Palestine

[Crewton]

19 minutes ago, Alpha said:

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. 

I'm not sure how much of what you accuse me of saying I actually said and I haven't got the time or the patience to check. I feel I've added some balance and context to what has largely been a one-sided thread with regard to those two important facets of any discussion. What I've certainly NEVER said is that innocent Palestinians deserve what Israel is currently doing to them. I said right at the outset that I thought Israel's response would be counter-productive in the long term and I stick to that view. I also still hold the view that Iran are the biggest barrier to peace in the region because in Israel there's always the possibility of change, but next to zero chance of that in Iran.

Sometimes you come across as more balanced in your outlook, but many of your posts have, in my view, come across as rambling hate-filled rants, often disrespectful of other knowledgeable posters who hold different views to your own. I don't think that's done you any favours and your reaction to a plea for a less antagonistic thread has regrettably gone the same way.

To paraphrase Mickey Flanagan, I was out, but now I'm out out.

[Alph]

5 minutes ago, Crewton said:

I'm not sure how much of what you accuse me of saying I actually said and I haven't got the time or the patience to check. I feel I've added some balance and context to what has largely been a one-sided thread with regard to those two important facets of any discussion. What I've certainly NEVER said is that innocent Palestinians deserve what Israel is currently doing to them. I said right at the outset that I thought Israel's response would be counter-productive in the long term and I stick to that view. I also still hold the view that Iran are the biggest barrier to peace in the region because in Israel there's always the possibility of change, but next to zero chance of that in Iran.

Sometimes you come across as more balanced in your outlook, but many of your posts have, in my view, come across as rambling hate-filled rants, often disrespectful of other knowledgeable posters who hold different views to your own. I don't think that's done you any favours and your reaction to a plea for a less antagonistic thread has regrettably gone the same way.

To paraphrase Mickey Flanagan, I was out, but now I'm out out.

"What I've certainly NEVER said is that innocent Palestinians deserve what Israel are doing to them" 

- I didn't say you did? I said you are always speaking up for Israel and not for Palestinians in the context of the entire conflict. If I was to add too much "context" to violence against Israel then you would feel equally angry?

"Sometimes you come across as more balanced in your outlook, but many of your posts have, in my view, come across as rambling hate-filled rants" 

- I don't mean to sound that way. I did say this earlier. So I can only apologise. I get triggered by some specific comments here about crisis actors, disputed land, implications of being antisemetic, the playing down of Israel's role. 

"To paraphrase Mickey Flanagan, I was out, but now I'm out out."

- I mean I tried to explain my position and emotions. I'm not claiming that everything I say in the heat of the moment is helpful. I do take things on board. But this is a passionate topic. I'm asking for balance and in return trying to be more balanced. This is the second time you've said this and the second time I've tried to find common ground and show that I'm not blinded by my bias and believe both sides have so much work to do. But you didn't attempt to meet me there before and won't now. 

I understand walking away from someone who has an extreme entrenched view. I don't believe I'm so blind to Iran, Hamas, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Houthi etc etc that I can't accept fault in the Palestinians.

[Highgate]

9 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

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. 

As I've been saying to @Leeds Ram I don't know if it is or isn't and I don't think it matters, nobody will ever be convicted for genocide for these particular crimes.  It's a incredibly difficult crime to prove at any time, many historic examples that seem to meet most people's definition of the term have gone unpunished 

I agree it is a horrific loss of life on both sides, but I'd say it's even worse than that, as that terminology could be applied to an plane crash or an earthquake, what we have been witnessing is the deliberate taking of lives, by Hamas and to a greater extent the IDF. 

[Highgate]

2 hours ago, Crewton said:

I'm not sure how much of what you accuse me of saying I actually said and I haven't got the time or the patience to check. I feel I've added some balance and context to what has largely been a one-sided thread with regard to those two important facets of any discussion. What I've certainly NEVER said is that innocent Palestinians deserve what Israel is currently doing to them. I said right at the outset that I thought Israel's response would be counter-productive in the long term and I stick to that view. I also still hold the view that Iran are the biggest barrier to peace in the region because in Israel there's always the possibility of change, but next to zero chance of that in Iran.

Sometimes you come across as more balanced in your outlook, but many of your posts have, in my view, come across as rambling hate-filled rants, often disrespectful of other knowledgeable posters who hold different views to your own. I don't think that's done you any favours and your reaction to a plea for a less antagonistic thread has regrettably gone the same way.

To paraphrase Mickey Flanagan, I was out, but now I'm out out.

I mean by definition we all feel that our own views, or those that agree with our opinions, are the correct and balanced ones. That's why those are our views in the first place.  From my perspective you've got two feet planted firmly in the Israeli camp. But again, that's just my perspective, it might be me that's the biased one.  

