Palestine

[Leeds Ram]

10 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

LeedsRam you show knowledge and balance. I think you have landed on the wrong thread. 

You may well be right but I live in hope... I've had some good discussions but maybe Alpha cares a bit too much to have a nuanced discussion about this with someone who see's things through a slightly different lens. 

[cstand]

Timeline about who has ruled Jerusalem over the years explains perfectly why it’s disputed land and not occupied land.

Islam 1283 years

Judaism 1197 years

Christianity 410 years

 Get over this hurdle then a solution is possible but too many people want to continue with the blame game for their own agenda so very much doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by cstand

[Highgate]

3 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

Well then you get potentially a Nasser like situation which is hardly good. Again, it depends from the perspective you come from and I think we have quite different ones on this particular case 🙂 

I think when discussing absolute merits, you can't really divorce actions from context of the time they exist in to make a valid moral judgement. I don't think Israel has been entirely indiscriminate in the same way that Assad has been, but the barriers previously erected in terms of discrimination of military force have definitely been lowered. There are also completely valid questions about war crimes, even if they currently stop some way short of genocide.  Of course, to those who have lost loved ones intent does not matter nor does whether the act was strictly in the bounds of international law. But I wouldn't be making this argument to that family... I'm making this argument on a derby county forum. 

I don't think it's Orwellian to mention it at all. I'm not changing definitions to mean something else or to assert something didn't happen when it definitely did. I'm also not being morally hypocritical in saying one thing and practising another. 

It seems to me that you almost support the decision to instigate the coup that removed Mossadegh in '53. If so then we definitely have different perspectives. 

Yeah, absolutely Israel has committed war crimes (as Hamas have). Are their actions better or worse than Assad? It's a needless comparison, suffice to say that Assad is awful in his own right. As for genocide, it's an unhelpful word really, mainly because the UN's  definition is so vague. 'An intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a religious, national or ethnic group' or something along those lines. An intent by whom, the decision maker?, the army that carried it out? individual soldiers? everyone involved? And In whole or in part? How big is a part?  Are 100 people a part? 1,000?  Who knows? So vague, the definition is almost meaningless. To debating what is and what isn't genocide seems like a wasted endeavour to me. And yet we know war crimes when we see them, and we know that Israel have been committing extensive war over the last several weeks.  It even announces them to the world beforehand. 

Orwellian because at a time when Israel was brutally bombarding Gaza, killing literally thousands of children, to be suggesting that the same IDF are some sort of world leader in the exercise of military restraint was just a bizarre moment on the DCFC forum. 

[Alph]

2 hours ago, cstand said:

Timeline about who has ruled Jerusalem over the years explains perfectly why it’s disputed land and not occupied land.

Islam 1283 years

Judaism 1197 years

Christianity 410 years

 Get over this hurdle then a solution is possible but too many people want to continue with the blame game for their own agenda so very much doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

 

 

Stop. This logic applied all over the world would break down all borders and national security. It's nonsense. It really is nonsense. You're going down a route in which nations can reclaim colonies? 

You know you're talking about people who have no part in fighting? People living in these areas, raising families, working... Just normal people? Like you, your son, daughter, Mum, Dad, Aunties, Uncles... Nothing to do with any dispute. Who lose their homes and loved ones. Are displaced. And your saying well technically 2,000 years ago.... 

Get real. Get out with that Zionist nonsense. Talking about that Amalek next with Netenyahu. 

I don't give a feck who "owns" Jerusalem. My agenda is peace and equality for Palestinians. 

You think I'm suggesting Jews don't have a right to exist there? No. But you seem to be saying that all the Palestinians (not Hamas, not militant, not combatant) that get their homes taken from them is fine because it's disputed land. So feck what the UN, ICJ, Human Rights, Amnesty Int all say. You've got the bible and a Map from 2,000 years ago. 

You know not even a great many Israelis think like this don't you? You do know that? Like there's a left wing in Israel politics that argues against this exact sort of mentality? 

You talk about wanting peace but it's this exact sort of thing that creates more death. 

It's this Zionist s**** and Arabs who say every single part of Israel was given to Jews by the British when it wasn't there's to give. 

