Palestine

[Alph]

14 hours ago, Archied said:

 

🤷🏻‍♂️
when the bullets and bombs are stopped ( that’s the priority ) I will be more than happy to debate my political/ ethical position on the issue

And when is that? 

230 Palestinians were killed in 2023 in the West Bank before October 7th. 

I made a list of all the IDF military assaults on Gaza in this thread somewhere. It's quite a list. 

There is no peace. That's the point. There's what's happening now or there's the slow silent death of Palestinians. There's the hot topic of Occupation and Apartheid silenced by accusations of Antisemitism. 

The idea that opposing Israel is antagonistic and creating division isn't a new. Anybody who's supported the Palestinian plight will tell you that this type of smear campaign is as old as the hills. You'll be told you're an antisemite. You're antagonistic. You're an extremist. That you're creating division and inciting violence. Your character will be attacked because it's easier than trying to argue with somebody who simply demands the rights and freedoms we insist that Israelis deserve should also be for the Palestinian people. Because the correct and peaceful position is to support Israel.

That's what Sunak, Truss and Co do. They can't debate with any of the direct points on Occupation, Apartheid laws, war crimes, how to create partners for peace, how to reduce the threat of groups like Hamas in an effective way. They have to attack and smear the opposition. They will not engage in specific topics. 

Yet ask them about Russia. It all becomes very simple then. Straight answers to straight questions. Not complex at all. And those who show support for Ukraine aren't accused of backing groups like Azov. It's a simple case. 

Settler violence? Turning off water? Targeting civilian infrastructure? Mass murder? Killing journalists? Blocking aid?.... "it's self defence! It's complicated! London has gone to the Islamists!! You're creating division!" 

[Archied]

9 minutes ago, Alph said:

And when is that? 

230 Palestinians were killed in 2023 in the West Bank before October 7th. 

I made a list of all the IDF military assaults on Gaza in this thread somewhere. It's quite a list. 

There is no peace. That's the point. There's what's happening now or there's the slow silent death of Palestinians. There's the hot topic of Occupation and Apartheid silenced by accusations of Antisemitism. 

The idea that opposing Israel is antagonistic and creating division isn't a new. Anybody who's supported the Palestinian plight will tell you that this type of smear campaign is as old as the hills. You'll be told you're an antisemite. You're antagonistic. You're an extremist. That you're creating division and inciting violence. Your character will be attacked because it's easier than trying to argue with somebody who simply demands the rights and freedoms we insist that Israelis deserve should also be for the Palestinian people. Because the correct and peaceful position is to support Israel.

That's what Sunak, Truss and Co do. They can't debate with any of the direct points on Occupation, Apartheid laws, war crimes, how to create partners for peace, how to reduce the threat of groups like Hamas in an effective way. They have to attack and smear the opposition. They will not engage in specific topics. 

Yet ask them about Russia. It all becomes very simple then. Straight answers to straight questions. Not complex at all. And those who show support for Ukraine aren't accused of backing groups like Azov. It's a simple case. 

Settler violence? Turning off water? Targeting civilian infrastructure? Mass murder? Killing journalists? Blocking aid?.... "it's self defence! It's complicated! London has gone to the Islamists!! You're creating division!" 

Perhaps when we all stop focusing and arguing over who threw the first stone , who’s thrown the most stones and make the focus stopping anymore stones being thrown , im sure that’s not what you want to hear but it’s what I see from where I’m standing and that’s coming from someone who has always been considered a weirdo for holding the belief that in the main terrorism is / has been created by pure bullying by the larger richer more powerful states who know the people of other states have not the slightest chance of being anything other than obliterated in what we laughingly call fair and clean war 🤷🏻‍♂️,

as I say ,for me taking and arguing any side other than stop ALL the killing doesn’t get the job done ,it just swells the number on both sides arguing the toss whilst people are dying 🤷🏻‍♂️

[ramit]

It is not a matter of convincing western leaders that what Israel is doing is indefensible, they all know it to be true, they have eyes, yet they are bound to defend Israel's actions no matter what atrocities it commits for one simple reason, they are leaders of vassal states who must do the bidding of their masters.  If that wasn't obvious to most before, it clearly should be now.