[Comrade 86]

10 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

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. 

Of course it's genocide. Nobody gives a tuppeny f*** about the legal minutiae, as sadly, I don't think anybody really believes anyone will ever be charged with war crimes anyway. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be though. Let's be honest here, when you wipe out 15,000 civilians, even bombing them as they flee, bomb hospitals, schools, raise entire neighbourhoods to the ground, deny aid and medicines, food and water, that ceases to be a merely a military operation. What you actually have is an annihilation and while you can pretend it's something lesser if you feel it serves a purpose, others will continue call it as they see it, whether you're stamping your feet and calling them stupid names, or not. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Comrade 86

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, Comrade 86 said:

Of course it's genocide. Nobody gives a tuppeny f*** about the legal minutiae, as sadly, I don't think anybody really believes anyone will ever be charged with war crimes anyway. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be though. Let's be honest here, when you wipe out 15,000 civilians, even bombing them as they flee, bomb hospitals, schools, raise entire neighbourhoods to the ground, deny aid and medicines, food and water, that ceases to be a merely a military operation. What you actually have is an annihilation and while you can pretend it's something lesser if you feel it serves a purpose, others will continue call it as they see it, whether you're stamping your feet and calling them stupid names, or not. 

So I could call you a murderer or paedo and that would be ok? I mean who cares about the legal minutiae that you might not actually be a murderer why quibble about such minor legal technicalities? 

[GboroRam]

16 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

So I could call you a murderer or paedo and that would be ok? I mean who cares about the legal minutiae that you might not actually be a murderer why quibble about such minor legal technicalities? 

If he'd killed 15,000 people, largely civilians, I'd call him a murderer. 

[Comrade 86]

23 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

So I could call you a murderer or paedo and that would be ok? I mean who cares about the legal minutiae that you might not actually be a murderer why quibble about such minor legal technicalities? 

Call me whatever you like. ICGAF. It certainly does nothing to change my mind, that's safe to say. The IDF's conduct was genocidal in every sense of the word, as far as I'm concerned and it seems a large proportion of the planet agrees. Even plenty of Israelis. Doubtless you'd label them all racists and / or  antisemites, though plenty seem to be decrying Hamas and the atrocities they committed too, which might suggest otherwise.

Israel went too far too far this time, even by their standards, though one concedes that the provocation was extreme. That's a simple truth that whilst you push your rhetoric around legal thresholds, you have steadfastly failed to acknowledge. As Netanyahu will soon come to realise, as a result of the wholesale slaughter of Palestinian civilians, the eyes of the world will now be very much focussed on any further civilian killings in Gaza. Had Israel's response been remotely proportionate, public opinion might well have differed quite dramatically, but now many of those who were undecided or indifferent, are now anything but and there's no easy fix for that.

 

[Leeds Ram]

6 hours ago, Crewton said:

I'm not sure how much of what you accuse me of saying I actually said and I haven't got the time or the patience to check. I feel I've added some balance and context to what has largely been a one-sided thread with regard to those two important facets of any discussion. What I've certainly NEVER said is that innocent Palestinians deserve what Israel is currently doing to them. I said right at the outset that I thought Israel's response would be counter-productive in the long term and I stick to that view. I also still hold the view that Iran are the biggest barrier to peace in the region because in Israel there's always the possibility of change, but next to zero chance of that in Iran.

Sometimes you come across as more balanced in your outlook, but many of your posts have, in my view, come across as rambling hate-filled rants, often disrespectful of other knowledgeable posters who hold different views to your own. I don't think that's done you any favours and your reaction to a plea for a less antagonistic thread has regrettably gone the same way.

To paraphrase Mickey Flanagan, I was out, but now I'm out out.

Yeah this is what I've found. If you write something he doesn't like he simply either lies about or ridiculously distorts what you say and interprets what you think in the worst possible light in response. It makes the conversation utterly pointless. Using a term like 'triggered' in that manner also triggers the f*** out of me tbh.

[Leeds Ram]

29 minutes ago, Comrade 86 said:

Call me whatever you like. ICGAF. It certainly does nothing to change my mind, that's safe to say. The IDF's conduct was genocidal in every sense of the word, as far as I'm concerned and it seems a large proportion of the planet agrees. Even plenty of Israelis. Doubtless you'd label them all racists and / or  antisemites, though plenty seem to be decrying Hamas and the atrocities they committed too, which might suggest otherwise.