If you look at Hamas actual goals it's the destruction of Israel. But not the expulsion of all Jews. They say Jews of that land can stay but all others must go. Now this is a ridiculous goal and would lead to Genocide. 

Finding peace is about rejecting the extremes of both sides and respecting the borders and treaties we have. We need a state where Arab Muslims and Jews have equal rights (no, that's not the current Israel) or we draw a line and tell Israel to feck off with their claims. If the ICJ say 80% of your wall or whatever is illegal. It's illegal. If the UN draw up resolutions then you respect them. Show up to hearings. Don't veto peace. And we work towards a 2 state solution. 

Have you seen the Hamas flags flying in West Bank over the weekend? That's what Israel have achieved since October 7th. They. Can't. Wipe. Hamas. Out. Like. This. 

[Alph]

[Leeds Ram]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

It seems to me that you almost support the decision to instigate the coup that removed Mossadegh in '53. If so then we definitely have different perspectives. 

Yeah, absolutely Israel has committed war crimes (as Hamas have). Are their actions better or worse than Assad? It's a needless comparison, suffice to say that Assad is awful in his own right. As for genocide, it's an unhelpful word really, mainly because the UN's  definition is so vague. 'An intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a religious, national or ethnic group' or something along those lines. An intent by whom, the decision maker?, the army that carried it out? individual soldiers? everyone involved? And In whole or in part? How big is a part?  Are 100 people a part? 1,000?  Who knows? So vague, the definition is almost meaningless. To debating what is and what isn't genocide seems like a wasted endeavour to me. And yet we know war crimes when we see them, and we know that Israel have been committing extensive war over the last several weeks.  It even announces them to the world beforehand. 

Orwellian because at a time when Israel was brutally bombarding Gaza, killing literally thousands of children, to be suggesting that the same IDF are some sort of world leader in the exercise of military restraint was just a bizarre moment on the DCFC forum. 

No I don't. I think the decision to support the overthrow of Mossadegh was easily the wrong one. I just also find the idea that lionising Mossadegh as merely an innocent democrat who would have ushered in an era of free elections and constitutionality to Iran very suspect as well. 

The definition leaves plenty of wriggle room, as you say for sure, like almost all international law btw, but given the context of who the UN is dealing with here (state actors) it's much easier to pin down than you make out. Genocide must be a concerted effort institutionally to attempt to annihilate a group of people with some form of systemisation. The reason why the US wasn't seriously accused of genocide in Iraq when individual soldiers committed war crimes is because there was no overarching aim to destroy the Iraqi people. There was no systemised attempt to exterminate them and/or destroy all cultural trace of them. For genocide to stick legally, it cannot be a few rogue soldiers committing terrible acts of violence that much is absolutely obvious. 

I was giving context to claims of genocide being made and the history of warfare. In the context it was perfectly reasonable to make these statements i think. 

 

[ariotofmyown]

27 minutes ago, Alpha said:

All anti-semites right?

Israel agreed to a two state solution. Their leader (and former military guy) who helped push this agreement through was then murdered by Israeli extremists, supporters of whom are now leading Israel and have been happily breaking Israeli laws by continuing to settle people in the West Bank.

The debate should be: are Israel justified in their bombardment of civilians in Gaza because Hamas terrorists committes terrible attrocities vs Israeli civilians. And if you think they are justified, is it even a good thing to do, from either a military or a future diplomatic point of view?

The debate is not: hey, it's always been a disputed land, right?

I'm off to kill some Anglo Saxons and send them back home. Or should I be going after Vikings? I'm probably a mix of both.

[cstand]

3 hours ago, Alpha said:

Stop. This logic applied all over the world would break down all borders and national security. It's nonsense. It really is nonsense. You're going down a route in which nations can reclaim colonies? 

You know you're talking about people who have no part in fighting? People living in these areas, raising families, working... Just normal people? Like you, your son, daughter, Mum, Dad, Aunties, Uncles... Nothing to do with any dispute. Who lose their homes and loved ones. Are displaced. And your saying well technically 2,000 years ago.... 

Get real. Get out with that Zionist nonsense. Talking about that Amalek next with Netenyahu. 

