same worldview.

Do I regard most accusations of antisemitism as hyperbolic, yeah, just as the racism or fascism charges are. These are mostly attack methods for political positions. 9 times out of 10 It's mainly used to ignore someone's argument and say they aren't worth listening to....Whereas I think the whole point of a politics forum is to rub ideas up against each other.....the friction is the point, politics isn't meant to be a hand holding session.

Everyone has bias, everyone can be hypocritical and everyone will have exhibited double standards in their life - it's silly to suggest these are traits of the left.

I would agree with you that everyone is hypocritical, a small percent geniunely try not to be, but we are all sinners in that regard. However, only the left claim to hold moral standards beyond reproach and thus are far more guilty of failing those standards because they are just as fallen as anyone on the right.

The left advocate for positive law, while the foundation stone of the right is natural law, the former leads to worst outcomes because it doesn't recognise that certain aspects of humanity can't be changed at the group level and that the attempt leads to worsening outcomes, while the latter works with those limitations better without demonisation because it regards them as normal.

I'll end by saying that when I refer to the right I'm not talking about the Tories....who are social liberals wearing the skinsuit of a right wing party. Instead I'm talking about social conservativism, which is the core fundamental of conservativism much more than 'free markets' or corporate tax levels.

 

[ASCPFC]

The difference here is typical of many social liberals and of those on the left insomuch as they don't really get the right's worldview.

The reason the left are accused of double standards is because they claim to be egalitarian and believers in equality, when in reality that's only for themselves and their client groups. To many on the right we view their claims as mainly performative and wrapped up in moral narcissism and which regularly fail apart at the first sign of having to commit to a principle that costs them.....eargo Ricky Jones v Lucy Connolly being a recent example.

The right puts its own first and is thus far more honest. While there may be parts of egalitarianism and its vaulted 'equality' that are accepted on the right, it doesn't extend to a worldview and hence there is no hypocrisy involved. I call out the double standards on the left, not because I don't see the purity of their worldview but because it's a facade.....a story they tell themselves for their own aggrandisement.

Where the right regard egalitarianism as an attempt to remake the world as a Disney movie ignoring the fact that humans aren't convenient concepts you can stage manage, the left actually think that the world should actually be a Disney movie and will cover their ears and eyes to any feedback that disproves it.



Well, my criticisms of Israel are from the right, not from the left...I'm not the only right winger on Hol to comment that 1948 was wrong and the root cause....but I am probably the only one still annoyed about how our troops were butchered back then without any justice, while Israel promoted the terrorists who did it and still to this day don't apologise. No one on the left talks about this because they don't give a monkey's.....Yeah, it pains me to see innocent children die whatever human tribe they come from....but this happens all over the world everyday and it's only when the camera is on what people suddenly get animated.

Unlike you I've been on Hol a long time and so I have a back record of positions....I'm probably one of the largest critics of mainstream Islam on Hol...not anything the left on Hol focus on. I make it plain that I regard Jews in Britain as justified in their concerns on real antisemitism from imported populations in Britain. Also as someone who regards Mike Benz as a major influence it's hard to see myself as disliking Jews.

Do I regard most accusations of antisemitism as hyperbolic, yeah, just as the racism or fascism charges are. These are mostly attack methods for political positions. 9 times out of 10 It's mainly used to ignore someone's argument and say they aren't worth listening to....Whereas I think the whole point of a politics forum is to rub ideas up against each other.....the friction is the point, politics isn't meant to be a hand holding session.



I would agree with you that everyone is hypocritical, a small percent geniunely try not to be, but we are all sinners in that regard. However, only the left claim to hold moral standards beyond reproach and thus are far more guilty of failing those standards because they are just as fallen as anyone on the right.

The left advocate for positive law, while the foundation stone of the right is natural law, the former leads to worst outcomes because it doesn't recognise that certain aspects of humanity can't be changed at the group level and that the attempt leads to worsening outcomes, while the latter works with those limitations better without demonisation because it regards them as normal.

I'll end by saying that when I refer to the right I'm not talking about the Tories....who are social liberals wearing the skinsuit of a right wing party. Instead I'm talking about social conservativism, which is the core fundamental of conservativism much more than 'free markets' or corporate tax levels.

You are not the only person annoyed about how the British troops in Palestine were treated. My grandad's final posting was Palestine in/after WW2. After going through Dunkirk, North Africa, Italy, Greece then Palestine he was none too happy with it. It made me look into the British mandate and the plans for Palestine, and, in that regard the USA and Zionists do not come off well. But they were different times and some of the attitudes are understandable - if wrong in my opinion.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

The person with the biggest stick always wins.

It's just a matter of how much 'collateral' damage the big stick are going to give, or the losers are going to take.

 

[ASCPFC]

The person with the biggest stick always wins.

It's just a matter of how much 'collateral' damage the big stick are going to give, or the losers are going to take.