Israel went too far too far this time, even by their standards, though one concedes that the provocation was extreme. That's a simple truth that whilst you push your rhetoric around legal thresholds, you have steadfastly failed to acknowledge. As Netanyahu will soon come to realise, as a result of the wholesale slaughter of Palestinian civilians, the eyes of the world will now be very much focussed on any further civilian killings in Gaza. Had Israel's response been remotely proportionate, public opinion might well have differed quite dramatically, but now many of those who were undecided or indifferent, are now anything but and there's no easy fix for that.

 

Genuinely have you read opinion polls of Israeli's because that's not what they say. Israeli's are very critical of Netanyahu but are also very supportive of the war and its execution. 

[Comrade 86]

9 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

Genuinely have you read opinion polls of Israeli's because that's not what they say. Israeli's are very critical of Netanyahu but are also very supportive of the war and its execution. 

Well that's a revealing school of thought, though not in the way I sense you intended. If, as you claim, there is almost wholesale support for the systematic slaughter of Palestinians, which the phrase 'very supportive of the war and its execution' unequivocally implies, then perhaps they've no right to whine about the anger of those who find said actions and the support thereof, utterly repugnant. 

[Alph]

45 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

Yeah this is what I've found. If you write something he doesn't like he simply either lies about or ridiculously distorts what you say and interprets what you think in the worst possible light in response. It makes the conversation utterly pointless. Using a term like 'triggered' in that manner also triggers the f*** out of me tbh.

So you can't reply to my reasonable response but you can talk about me? 

Talk to me or if not then don't speak about me. What I did was try to bring the debate back to  reasonable with Crewton. Now you have a problem with that too? 

Get on with it or get over it. 

[Alph]

11 hours ago, Alpha said:

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.

@Leeds Ramwhat is it about this post that's distorted or dishonest?

Those are actual things said by Israeli politicians etc. 

The terms "land grab" and "disputed land".... Come on. You know what goes on in West Bank amounts to more than a land grab and you know that Netenyahu and Co name those lands with ancient names. You know how many people are killed and displaced and exactly what the UN, ICJ, Amnesty, HRW, Save The Children say. 

Like I said, there's a fair amount in here I agree with. But there's some I don't. And I've not been unreasonable explaining them. If you want a little door slamming moment as you reach for the moral high ground then that's fine. But as I said, don't cry that I can't have a conversation where here I've said nothing unreasonable. Except perhaps mocking your dismissive condescending attitude towards me. I just found it a bit funny. 

[Leeds Ram]

40 minutes ago, Comrade 86 said:

Well that's a revealing school of thought, though not in the way I sense you intended. If, as you claim, there is almost wholesale support for the systematic slaughter of Palestinians, which the phrase 'very supportive of the war and its execution' unequivocally implies, then perhaps they've no right to whine about the anger of those who find said actions and the support thereof, utterly repugnant. 

I was merely highlighting was Israeli's thought of the war nothing more. I find both sides (there is overwhelming support in Gaza for the October 7th attacks as well) responses depressing in the search for peace. 

[Leeds Ram]

25 minutes ago, Alpha said:

So you can't reply to my reasonable response but you can talk about me? 

Talk to me or if not then don't speak about me. What I did was try to bring the debate back to  reasonable with Crewton. Now you have a problem with that too? 

Get on with it or get over it. 

He clearly didn't find it that reasonable given his response. Perhaps the fact that multiple posters are having issues with you suggests you are the problem and not us? 

[Leeds Ram]

22 minutes ago, Alpha said:

@Leeds Ramwhat is it about this post that's distorted or dishonest?

Those are actual things said by Israeli politicians etc. 

The terms "land grab" and "disputed land".... Come on. You know what goes on in West Bank amounts to more than a land grab and you know that Netenyahu and Co name those lands with ancient names. You know how many people are killed and displaced and exactly what the UN, ICJ, Amnesty, HRW, Save The Children say. 

Like I said, there's a fair amount in here I agree with. But there's some I don't. And I've not been unreasonable explaining them. If you want a little door slamming moment as you reach for the moral high ground then that's fine. But as I said, don't cry that I can't have a conversation where here I've said nothing unreasonable. Except perhaps mocking your dismissive condescending attitude towards me. I just found it a bit funny. 

You've frequently distorted and lied about my political beliefs, my arguments on this thread and how I address the question of Israel and Palestine and Middle Eastern politics. You've said I believe in the 'western way or the highway' and that I don't give a damn about ME politics despite the fact I've spent 1/3rd of my life studying it. You've said I cherry pick experts, even experts who strongly believe in a Palestinian state simply because you disagree with what they have to say. You've lied about what I've said about Ilan Pappe, you've lied about my beliefs about how we should treat Arab states and claimed that I see hamas and other groups as nothing more than Islamists living in caves 'shooting ak47's in the air shouting death to the west'. You've lied about how I believe Palestinians should just sit there and allowed to be killed. You've lied about how I supposedly believe most Palestinians are terrorists.I could go on and on but what's the point.  