I don't give a feck who "owns" Jerusalem. My agenda is peace and equality for Palestinians. 

You think I'm suggesting Jews don't have a right to exist there? No. But you seem to be saying that all the Palestinians (not Hamas, not militant, not combatant) that get their homes taken from them is fine because it's disputed land. So feck what the UN, ICJ, Human Rights, Amnesty Int all say. You've got the bible and a Map from 2,000 years ago. 

You know not even a great many Israelis think like this don't you? You do know that? Like there's a left wing in Israel politics that argues against this exact sort of mentality? 

You talk about wanting peace but it's this exact sort of thing that creates more death. 

It's this Zionist s**** and Arabs who say every single part of Israel was given to Jews by the British when it wasn't there's to give. 

If you look at Hamas actual goals it's the destruction of Israel. But not the expulsion of all Jews. They say Jews of that land can stay but all others must go. Now this is a ridiculous goal and would lead to Genocide. 

Finding peace is about rejecting the extremes of both sides and respecting the borders and treaties we have. We need a state where Arab Muslims and Jews have equal rights (no, that's not the current Israel) or we draw a line and tell Israel to feck off with their claims. If the ICJ say 80% of your wall or whatever is illegal. It's illegal. If the UN draw up resolutions then you respect them. Show up to hearings. Don't veto peace. And we work towards a 2 state solution. 

Have you seen the Hamas flags flying in West Bank over the weekend? That's what Israel have achieved since October 7th. They. Can't. Wipe. Hamas. Out. Like. This. 

 

Hammas in the West Bank executing their own people 2022. They do it on a regular basis
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/9/4/hamas-says-executed-5-palestinians-in-gaza

Edited November 27, 2023 by cstand

[cstand]

1 hour ago, ariotofmyown said:

All anti-semites right?

Israel agreed to a two state solution. Their leader (and former military guy) who helped push this agreement through was then murdered by Israeli extremists, supporters of whom are now leading Israel and have been happily breaking Israeli laws by continuing to settle people in the West Bank.

The debate should be: are Israel justified in their bombardment of civilians in Gaza because Hamas terrorists committes terrible attrocities vs Israeli civilians. And if you think they are justified, is it even a good thing to do, from either a military or a future diplomatic point of view?

The debate is not: hey, it's always been a disputed land, right?

I'm off to kill some Anglo Saxons and send them back home. Or should I be going after Vikings? I'm probably a mix of both.

Ridiculous comparison but made me laugh.

[ariotofmyown]

12 minutes ago, cstand said:

 

Hammas in the West Bank executing their own people 2022. They do it on a regular basis
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/9/4/hamas-says-executed-5-palestinians-in-gaza

Hold on, are you saying Hamas are not great people? Wow, big news! Let's bomb to death 1000s of Palestinian children to teach them a lesson.

[ariotofmyown]

11 minutes ago, cstand said:

Ridiculous comparison but made me laugh.

Maybe it made you laugh because it was intended to be a ridiculous comparison. You obviously ignored the rest of the post.

I'm not entirely sure your adding much to the debate here to be honest. Your posts would be relevant if people were saying Hamas are great and their actions are justified. Which of course no one is.

[Alph]

20 minutes ago, cstand said:

 

Hammas in the West Bank executing their own people 2022. They do it on a regular basis
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/9/4/hamas-says-executed-5-palestinians-in-gaza

I mean what am I supposed to do with this? Talk about the Hannibal Directive? Post videos from witnesses that say IDF open fire on their own people? Post videos of IDF shooting unarmed people?

It's not productive. It's not relevant. 

I'm not here defending Hamas. I just said that Israel won't get rid of them and that it's more likely they'll gain more support. That's just the truth. 

[Alph]

8 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

You may well be right but I live in hope... I've had some good discussions but maybe Alpha cares a bit too much to have a nuanced discussion about this with someone who see's things through a slightly different lens. 

You got me. I'll try to care less. 🤣

There's is no nuanced discussion until Palestinians are considered equal to Israelis. Until Islamophobia is as criminal as Antisemitism. Until the IDF are held to the same standards as Hamas. Until we stop claiming "democracy" has some moral high ground when Israel isn't a democracy for all its population. Until we examine the things said by the Israeli government that definitely have genocidal tones. Until we can hear what all experts are actually saying instead of discrediting the ones we don't want to hear. Even if their point is valid. Whether it be Pappe or Gideon Levy. Historian or journalist. 