[Eddie]

24 minutes ago, Archied said:

Perhaps when we all stop focusing and arguing over who threw the first stone , who’s thrown the most stones and make the focus stopping anymore stones being thrown , im sure that’s not what you want to hear but it’s what I see from where I’m standing and that’s coming from someone who has always been considered a weirdo for holding the belief that in the main terrorism is / has been created by pure bullying by the larger richer more powerful states who know the people of other states have not the slightest chance of being anything other than obliterated in what we laughingly call fair and clean war 🤷🏻‍♂️,

as I say ,for me taking and arguing any side other than stop ALL the killing doesn’t get the job done ,it just swells the number on both sides arguing the toss whilst people are dying 🤷🏻‍♂️

Here we go again, @Archied - agreeing again.

In the last few days, I have first  Niemöllered the thread then Santayanaed it. Going for a hat-trick now:

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" - Louis Fischer (Gandhi's biographer, attributing the philosophy or message, if not the actual words, to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi)

[Archied]

7 hours ago, Eddie said:

Here we go again, @Archied - agreeing again.

In the last few days, I have first  Niemöllered the thread then Santayanaed it. Going for a hat-trick now:

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" - Louis Fischer (Gandhi's biographer, attributing the philosophy or message, if not the actual words, to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi)

Naive , utopian? It’s very easy to be described as such but I just feel very uncomfortable to come on and defend the historical rights and wrongs of either side when innocent people are being slaughtered, I would no more be on the streets waving an Israeli flag when the first killings happened in this latest break out than I would wave a Palestine flag in response to what’s going on now , if the streets were filled with banners and chants for peace then I would be tempted to join in , ive not been on any marches but have been on the fringes ( travelling through ) and that is far from the vibe I’m picking up 🤷🏻‍♂️

[Alph]

8 hours ago, Archied said:

Perhaps when we all stop focusing and arguing over who threw the first stone , who’s thrown the most stones and make the focus stopping anymore stones being thrown , im sure that’s not what you want to hear but it’s what I see from where I’m standing and that’s coming from someone who has always been considered a weirdo for holding the belief that in the main terrorism is / has been created by pure bullying by the larger richer more powerful states who know the people of other states have not the slightest chance of being anything other than obliterated in what we laughingly call fair and clean war 🤷🏻‍♂️,

as I say ,for me taking and arguing any side other than stop ALL the killing doesn’t get the job done ,it just swells the number on both sides arguing the toss whilst people are dying 🤷🏻‍♂️

"I'm sure that's not what you want to hear". Wtf?

I speak up for Palestine because I want to highlight the violence, draw attention to it and make it stop. I don't support Hamas or any other Palestinians assaults on Israel. Now again, you're telling me that I'm engaging in some tit for tat argument? So I'll say again, who am I arguing with? What's the perspective of someone who disagrees with what I want?

I talk about the environment that creates groups like Hamas. 

The laws that Israel has, the lands it occupies, the control over Gaza... These are things that contribute to  Palestinian unrest. There are other contributors (such as Iran) that I've also mentioned. 

You have to tackle these issues to find peace. You have to give the Palestinians security for them to reject Hamas. 

[Alph]

50 minutes ago, Archied said:

Naive , utopian? It’s very easy to be described as such but I just feel very uncomfortable to come on and defend the historical rights and wrongs of either side when innocent people are being slaughtered, I would no more be on the streets waving an Israeli flag when the first killings happened in this latest break out than I would wave a Palestine flag in response to what’s going on now , if the streets were filled with banners and chants for peace then I would be tempted to join in , ive not been on any marches but have been on the fringes ( travelling through ) and that is far from the vibe I’m picking up 🤷🏻‍♂️

The streets have been filled with banners for peace and chants for peace. I'm not sure where you're going but the chant "ceasefire now" is deafening. 

There are idiots. You get idiots at football. If you had 250,000 football fans I suspect you'd get 12 arrests. 

