Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

I don't understand? Was what intentional?

"During which people voiced their backing for Hamas" is a particularly jaundiced framing for what was in reality a march for the rights of Gazans and Palestinians in general. It's using specific instances (which may very well exist or might not) in order to undermine the general thrust. You see the same tactics used to undermine strikes.
 
Last edited:
So what happens if Hellbollah do go all in and attack israel? Can israel really hold the west bank, continue their ground offense in gaza and fight hezbollah without help?

If the americans start bombing hezbollah. then all bets are off on how wide and bad this could get.

That's why there are now two US carrier strike groups in the area.
 
"During which people voiced their backing for Hamas" is a particularly jaundiced framing for what was in reality a march for the rights of Gazans and Palestinians in general. It's using specific instances (which may very well exist or might not) in order to undermine the general thrust. You see the same tactics used to undermine strikes.

Oh I see. Seems like a statement of fact to me. She didn't say everyone backed Hamas. And Hamas is in any case the government of Gaza.
 
Meanwhile on this side of the pond...



What's the point of lying?


Wasn't there a foto of someone carrying a swastika printed on paper from one of the US demonstrations? And calls for extermination are pretty much par for the course. So I don't think it's unlikely that he's telling the truth, although on the other hand you could make the "a few bad apples" argument.
 
"During which people voiced their backing for Hamas" is a particularly jaundiced framing for what was in reality a march for the rights of Gazans and Palestinians in general. It's using specific instances (which may very well exist or might not) in order to undermine the general thrust. You see the same tactics used to undermine strikes.

Edward, member of Hamas terrorist cell in London: "Yeah we felt it was necessary to express public peaceful support for Hamas at the protest today"
 
"During which people voiced their backing for Hamas" is a particularly jaundiced framing for what was in reality a march for the rights of Gazans and Palestinians in general. It's using specific instances (which may very well exist or might not) in order to undermine the general thrust. You see the same tactics used to undermine strikes.
Dude I was at the march on Saturday. I didn’t manage to speak or see everyone in the mentioned 150,000 people, but there was no Hamas flag, no chanting for Hamas, no glorifying of terrorism etc. it’s just an incendiary comment to undermine the Palestinian cause that most mainstream media companies use.

A Reuters staff member was killed by Israelis the other day and it wasnt even reported accurately.
 
Oh I see. Seems like a statement of fact to me. She didn't say everyone backed Hamas. And Hamas is in any case the government of Gaza.

Sure, but all news organisations operate by setting the agenda and framing the debate. If she's framing the protests merely as events at which people express support for Hamas; or even if she's just leading with that, then she's not lying but she is omitting majority intention in order to frame the episode in a very particular way.

It is a very short clip though and may be introducing a very specific story. Wider BBC coverage of the protests may well be more even handed (I haven't watched).
 
Dude I was at the march on Saturday. I didn’t manage to speak or see everyone in the mentioned 150,000 people, but there was no Hamas flag, no chanting for Hamas, no glorifying of terrorism etc. it’s just an incendiary comment to undermine the Palestinian cause that most mainstream media companies use.

A Reuters staff member was killed by Israelis the other day and it wasnt even reported accurately.

I had a quick look through the BBC coverage of the protests on their website. I can’t find a single article that describes them as anything other than pro-Palestine. If they really are intent on fooling the world into thinking the protests were specifically supporting Hamas they’re doing a very bad job at it.

I don’t know why or how that newsreader said what she did. Although I’d be fairly certain what she said would have been completely inconsequential and immediately forgotten about if it hadn’t been clipped and amplified on Twitter, kicking off a load of arguments about whether there might actually be some sort of tacit support for Hamas at these protests.
 
I will amend

I'm just messing around don't mind me :D

Wasn't there a foto of someone carrying a swastika printed on paper from one of the US demonstrations? And calls for extermination are pretty much par for the course. So I don't think it's unlikely that he's telling the truth, although on the other hand you could make the "a few bad apples" argument.

1. Someone (literally one person) is not equivalent to an entire organization + some other people

2. Calls for extermination are not par for the course, unless you interpret "Free Palestine" and "End Apartheid" to mean the literal end of Israel

3. It is irresponsible for an elected mayor to try and discredit a peaceful protest in his city by trying to slur many of the participants

4. The moron who "carried" a swastika didn't even carry a swastika. He, like a bitch coward, found an image of a swastika on his phone and just dispassionately held it in front of him, for long enough to get the camera shot. If he had a big swastika flag, odds are that being in NY, he would have been stomped out right there and then by Palestine supporters wearing Timberland boots, if not for nothing else, for potentially derailing the entire protest
 
It is a very short clip though and may be introducing a very specific story. Wider BBC coverage of the protests may well be more even handed (I haven't watched).