I think this is one of the points. I'm not sure what attacking Israel this time was going to achieve. Propaganda success in a sick way perhaps. But real success - no, Israel would fend off an attack and then do what it likes. As the greater power tends to. Was there a hope of an Islamic crusade or some kind of Arab coalition? Perhaps - but it's never happened before, or really looked likely.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I think this is one of the points. I'm not sure what attacking Israel this time was going to achieve. Propaganda success in a sick way perhaps. But real success - no, Israel would fend off an attack and then do what it likes. As the greater power tends to. Was there a hope of an Islamic crusade or some kind of Arab coalition? Perhaps - but it's never happened before, or really looked likely.

I think from the Hamas perspective that's exactly what it was, they were looking for Hezbollah to invade from the north but none of it played out like that for several reasons....Losing Syria was also a big blow to this. (something the US and Turkey were prepared to back and pay ISIS to achieve...dirty dirty)....it's also one of the reasons why Trump hasn't backed out of Ukraine because the longer that war continues the harder it'll be for Russia to retake Syria and put Assad back.

The Arabs don't like Israel that's certainly true, but they are also divided amongst themselves to such an extent that a full Arab coalition is impossible. The US funds Egypt and Jordan and so has some limited influence. The big deals with the Saudis and Qatar also partly reveal the US's desire to keep this divide as permanent as possible.

No the only realistic way the Arabs defeat Israel is by either dropping a nuke on it.....which quite frankly I think we all want to avoid.....or defeating them via the Arab womb, which a two state solution would do. Israel are obviously well aware of both realities and thus it perfectly explains their policy....They are also aware that they are on a generational time limit for permanent military backing from the US as their support levels are highest with western boomers and as they die off that support lessens.

October 7th?.....Well on that score I'm definitely with the conspiracy theorists.....I think an Arab is about as good at keeping secrets as they are at creating successful economic systems (unless there is a sea of oil under their feet). Intelligence agencies are dark dark places.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Because it's nowhere near a starvation ration that is described. As I said, anyone can see that.

As I said, the bloke is clearly describing withholding food from the civilian population to cause suffering. Anyone can see that.

 

[ASCPFC]

As I said, the bloke is clearly describing withholding food from the civilian population to cause suffering. Anyone can see that.

I'm not sure it precisely says that, although I do see your point. I was waiting for someone to say, you wouldn't fancy it - which I wouldn't.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

The difference here is typical of many social liberals and of those on the left insomuch as they don't really get the right's worldview.

The reason the left are accused of double standards is because they claim to be egalitarian and believers in equality, when in reality that's only for themselves and their client groups. To many on the right we view their claims as mainly performative and wrapped up in moral narcissism and which regularly fall apart at the first sign of having to commit to a principle that costs them.....eargo Ricky Jones v Lucy Connolly being a recent example.

The right puts its own first and is thus far more honest. While there may be parts of egalitarianism and its vaulted 'equality' that are accepted on the right, it doesn't extend to a worldview and hence there is no hypocrisy involved. I call out the double standards on the left, not because I don't see the purity of their worldview but because it's a facade.....a story they tell themselves for their own aggrandisement.

Where the right regard egalitarianism as an attempt to remake the world as a Disney movie ignoring the fact that humans aren't convenient concepts you can stage manage, the left actually think that the world should actually be a Disney movie and will cover their ears and eyes to any feedback that disproves it.



Well, my criticisms of Israel are from the right, not from the left...I'm not the only right winger on Hol to comment that 1948 was wrong and the root cause....I also recognise that once you do that there's no realistic 'two state solution' that works because of the same reasons Machiavelli wrote about centuries ago in the Prince.

But sure, I'm not someone who just regards Israel as an ally...I regard Israel as just caring about its own interests. I am probably the only one still annoyed about how our troops were butchered back then without any justice, while Israel promoted the terrorists who did it and still to this day don't apologise. No one on the left talks about this because they don't give a monkey's.....Yeah, it pains me to see innocent children die whatever human tribe they come from....but this happens all over the world everyday and it's only when the camera is on what people suddenly get animated.

Unlike you I've been on Hol a long time and so I have a back record of positions....I'm probably one of the largest critics of mainstream Islam on Hol...not anything the left on Hol focus on. I make it plain that I regard Jews in Britain as justified in their concerns on real antisemitism from imported populations in Britain. Also as someone who regards Mike Benz as a major influence it's hard to see myself as disliking Jews. There are lots of Jews on the right I like and who share the same worldview.

Do I regard most accusations of antisemitism as hyperbolic, yeah, just as the racism or fascism charges are. These are mostly attack methods for political positions. 9 times out of 10 It's mainly used to ignore someone's argument and say they aren't worth listening to....Whereas I think the whole point of a politics forum is to rub ideas up against each other.....the friction is the point, politics isn't meant to be a hand holding session.