Your condescending tone annoyed me. Your support of American foreign policy. The most destabilising nation in my opinion. From WMD lies, Gulf Of Tonkin, Hiroshima, Nagasaki... Their world policing has an ulterior motive. There's plenty of experts who will say worse about them. 

I'm totally comfortable with you ignoring me or whatever you said. So add not mentioning me to that if you want 

Oh and your article. "The state of Palestine wouldn't be the utopia... Would give terrorists more freedom. " that was offensive. Palestinians have a right to national security. 

You're dismissive of all ME politics. It's The West way for you. And you'll justify it however it's enforced

Edited November 27, 2023 by Alpha

[Highgate]

2 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

No I don't. I think the decision to support the overthrow of Mossadegh was easily the wrong one. I just also find the idea that lionising Mossadegh as merely an innocent democrat who would have ushered in an era of free elections and constitutionality to Iran very suspect as well. 

The definition leaves plenty of wriggle room, as you say for sure, like almost all international law btw, but given the context of who the UN is dealing with here (state actors) it's much easier to pin down than you make out. Genocide must be a concerted effort institutionally to attempt to annihilate a group of people with some form of systemisation. The reason why the US wasn't seriously accused of genocide in Iraq when individual soldiers committed war crimes is because there was no overarching aim to destroy the Iraqi people. There was no systemised attempt to exterminate them and/or destroy all cultural trace of them. For genocide to stick legally, it cannot be a few rogue soldiers committing terrible acts of violence that much is absolutely obvious. 

I was giving context to claims of genocide being made and the history of warfare. In the context it was perfectly reasonable to make these statements i think. 

Well we both agree the 53 Coup was wrong then, maybe for different reasons but at least that's a start.  I think all that has been said here is that Iran should have been allowed to continue without the malign influence of the US and UK.  Who knows what may have happened if the West hadn't interfered, it could be a democracy now or it could have regressed into something as bad as exists there now.  The point was, merely, that it grates when Israel is praised in the West for being the only democracy in the region, when the West actively prevented another country in region from having any chance to become a democracy, as well as supporting friendly dictators in the region (against their own populations) whenever expedient. 

I think you are under representing the difficulty in proving genocide. It's always extremely difficult to prove not only that some event happened but also the intent of the perpetrators.  And does it have to be the prime minister, or will a general do? Or a government minister? I accept that a few rogue soldiers is insufficient.  How many successful convictions of genocide have occurred since WWII and how many actual genocides have taken place since then, by your definition of the term?

Here is an interesting article on whether the current situation in Gaza should be classified as a genocide or not. 

https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/

I don't really care how the unfolding events are defined, it's not like Netanyahu would ever be convicted for his crimes as the US will have his back regardless.  All I know is what has been happening in Gaza is an atrocity, conducted by a state actor and that's all that really matters.  Needless to say, the attack by Hamas was an atrocity too. 

 

 

[PistoldPete]

11 hours ago, Highgate said:

Well we both agree the 53 Coup was wrong then, maybe for different reasons but at least that's a start.  I think all that has been said here is that Iran should have been allowed to continue without the malign influence of the US and UK.  Who knows what may have happened if the West hadn't interfered, it could be a democracy now or it could have regressed into something as bad as exists there now.  The point was, merely, that it grates when Israel is praised in the West for being the only democracy in the region, when the West actively prevented another country in region from having any chance to become a democracy, as well as supporting friendly dictators in the region (against their own populations) whenever expedient. 

I think you are under representing the difficulty in proving genocide. It's always extremely difficult to prove not only that some event happened but also the intent of the perpetrators.  And does it have to be the prime minister, or will a general do? Or a government minister? I accept that a few rogue soldiers is insufficient.  How many successful convictions of genocide have occurred since WWII and how many actual genocides have taken place since then, by your definition of the term?

