• 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

Penge Eagle said:
It's incredible how little Marxists actually know about Karl Marx.
Click to expand...
Not many do.

You don't have to believe in socialism to be a Marxist. Being a Marxist technically means that you believe in Marxist theory, that too much capitalism leads to worker overthrow and socialism. Therefore if you believe this is possible then your are a Marxist too, regardless of your economic and social preferences. Since it basically happened in Cuba then we're all Marxists
 
DanH said:
This one is a bit more direct, at least.

www.pbs.org

Thousands of Israeli nationalists chant 'death to Arabs' during annual procession through Jerusalem

Palestinian shopkeepers closed early and police lined the alleys ahead of the march that often becomes a rowdy and sometimes violent procession of ultranationalist Jews
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

JERUSALEM (AP) — Chanting "Death to Arabs" and singing "May your village burn," groups of young Israeli Jews made their way through Muslim neighborhoods of Jerusalem's Old City on Monday during an annual march marking Israel 's conquest of the eastern part of the city.
Click to expand...

Whataboutery that doesn't fit. What a surprise.

Equally Palestinians sing this s*** daily
 
Hrolf The Ganger said:
You cannot separate the two just to suit an argument.

Yes, Hamas are terrorists and murderers. They hide behind civilians and civilian infrastructure.
They are a constant threat to Israel's security.

You might think that the murder and kidnapping of Israelis deserved a response that killed a similar amount of Palestinians. Maybe you think it deserved no response.
Netanyahu had other ideas. The hornets nest was poked once too often and in the worst way.

Had it occurred to you that the whole situation might be different if HAMAS stopped trying to kill Jews and agreed to a mixed population in Gaza? Could the mutual hatred be suspended to save lives?

In this country, we are expected to accept all kinds across our borders, many of whom are undesirable.
Click to expand...
You can separate but not to suit an argument. You are stating an opinion which isn’t widely shared, especially among informed academics.

War and genocide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
CPFCSaturn said:
So you think because Hamas don't care about civilians, the IDF don't have to either..?

There are a million hypotheticals that would mean the whole situation might be different - I'm not sure what speculating on them proves, nor do I think any of them justify Israel's conduct.

You seem to fixate on Hamas wanting to kill Jews whilst broadly ignoring the IDF wanting, and succeeding at scale, to kill Palestinians - as you said, there are no good guys here. Two death cults; one is a prescribed terrorist organisation and the other is a military superpower that purports to respect international law.

I think they're both genocidal terrorists.
Click to expand...
= war.
Two sides trying to kill each other is a definition of war. Civilians are always victims of war.
Seeing civilians die in Gaza is no different or less terrible than seeing them die in Dresden, London or Hiroshima.
If one side surrenders and the other continued to kill its civilian population then you could quite rightly call that genocide.
The problem here is that the type of warfare we are seeing here is not like WW2. This will almost be a fight till the last man standing, such is the irrational hatred and ideological lunacy involved.
 
Last edited:
I think, as with most internet debates, there are particular people who become entrenched in viewpoints when challenged by reasoned discussion.
This thread is no different.
And in a mirror of real events, it's easier to see why mediation over a cease fire is so very difficult
 
Penge Eagle said:
If your brain can’t process facts unless they're spoon-fed by Wikipedia editors, maybe stay out of adult conversations.
Click to expand...
What facts?

The propaganda spread by the Netanyahu government to their wilfully blind acolytes? That people like you decide to believe as facts?

As I said some things are so self evident that you have no need to process anything. They just are and many things that are being done by Israel fall into that category.

There’s a lot of very reliable information on Wiki. Some of which I can personally verify so get confidence in the rest. I would trust that over anything posted by a Netanyahu acolyte!
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
What facts?

The propaganda spread by the Netanyahu government to their wilfully blind acolytes? That people like you decide to believe as facts?

As I said some things are so self evident that you have no need to process anything. They just are and many things that are being done by Israel fall into that category.

There’s a lot of very reliable information on Wiki. Some of which I can personally verify so get confidence in the rest. I would trust that over anything posted by a Netanyahu acolyte!
Click to expand...

I provided a lit of academics who don't believe a genocide is taking place. They have nothing to do with Netanyahu propaganda.

Genocide isn't declared by headlines. It's a grave legal term, not a vibe you get from Twitter. If you really believe in justice then you should want the ICC to investigate based on evidence and not propaganda or political outrage. Otherwise you're not defending human rights – you're just weaponising the word 'genocide' to push a narrative before the facts are known.
 
Penge Eagle said:
I provided a lit of academics who don't believe a genocide is taking place. They have nothing to do with Netanyahu propaganda.

Genocide isn't declared by headlines. It's a grave legal term, not a vibe you get from Twitter. If you really believe in justice then you should want the ICC to investigate based on evidence and not propaganda or political outrage. Otherwise you're not defending human rights – you're just weaponising the word 'genocide' to push a narrative before the facts are known.
Click to expand...
You did.

So let’s examine their general attitudes towards Israel shall we? Then we can decide whether their opinions are valid, or just perhaps a little biased!

1. Eugene Kontorovich

Affiliation/Leanings: Right-leaning / Conservative

A prominent advocate for Israeli sovereignty over contested territories, such as the West Bank.
Frequently associated with right-wing think tanks, such as the Kohelet Policy Forum in Israel.
Critic of international legal critiques of Israel; often defends Israeli settlement policy.
Politically aligned with conservative legal and foreign policy circles, especially in U.S. and Israeli contexts.

2. Avi Bell

Affiliation/Leanings: Right-leaning / Pro-Israel

A strong legal defender of Israeli government policies, particularly regarding military actions and settlements.
Has worked closely with Eugene Kontorovich and Kohelet Policy Forum.
Critical of international legal institutions’ treatment of Israel; generally aligns with conservative or nationalist views on Israeli sovereignty.

3. Irwin Cotler

Affiliation/Leanings: Center-left / Liberal

A long-time member of the Liberal Party of Canada; served as Minister of Justice under Prime Minister Paul Martin.
Renowned human rights advocate, particularly focused on issues like anti-Semitism, political prisoners, and genocide prevention.
Strongly defends Israel in international forums, but from a liberal human rights perspective.

4. Richard Goldstone

Affiliation/Leanings: Centrist / Moderate liberal (with some controversy)

Appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council to lead the Goldstone Report on the 2008–2009 Gaza War.
Initially critical of Israel in that report, but later retracted key conclusions, stating that Israel had not intentionally targeted civilians.
Considered non-partisan or centrist, though vilified by both sides at various points.
Reputation as a respected jurist with a commitment to international law, not strongly affiliated with a political party.

5.Alan Dershowitz

Affiliation/Leanings: Liberal Democrat with strong pro-Israel, sometimes conservative-aligned stances

Long identified as a liberal Democrat, but increasingly critical of the political left, especially regarding Israel, free speech, and due process.
Defended Donald Trump during his first impeachment trial, leading to criticism from liberal circles.
Strong supporter of Israel; has defended controversial Israeli policies, often aligning with right-leaning voices on Middle East issues.

I would suggest this list is self evidently hand picked and, in most cases, heavily biased.

A list of independent academics who take the opposite view is easily to be found.

All of this though is a diversion. It can be argued in court, if it ever gets there, when all of this is over.

What matters is now. Israel has the capacity to stop the killing of more innocents. Those on Oct 7 were totally unacceptable but what has happened since is every bit as unacceptable.

It has the capacity but neither the motivation nor the will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top