I would agree with you that everyone is hypocritical, a small percent geniunely try not to be, but we are all sinners in that regard. However, only the left claim to hold moral standards beyond reproach and thus are far more guilty of failing those standards because they are just as fallen as anyone on the right.

The left advocate for positive law, while the foundation stone of the right is natural law, the former leads to worst outcomes because it doesn't recognise that certain aspects of humanity can't be changed at the group level and that the attempt leads to worsening outcomes, while the latter works with those limitations better without demonisation because it regards them as normal.

I'll end by saying that when I refer to the right I'm not talking about the Tories....who are social liberals wearing the skinsuit of a right wing party. Instead I'm talking about social conservativism, which is the core fundamental of conservativism much more than 'free markets' or corporate tax levels.

Again, not looking to go round the houses on the entirety of the right v left ideology, but yes obviously you view the right as more honest/honourable and less hypocritical because it's a view that better aligns with your own perceptions, experiences and biases.

Exactly the same way I do the left.

If you cannot recognise the conclusions you reach are not objective matters of fact, and are in fact just projections of your own standards and biases, exactly the same way mine are, I don't really know what else to say.

Everyone is a hypocrite. Everyone is biased. Everyone has double standards.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Again, not looking to go round the houses on the entirety of the right v left ideology, but yes obviously you view the right as more honest/honourable and less hypocritical because it's a view that better aligns with your own perceptions, experiences and biases.

Exactly the same way I do the left.

If you cannot recognise the conclusions you reach are not objective matters of fact, and are in fact just projections of your own standards and biases, exactly the same way mine are, I don't really know what else to say.

Everyone is a hypocrite. Everyone is biased. Everyone has double standards.

To an intelligent person all that goes without saying.

However, where perception meets outcomes, objective measure can be taken. Sure interpretations are coloured by biases but an honest person can account for them.

That keys into the differences between the stereotypical left and the stereotypical right....warts and all honesty. One fantasies about human nature while the other doesn't.....for example the blank slate didn't come from the right it came from the left's fundamental ideas....and that harmful crap still goes on regardless of the known realities.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

Stirling just touched on it, but it's the big elephant in the room for me.

The October attacks by HAMAS. The fact it went so 'well', leaves big questions as to whether Israel might have been complicit, in order to facilitate retaliatory action we are now seeing.

Well , that's my conspiracy theory, because I cannot fathom how the IDF were caught so completely unawares, and some of the IDF have voiced such concerns

 

[eaglesdare]

The idea of Israel having anything to do with the October 7th Hamas attacks is baseless and ignores the reality of the situation. Hamas a terrorist organisation planned and carried a sickening assault on ordinary civilians. Some are still held hostage.

Suggesting anything but is just an attempt to unfairly shift the blame. Something the pro hamas supporters will love and feed into.

 

[georgenorman]

Stirling just touched on it, but it's the big elephant in the room for me.

The October attacks by HAMAS. The fact it went so 'well', leaves big questions as to whether Israel might have been complicit, in order to facilitate retaliatory action we are now seeing.

Well , that's my conspiracy theory, because I cannot fathom how the IDF were caught so completely unawares, and some of the IDF have voiced such concerns

Yeah, and the US themselves flew the planes into the Twin Towers, MI5 carried out the 7/7 attacks and the Moon Landings are fake and Gordon Brown is a lizard.

 

[Stirlingsays]

The idea of Israel having anything to do with the October 7th Hamas attacks is baseless and ignores the reality of the situation. Hamas a terrorist organisation planned and carried a sickening assault on ordinary civilians. Some are still held hostage.

Suggesting anything but is just an attempt to unfairly shift the blame. Something the pro hamas supporters will love and feed into.

So Israel can plant exploding phones on operatives for a year and blow them up at a time of their choosing but they can't know the plans of a massive operation that even other intelligence services (Egypt) say they warned them about?

All these organisations are infiltrated.

It's already been reported in Israel that they did know of these plans and the excuses given seem pretty unrealistic to me.

IDF knew of Hamas's plan to kidnap 250 before October 7 attack - report

The IDF had precise information about Hamas's intentions, but due to prevailing conceptions in the security establishment and possible negligence by officials, the warning signs were not acted on.

www.jpost.com

Egypt warned Israel days before Hamas struck, US committee chairman says

But Israel's PM describes any claim it received a specific warning as "totally fake news".

www.bbc.com

 

[ASCPFC]

Yeah, and the US themselves flew the planes into the Twin Towers, MI5 carried out the 7/7 attacks and the Moon Landings are fake and Gordon Brown is a lizard.

I've forgotten what is real and what is a conspiracy theory these days.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Yeah, and the US themselves flew the planes into the Twin Towers, MI5 carried out the 7/7 attacks and the Moon Landings are fake and Gordon Brown is a lizard.

No....except the last one.

Obvs.