Here is an interesting article on whether the current situation in Gaza should be classified as a genocide or not. 

https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/

I don't really care how the unfolding events are defined, it's not like Netanyahu would ever be convicted for his crimes as the US will have his back regardless.  All I know is what has been happening in Gaza is an atrocity, conducted by a state actor and that's all that really matters.  Needless to say, the attack by Hamas was an atrocity too. 

 

 

So it isn’t legally genocide ( which is what I have been saying all along, stop using inflammatory language) but that won’t stop some social scientists calling it that anyway? 

It is horrific loss of life whichever way you look at it. 

 

[Leeds Ram]

11 hours ago, Highgate said:

Well we both agree the 53 Coup was wrong then, maybe for different reasons but at least that's a start.  I think all that has been said here is that Iran should have been allowed to continue without the malign influence of the US and UK.  Who knows what may have happened if the West hadn't interfered, it could be a democracy now or it could have regressed into something as bad as exists there now.  The point was, merely, that it grates when Israel is praised in the West for being the only democracy in the region, when the West actively prevented another country in region from having any chance to become a democracy, as well as supporting friendly dictators in the region (against their own populations) whenever expedient. 

I think you are under representing the difficulty in proving genocide. It's always extremely difficult to prove not only that some event happened but also the intent of the perpetrators.  And does it have to be the prime minister, or will a general do? Or a government minister? I accept that a few rogue soldiers is insufficient.  How many successful convictions of genocide have occurred since WWII and how many actual genocides have taken place since then, by your definition of the term?

Here is an interesting article on whether the current situation in Gaza should be classified as a genocide or not. 

https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/

I don't really care how the unfolding events are defined, it's not like Netanyahu would ever be convicted for his crimes as the US will have his back regardless.  All I know is what has been happening in Gaza is an atrocity, conducted by a state actor and that's all that really matters.  Needless to say, the attack by Hamas was an atrocity too. 

 

 

I do get that it grates, especially so since the Arab Spring. On genocide it is a high bar to prove it but so it should be. Genocide is the most serious crime of all. It requires policy directed at the highest levels of government/group. I am not an expert in all areas of world politics or anything but when we look at Rwanda and Serbia there are clear examples of genocide that are well known. You can add in China's treatment of the uighurs and tibet, Islamic State, Syria and Iraq and you have a few legitimate claims there as well as well as in Myanmar. There have been a couple of convictions on different incidents I believe, I know there has definitely been 1. 

 

12 hours ago, Alpha said:

You got me. I'll try to care less. 🤣

There's is no nuanced discussion until Palestinians are considered equal to Israelis. Until Islamophobia is as criminal as Antisemitism. Until the IDF are held to the same standards as Hamas. Until we stop claiming "democracy" has some moral high ground when Israel isn't a democracy for all its population. Until we examine the things said by the Israeli government that definitely have genocidal tones. Until we can hear what all experts are actually saying instead of discrediting the ones we don't want to hear. Even if their point is valid. Whether it be Pappe or Gideon Levy. Historian or journalist. 

Your condescending tone annoyed me. Your support of American foreign policy. The most destabilising nation in my opinion. From WMD lies, Gulf Of Tonkin, Hiroshima, Nagasaki... Their world policing has an ulterior motive. There's plenty of experts who will say worse about them. 

I'm totally comfortable with you ignoring me or whatever you said. So add not mentioning me to that if you want 

Oh and your article. "The state of Palestine wouldn't be the utopia... Would give terrorists more freedom. " that was offensive. Palestinians have a right to national security. 

You're dismissive of all ME politics. It's The West way for you. And you'll justify it however it's enforced

I will respond one last time. Your claim that I argue a free Palestine would give terrorists more freedom wipes away the context in which it is situated. You've basically written a calumny against me at this point, and you should apologise for it. I distinctly argue that a free Palestine without adjustment for its social, economic, and political problems would not be a free and stable state. This is not controversial or new to anyone. Indeed, new political entities that come without those adjustments become internally and externally unstable. This does not mean I inherently believe a Palestinian state would be a terrorist state, as you have suggested but the challenges are immense. 