[Archied]

43 minutes ago, Alph said:

The streets have been filled with banners for peace and chants for peace. I'm not sure where you're going but the chant "ceasefire now" is deafening. 

There are idiots. You get idiots at football. If you had 250,000 football fans I suspect you'd get 12 arrests. 

We are obviously seeing something different 🤷‍♂️ 

policing of football is very different 

[Crewton]

To be fair to the organisers of the marches and the police, I think they've largely kept a lid on any protests that cross the line of incitement or worse, though there are inevitably some contentious aspects because the situation itself is contentious.

[Archied]

2 hours ago, Archied said:

Naive , utopian? It’s very easy to be described as such but I just feel very uncomfortable to come on and defend the historical rights and wrongs of either side when innocent people are being slaughtered, I would no more be on the streets waving an Israeli flag when the first killings happened in this latest break out than I would wave a Palestine flag in response to what’s going on now , if the streets were filled with banners and chants for peace then I would be tempted to join in , ive not been on any marches but have been on the fringes ( travelling through ) and that is far from the vibe I’m picking up 🤷🏻‍♂️

I think an angry imogi says a lot 🤷‍♂️

[Alph]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

I think an angry imogi says a lot 🤷‍♂️

It says that the vibe you're getting and that you're not able to see the sea of banners and chants that include

"Ceasefire now, Stop the Genocide, Not in Our Name, You don't have to be Muslim just Human, Anti Zionism is not Antisemitism, End Occupation, End Apartheid"

angers me. What did you think I meant? That I'm ok with Hamas killing Israelis 

[Alph]

2 hours ago, Archied said:

We are obviously seeing something different 🤷‍♂️ 

policing of football is very different 

Yes. I am. Now could you respond to my other post please. 

Because here's the thing. There is tit for tat in this thread and sometimes I'm guilty of it and sometimes it is a response. 

For example, when bcnram responded to Comrade's "enough is enough" post with "when Hamas release hostages and Palestinians stop electing Hamas (I mean, they don't for starters). I pointed to the hostages/prisoners that Israel have. Yes, it's tit for tat. Likewise if you was to point to the Palestinians who drove a vehicle into Israelis in Tel Aviv I would point to any of the number of terror attacks on Palestinians. 

Yet you chose to pull me up. As I'm the antagonistic and partisan one who creates division. I'm ok with that by the way. I'm not one for being offended easily. Yet I just found it curious. 

There's three others who do similar. Engage in tit for tat that they call context. But when I do it, it's not context. Ok. So it's tit for tat that's unhelpful. Ok. 

Yet when I lay my beliefs out (you can go back through the thread) then here's what happens. They attack my character, imply I'm antisemtic/antagonistic. Or they claim there's no grounds for reasonable debate and have neither the time nor the will to engage with anything I've said. 

Interestingly you responded to my anger emoji when you implied the vast majority of protests are not sincere in calling for peace. Yet didn't respond to my other post. You even implied that wanting all violence to stop is "not what you want to hear". 

You said you'll discuss your views when there's peace. There wasn't peace before October 7th. 230 Palestinians dead in West Bank in 2023 between Jan and October. 

You and others have come here as neutral just calling for peace. How do we achieve that peace? Well, at the very point I lay out what I think about how to weaken Hamas (that includes some uncomfortable truths about Israel being confronted) then I'm being antagonistic again. 

I've been happy since the thread began (which wasn't by me btw) to discuss a solution and de-escalation. 

Now the protests were/are about opposing our governments position on the conflict. Your attitude towards them reflects the attitude towards me. That they're antagonistic and unhelpful. Ok. So what should people do that they haven't been doing for years? The protests oppose the government who reject a ceasefire. 

At this point what usually happens is someone storms off saying there's no debating with me. There is. But if it involves portraying good Vs evil and nonsense suggestions like Hamas etc can be removed by force then it's not me that promotes division and anarchy, is it?

[Archied]

15 minutes ago, Alph said:

Yes. I am. Now could you respond to my other post please. 