This is all just since Saturday btw Alpha, I couldn't be bothered to go back before then.  Simply put you distort, obfuscate, and lie about other people's opinions and the facts when they don't suit your argument. That's not serious discussion, it's not right and it's something you should be called out on. It also renders you utterly pointless to have a genuine discussion with. 

I don't believe I was being condescending but merely explanatory. Then again on an online forum it can be difficult to discern between the two and I'll try to take that into account next time I post. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Leeds Ram

[Alph]

20 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

You've frequently distorted and lied about my political beliefs, my arguments on this thread and how I address the question of Israel and Palestine and Middle Eastern politics. You've said I believe in the 'western way or the highway' and that I don't give a damn about ME politics despite the fact I've spent 1/3rd of my life studying it. You've said I cherry pick experts, even experts who strongly believe in a Palestinian state simply because you disagree with what they have to say. You've lied about what I've said about Ilan Pappe, you've lied about my beliefs about how we should treat Arab states and claimed that I see hamas and other groups as nothing more than Islamists living in caves 'shooting ak47's in the air shouting death to the west'. You've lied about how I believe Palestinians should just sit there and allowed to be killed. You've lied about how I supposedly believe most Palestinians are terrorists.I could go on and on but what's the point.  

This is all just since Saturday btw Alpha, I couldn't be bothered to go back before then.  Simply put you distort, obfuscate, and lie about other people's opinions and the facts when they don't suit your argument. That's not serious discussion, it's not right and it's something you should be called out on. It also renders you utterly pointless to have a genuine discussion with. 

I don't believe I was being condescending but merely explanatory. Then again on an online forum it can be difficult to discern between the two and I'll try to take that into account next time I post. 

Does this mean we won't be friends?

On a serious note though. I explained that I was annoyed with how dismissive you are. That's it. Comments like "Land Grab" and "won't be the land of milk and honey" rubbed me the wrong way. 

I try to bring it back to reasonable debate and you won't engage. I don't mind but let it go or engage. Don't keep mentioning me unless you will engage with the reasonable posts to you and Crewton

Edited November 28, 2023 by Alpha

[Leeds Ram]

17 minutes ago, Alpha said:

Does this mean we won't be friends?

On a serious note though. I explained that I was annoyed with how dismissive you are. That's it. Comments like "Land Grab" and "won't be the land of milk and honey" rubbed me the wrong way. 

I try to bring it back to reasonable debate and you won't engage. I don't mind but let it go or engage. Don't keep mentioning me unless you will engage with the reasonable posts to you and Crewton

Me rubbing you the wrong doesn't mean you get to lie about what I think or what I say. It's absolutely no defence, and I don't know why you'd think it is. Anyway, that is the last I'll say on the matter, and I won't respond further. 

[PistoldPete]

3 hours ago, GboroRam said:

If he'd killed 15,000 people, largely civilians, I'd call him a murderer. 

So were the Allied forces all murderers? Lots of civilians killed in the World Wars, millions I think. Pretty offensive to bandy around words like that plenty of us have relatives who fought in the wars. 

[Alph]

1 minute ago, Leeds Ram said:

Me rubbing you the wrong doesn't mean you get to lie about what I think or what I say. It's absolutely no defence, and I don't know why you'd think it is. Anyway, that is the last I'll say on the matter, and I won't respond further. 

I said you dismissed Ilan Pappe? You gave him a score of 6/10. You posted supportive angles for the Iraq and Afghan wars including in the Ukraine thread ref drone strikes? Were cynical about Iranian chances of a democracy and implied that people think a Palestinian State would be an easy objective. You've not spoken up for Palestinians until today and so today I think I've tried to meet you on common ground? You refused the idea that Hamas might have predicted the Israeli response and played on it accordingly. 

I don't have access to your podcasts and articles. I have no idea who you are? All I have to go on is what I see here? So if you've spoken on behalf of Palestinians before then how would I know? On here you've not been impartial? 

And now, again as I try to bring it back to a reasonable debate you do a little diva strop? Which is fine by the way. But if you're refusing to engage with me then please extend that to not speaking about my views. 

I'm not interested in keep doing this tit for tat stuff. If people want to meet on common ground and hold Israel, IDF and Palestinians and Hamas to the same standards then I will take on board their views and discuss in a calm manner. But if they're going to just "add context" on behalf of Israel then of course, being pro Palestinian, I'll argue my case. 

Again, a reasonable response. Stop being a diva.