"a free Palestine is not going to be the land of milk and honey that some imagine. It will continue to suffer from poverty and political instability; the rights that its Western supporters demand for citizens will likely not be met. The suffering—and all that comes with it—shall merely continue with a new label, leaving plenty of room for terrorist actors to operate and even grow. This is not to suggest that we should not support a Palestinian state, or recognize how it creates the political space and rights that we in the West would demand of ourselves. Still, how likely is it to really occur?"

"The two-state solution seems further away than ever before but it still remains closer than the tolerable alternatives. To build back the goodwill Israel once enjoyed, it would be prudent—in time—for Israel not only to cease the terror bombing but also to begin a genuine dialogue to create a two-state solution. " 

"The failure to address the Palestinian question in an equitable manner has and continues to drain their moral legitimacy. The United States and others should focus their efforts not on a vain and ultimately futile attempt to destroy a terrorist organisation, but rather on a genuine attempt to build peace." 

I'm also a big fan of Shadi Hamid's work who argues for Arab democracy in the region whether it contains liberalism or not. He's a democratic minimalist and I've had him on my podcast and written two articles for his website. I generally agree with his argument around democratic minimalism and have written and argued for greater support for democracy in the region, even if it comes with policies we do not agree with or like. You basically just label and distort positions you dislike. 

[Stive Pesley]

13 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

I'm not entirely sure your adding much to the debate here to be honest. 

Leave him alone, that's his schtick!

[Alph]

56 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I do get that it grates, especially so since the Arab Spring. On genocide it is a high bar to prove it but so it should be. Genocide is the most serious crime of all. It requires policy directed at the highest levels of government/group. I am not an expert in all areas of world politics or anything but when we look at Rwanda and Serbia there are clear examples of genocide that are well known. You can add in China's treatment of the uighurs and tibet, Islamic State, Syria and Iraq and you have a few legitimate claims there as well as well as in Myanmar. There have been a couple of convictions on different incidents I believe, I know there has definitely been 1. 

 

I will respond one last time. Your claim that I argue a free Palestine would give terrorists more freedom wipes away the context in which it is situated. You've basically written a calumny against me at this point, and you should apologise for it. I distinctly argue that a free Palestine without adjustment for its social, economic, and political problems would not be a free and stable state. This is not controversial or new to anyone. Indeed, new political entities that come without those adjustments become internally and externally unstable. This does not mean I inherently believe a Palestinian state would be a terrorist state, as you have suggested but the challenges are immense. 

"a free Palestine is not going to be the land of milk and honey that some imagine. It will continue to suffer from poverty and political instability; the rights that its Western supporters demand for citizens will likely not be met. The suffering—and all that comes with it—shall merely continue with a new label, leaving plenty of room for terrorist actors to operate and even grow. This is not to suggest that we should not support a Palestinian state, or recognize how it creates the political space and rights that we in the West would demand of ourselves. Still, how likely is it to really occur?"

"The two-state solution seems further away than ever before but it still remains closer than the tolerable alternatives. To build back the goodwill Israel once enjoyed, it would be prudent—in time—for Israel not only to cease the terror bombing but also to begin a genuine dialogue to create a two-state solution. " 

"The failure to address the Palestinian question in an equitable manner has and continues to drain their moral legitimacy. The United States and others should focus their efforts not on a vain and ultimately futile attempt to destroy a terrorist organisation, but rather on a genuine attempt to build peace." 

I'm also a big fan of Shadi Hamid's work who argues for Arab democracy in the region whether it contains liberalism or not. He's a democratic minimalist and I've had him on my podcast and written two articles for his website. I generally agree with his argument around democratic minimalism and have written and argued for greater support for democracy in the region, even if it comes with policies we do not agree with or like. You basically just label and distort positions you dislike. 

Thank you for taking the time to reply one last time. I'm truly humbled. 

There's a fair amount I agree with. However there's some offensive stuff. 

Palestine would not be the land of milk and honey that some imagine. - Who imagines? I'm pretty sure people are aware of the challenges involved? I mean supporting a Palestinians State doesn't equate to being stupid. Israel is not the land of milk and honey for Palestinians either. Because it's an Apartheid state. It has separate laws for parts of its society. 