Because here's the thing. There is tit for tat in this thread and sometimes I'm guilty of it and sometimes it is a response. 

For example, when bcnram responded to Comrade's "enough is enough" post with "when Hamas release hostages and Palestinians stop electing Hamas (I mean, they don't for starters). I pointed to the hostages/prisoners that Israel have. Yes, it's tit for tat. Likewise if you was to point to the Palestinians who drove a vehicle into Israelis in Tel Aviv I would point to any of the number of terror attacks on Palestinians. 

Yet you chose to pull me up. As I'm the antagonistic and partisan one who creates division. I'm ok with that by the way. I'm not one for being offended easily. Yet I just found it curious. 

There's three others who do similar. Engage in tit for tat that they call context. But when I do it, it's not context. Ok. So it's tit for tat that's unhelpful. Ok. 

Yet when I lay my beliefs out (you can go back through the thread) then here's what happens. They attack my character, imply I'm antisemtic/antagonistic. Or they claim there's no grounds for reasonable debate and have neither the time nor the will to engage with anything I've said. 

Interestingly you responded to my anger emoji when you implied the vast majority of protests are not sincere in calling for peace. Yet didn't respond to my other post. You even implied that wanting all violence to stop is "not what you want to hear". 

You said you'll discuss your views when there's peace. There wasn't peace before October 7th. 230 Palestinians dead in West Bank in 2023 between Jan and October. 

You and others have come here as neutral just calling for peace. How do we achieve that peace? Well, at the very point I lay out what I think about how to weaken Hamas (that includes some uncomfortable truths about Israel being confronted) then I'm being antagonistic again. 

I've been happy since the thread began (which wasn't by me btw) to discuss a solution and de-escalation. 

Now the protests were/are about opposing our governments position on the conflict. Your attitude towards them reflects the attitude towards me. That they're antagonistic and unhelpful. Ok. So what should people do that they haven't been doing for years? The protests oppose the government who reject a ceasefire. 

At this point what usually happens is someone storms off saying there's no debating with me. There is. But if it involves portraying good Vs evil and nonsense suggestions like Hamas etc can be removed by force then it's not me that promotes division and anarchy, is it?

I not one for storming off, but anger just begets anger and as I say I’m only interested in how that stops , I’ve been on the verges of a couple of these marches , watched the footage from many sources and I’m seeing something very different from you 🤷‍♂️

[Archied]

38 minutes ago, Alph said:

Yes. I am. Now could you respond to my other post please. 

Because here's the thing. There is tit for tat in this thread and sometimes I'm guilty of it and sometimes it is a response. 

For example, when bcnram responded to Comrade's "enough is enough" post with "when Hamas release hostages and Palestinians stop electing Hamas (I mean, they don't for starters). I pointed to the hostages/prisoners that Israel have. Yes, it's tit for tat. Likewise if you was to point to the Palestinians who drove a vehicle into Israelis in Tel Aviv I would point to any of the number of terror attacks on Palestinians. 

Yet you chose to pull me up. As I'm the antagonistic and partisan one who creates division. I'm ok with that by the way. I'm not one for being offended easily. Yet I just found it curious. 

There's three others who do similar. Engage in tit for tat that they call context. But when I do it, it's not context. Ok. So it's tit for tat that's unhelpful. Ok. 

Yet when I lay my beliefs out (you can go back through the thread) then here's what happens. They attack my character, imply I'm antisemtic/antagonistic. Or they claim there's no grounds for reasonable debate and have neither the time nor the will to engage with anything I've said. 

Interestingly you responded to my anger emoji when you implied the vast majority of protests are not sincere in calling for peace. Yet didn't respond to my other post. You even implied that wanting all violence to stop is "not what you want to hear". 

You said you'll discuss your views when there's peace. There wasn't peace before October 7th. 230 Palestinians dead in West Bank in 2023 between Jan and October. 

You and others have come here as neutral just calling for peace. How do we achieve that peace? Well, at the very point I lay out what I think about how to weaken Hamas (that includes some uncomfortable truths about Israel being confronted) then I'm being antagonistic again. 

I've been happy since the thread began (which wasn't by me btw) to discuss a solution and de-escalation. 

Now the protests were/are about opposing our governments position on the conflict. Your attitude towards them reflects the attitude towards me. That they're antagonistic and unhelpful. Ok. So what should people do that they haven't been doing for years? The protests oppose the government who reject a ceasefire. 

At this point what usually happens is someone storms off saying there's no debating with me. There is. But if it involves portraying good Vs evil and nonsense suggestions like Hamas etc can be removed by force then it's not me that promotes division and anarchy, is it?

I have never never once said or implied you are anti semetic , I would respond just the same to anyone arguing what’s going on now is an appropriate response from Isreal, the response was anger fuelled and not thought threw and being compounded by not taking a step back and seeing that what is going on now can no way create any kind of peace, it can only create more hate

Edited March 6 by Archied

[Leeds Ram]

I don't think many people who have watched or seen many of these marches really think they're simply calling for peace in a pleasant manner. I've seen marches where I have witnessed speakers valorise Hezbollah and Hamas. The rise in anti-Semitic incidents alone (600% I believe) is staggering and speaks to something darker and more dangerous in politics. Galloway's election in rochdale speaks to the uglyness and hypocrisy of so many who believe in 'freedom for Palestine' tbh too. Willingly voting for a man who sucked up to Saddam Hussein and Bashar Al-Assad just says it all really. 

On the ceasefire there should be one but without a broader strategy for peace it's simply a stop the clock situation. Ocotber 7th has unleashed Israeli public opinion against the idea of a Palestine at all and has opened the floodgates to a maelstrom of violence and destruction. The region is in a disastrous state with authoritarianism surviving the Arab Springs and the regions only real democratic player now certainly guilty of war crimes if not genocide. It's ugly and no-one has an answer beyond trying to make it stop which is no real solution at all.

[Alph]

40 minutes ago, Archied said:

I not one for storming off, but anger just begets anger and as I say I’m only interested in how that stops , I’ve been on the verges of a couple of these marches , watched the footage from many sources and I’m seeing something very different from you 🤷‍♂️

So here you're only responding to my take that the protests are opposing the governments support for Israel. You think those of use who march for peace are either antagonistic or aggressive (maybe racist) or provide cover for a significant number of people who are. I disagree strongly on the first. There are those who are using the protests as a vessel to spread their hate. Hell, there were even those at the countryside alliance march. They exist on St George's Day. 

You've proven the point I'm making. 

Again in this thread I've laid out my beliefs for who I believe can take steps to de-escalate, how partners for peace can be created. And received no objections. But if you say "Hamas did x" and I respond "because Israel did y" then it's me that's the problem. And that's the side of me you want to appeal to. As the government want to appeal to the worst of the protesters. 

Every time somebody in this thread has accused me of being divisive and I've walked it back to laying out my beliefs they've stormed off or what you've done is attack (I use that word for a lack of intelligence being able to find a more suitable word so I apologise) the messengers again. The marches message is ceasefire. There are other messages in there. But the overwhelming point is ceasefire. An end to killing. If only the Government had that as their main message instead of "Self Defence".

I'm happy to keep discussing with you and there's no anger from my end. But if we keep going with this "Protesters good Vs Protesters bad" then 1) we will never agree and 2) they're not really the pressing issue and you said you're not willing to discuss your views until the killing stops?

Edited March 6 by Alph

[Archied]

2 hours ago, Alph said:

So here you're only responding to my take that the protests are opposing the governments support for Israel. You think those of use who march for peace are either antagonistic or aggressive (maybe racist) or provide cover for a significant number of people who are. I disagree strongly on the first. There are those who are using the protests as a vessel to spread their hate. Hell, there were even those at the countryside alliance march. They exist on St George's Day. 

You've proven the point I'm making. 

Again in this thread I've laid out my beliefs for who I believe can take steps to de-escalate, how partners for peace can be created. And received no objections. But if you say "Hamas did x" and I respond "because Israel did y" then it's me that's the problem. And that's the side of me you want to appeal to. As the government want to appeal to the worst of the protesters. 