The closing comment. "How likely is this to occur".... What? A Palestinian State? Extremely unlikely. What we have is Israel with it's foot on Palestine's throat asking them to stop struggling. What happens if they stop? What happens if Israel take their foot off? Neither can be trusted but nobody is interested in finding a solution. There's a $500b prize pot for America and Netenyahu's oil/peace corridor. For Palestinians will always be pushed by the likes of Iran. I've said this dozens of times. 

Then you say America should not focus on a vain attempt to destroy a terrorist organisation. They're not. They absolutely are not. Nobody thinks this is how you destroy Hamas. Hamas is an ideology. Hamas could be reborn 10 times over. So let's not pretend that Israel and America don't know this. So let's cut those lies out and stop pretending America or Israel are stupid. You said Hamas aren't smart? Well neither are Israel or America if they truly believe what they're saying. 

Which is why I point to the consistent genocidal language used by Israeli politicians and right wing officials. Because that tells you in their own words that they're not there for Hamas. 

Let them disease spread it will make help the victory? We must remember Amalek? I'm proud to be a fascist. There are no innocent people in Gaza? The Friendship 2023 song? Send them to Egypt or Scotland? Burn Gaza to the ground? Human Animals? 

They have to exaggerate and lie about Hamas actions (which I don't really have a problem with) to justify their actions. My problem comes when the IDF/settler behaviour in the West Bank is referred to as "land grab" over "disputed land". 

I don't know why I bothered replying. I forgot you said that was the last time.

[Crewton]

We could do with a humanitarian pause on this thread too.

[Alph]

3 hours ago, Crewton said:

We could do with a humanitarian pause on this thread too.

Why? 

You're another that criticises my bias and says I'm not worthy of replying to because of my beliefs (which I laid out for you and you ignored)

But in the defence of Palestinians I've only seen you say something about Netenyahu being bad for peace? 

You've added context for Jews. You've added context for Israel's right to be fearful and skeptical of their neighbours. But what have you said on behalf of the suffering and struggling of Palestinians? 

You've rightly exposed Iran, Syria etc for supporting groups to attack Israel. But you've not really condemned America or The West for encouraging Israel. 

You've said Israel is the most democratic liberal state in the region. But again, this is only half the story. 

I've seen the videos from October 7th. They are very very nasty. Things that aren't human. Truly vile and if there is a heaven/hell then all those who took part in that slaughter should burn forever. But there are some crimes that Israel claimed that have no evidence. Some omissions about what else happened that day. You chose to post an 'independent' (it wasn't) reliable (it isn't) link to proof. Now on light of many of the lies exposed do you understand why that would appear to be spreading propaganda. Or as I've been accused of "fueling the fire". What Hamas did was evil. 

See in this thread, despite my bias I'm not afraid of talking about the suffering of Jews. I'm not afraid of admitting the threats Israel have faced, still face and will continue to face. Hamas are bad for peace. I hate Hamas. 

My problem comes that to find common ground Israel has to be called out. It's not a democracy for all its people. There are terrorist attacks on Palestinians. There's Islamophobia. There's war crimes. There's breaches of International Law. It's not just naughty Netenyahu. Why do we not speak of what ulterior motives America may have?

I understand @PistoldPetefear that hatred of Israel could spread. That saying things like they hide behind antisemetism could encourage more of the Jewish suffering we've seen. I get it. 

But, there's no balance if we can't speak against Israel. If we can't use the same language for the crimes of both. If people can't say Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. 

I fully expect some flippant comment about this thread being a cesspit, full of nonsense or somebody say they're not replying etc etc. 

You said I'm not capable of having a conversation? I am. But first, just like you, I have to feel like I'm talking to someone who can begin to understand my position. If somebody is just going to tell me this is liberal, democratic state Vs Terrorists in disputed land then I'm going to rant. I don't want to defend Hamas. I want them gone. But are we going to understand why they're able to recruit so many Palestinians? Are we going to talk about how to remove them? No. We're just going to present them as villains and continue this tit for tat. Good Vs Evil. 

I'm not as blinded by bias as I'm accused of. I'm really not. But for years and years this conflict has been presented a specific way to the West. After enduring all the American propaganda and destabilising policy I just want Palestinian voices to be heard.