Every time somebody in this thread has accused me of being divisive and I've walked it back to laying out my beliefs they've stormed off or what you've done is attack (I use that word for a lack of intelligence being able to find a more suitable word so I apologise) the messengers again. The marches message is ceasefire. There are other messages in there. But the overwhelming point is ceasefire. An end to killing. If only the Government had that as their main message instead of "Self Defence".

I'm happy to keep discussing with you and there's no anger from my end. But if we keep going with this "Protesters good Vs Protesters bad" then 1) we will never agree and 2) they're not really the pressing issue and you said you're not willing to discuss your views until the killing stops?

I’m not appealing to any side of you and I will neither storm off or attack you , what’s the point of that ?
of course there are many on the marches who ONLY call for peace , im not stupid and i commend that in those people as I feel exactly the same way but in my view there are very large numbers that are getting it wrong and sending the totally wrong message , after all what are / were flags about ,, they are / were waved and carried to show what side you are on or support, if people are on the side of peace then wave a flag or banner that clearly calls for that , not the flag of one side or the other involved in a conflict / cluster duck thousands of miles away ,,that’s my view 🤷🏻‍♂️

Edited March 6 by Archied

[Alph]

The Palestinian flags are waved by many to show support for the Palestinian people and a Palestinian State. As the Ukrainian flag is waved to show support for Ukrainian people. Not for Azov or the right wing nutcases. 

I don't know, I can't speak for every protester but I can speak for myself. 

And I still maintain that we are continuing to be critical of the messengers rather than the message. As is always the case when somebody is critical of Israel. Which is what Sunak and Co want. 

It's like calling for Ukraine and Russia to just stop shooting each other. One side can turn around and go home. One has no choice. It's not exactly the same. But you get my point. You're asking for people to stop picking sides but the sides aren't equal. 

I'm not even supporting the idea that they should be equal because if Palestine had the firepower to use on Israel then they would. Yet look at the box I'm placed in for being critical of Israel and demanding Palestinian rights. I'm antagonistic, partisan etc. Again, not offended. Just showing how those who claim to be balanced and neutral struggle with criticism of Israel. 

[Archied]

12 minutes ago, Alph said:

The Palestinian flags are waved by many to show support for the Palestinian people and a Palestinian State. As the Ukrainian flag is waved to show support for Ukrainian people. Not for Azov or the right wing nutcases. 

I don't know, I can't speak for every protester but I can speak for myself. 

And I still maintain that we are continuing to be critical of the messengers rather than the message. As is always the case when somebody is critical of Israel. Which is what Sunak and Co want. 

It's like calling for Ukraine and Russia to just stop shooting each other. One side can turn around and go home. One has no choice. It's not exactly the same. But you get my point. You're asking for people to stop picking sides but the sides aren't equal. 

I'm not even supporting the idea that they should be equal because if Palestine had the firepower to use on Israel then they would. Yet look at the box I'm placed in for being critical of Israel and demanding Palestinian rights. I'm antagonistic, partisan etc. Again, not offended. Just showing how those who claim to be balanced and neutral struggle with criticism of Israel. 

Who is it on here that you speak of who claim to be balanced and neutral yet struggle with criticism of Israel’s action s ? 

[Alph]

4 minutes ago, Archied said:

Who is it on here that you speak of who claim to be balanced and neutral yet struggle with criticism of Israel’s action s ? 

I mean I'm not naming names it's all in the thread. But we did get into this conversation after bcn said enough is enough when Hamas return hostages and stop voting a terrorist organisation to run their country. 

My response was to tell him that basically it's nothing like that simple or one sided. 

To which you said "Whilst I agree and understand your post I do question whether it does anything other than perpetuate division and a partisan feel ( I’m sure you don’t do this purposely)"... then applied that to the protests. 

I thought it interesting you pulled me up and have issue with the protests. I'd say the division is created by the governments position when the public opinion is to demand an immediate ceasefire.