Well yeah you'd have to know the context to judge its relevance. It's certainly true, although not the whole truth.
 
Which bit is certainly true?

That there were apparently some people on the demonstration who specifically supported Hamas. We saw the people with paraglider pictures. Jeremy Corbyn called Hamas his friends in the past.

But anybody chanting 'From the River to the Sea' is more loosely effectively allying themselves with Hamas' overall goal which is the destruction of Israel, rather than a more moderate 2-state solution. And that was being chanted a lot. You can't destroy Israel without killing lots of Israelis after all.

But that does not mean the majority on the march took that view. We can't know that either way,
 
1. Someone (literally one person) is not equivalent to an entire organization + some other people

2. Calls for extermination are not par for the course, unless you interpret "Free Palestine" and "End Apartheid" to mean the literal end of Israel

3. It is irresponsible for an elected mayor to try and discredit a peaceful protest in his city by trying to slur many of the participants

4. The moron who "carried" a swastika didn't even carry a swastika. He, like a bitch coward, found an image of a swastika on his phone and just dispassionately held it in front of him, for long enough to get the camera shot. If he had a big swastika flag, odds are that being in NY, he would have been stomped out right there and then by Palestine supporters wearing Timberland boots, if not for nothing else, for potentially derailing the entire protest

It was factually correct that a swastika was on display and I think that symbol and (support for) the holocaust go hand in hand.
I also wouldn't be surprised if some of the people, who supported the terror attack also chanted stuff that went into such a direction.
I'm also aware that he's a politician and has his own agendas, but that doesn't make it a lie.
 
It was factually correct that a swastika was on display and I think that symbol and (support for) the holocaust go hand in hand.
Not necessarily. When you are protesting against someone, you do stuff that will piss off the people you are protesting against. Protests in Kashmir against Indian army sometimes see Pakistani flags, not because they love Pakistan, but because it serves as a "feck you" to the Indian army.

Edit: Sorry I digress from the topic.
 
So what happens if Hellbollah do go all in and attack israel? Can israel really hold the west bank, continue their ground offense in gaza and fight hezbollah without help?

If the americans start bombing hezbollah. then all bets are off on how wide and bad this could get.
Israel has a top 10 army in the world, likely the best army in the Middle East (or at least the second best after Turkey) and by far the best Air Force in the Middle East (and maybe the second best overall after the US). They should be able to invade Gaza while fighting Hezbollah.

Just that it might be bloody for them considering that Gaza means urban warfare, while Hezbollah would fight a guerirà war. Both give significant advantage to the defenders.

Still, I think that if Hezbollah attacks in mass, Israel will occupy Southern Lebanon. Throw Syria in the combination, and Israel still wins. Of course, the more actors, the more damage to Israel, and consequently, the higher chance the US gets involved. And the more state getting involved means it becomes more unpredictable.
 
Israel has a top 10 army in the world, likely the best army in the Middle East (or at least the second best after Turkey) and by far the best Air Force in the Middle East (and maybe the second best overall after the US). They should be able to invade Gaza while fighting Hezbollah.

Just that it might be bloody for them considering that Gaza means urban warfare, while Hezbollah would fight a guerirà war. Both give significant advantage to the defenders.

Still, I think that if Hezbollah attacks in mass, Israel will occupy Southern Lebanon. Throw Syria in the combination, and Israel still wins. Of course, the more actors, the more damage to Israel, and consequently, the higher chance the US gets involved. And the more state getting involved means it becomes more unpredictable.

Also worth noting they just called up 360k troops in addition to those already on active duty. The fact that they have been going after Damascus for recent attacks into the Golan is pretty informative that they are capable of handling multiple fronts, particularly given the lessons learned from the 67 war.
 
Sooner modi and his party get kicked out the better for everyone.
It is a pipe dream. Hate and Nationalism works very good for getting votes. Especially religious hate. People would be poor and hungry and missing basic necessities. But tell them their religion is being attacked by someone, all hell breaks loose.
 
This is how the BBC is reporting the protest that I was at in London the other day:



@africanspur @Pogue Mahone tagging you because we previously had a discussion on the one-eyed ness of BBC’s reporting on this conflict.

There was no Hamas flag at the Palestine march on Saturday and no one I met was there in support of them.

They're walking it back now.
 
That there were apparently some people on the demonstration who specifically supported Hamas.
Which people? Do you have any evidence?
We saw the people with paraglider pictures.
Where? At the London protest? Or are you talking about the NYC BLM protest?
Jeremy Corbyn called Hamas his friends in the past.
This has nothing to do with the protest.
But anybody chanting 'From the River to the Sea' is more loosely effectively allying themselves with Hamas' overall goal which is the destruction of Israel, rather than a more moderate 2-state solution. And that was being chanted a lot. You can't destroy Israel without killing lots of Israelis after all.
Another lie it seems. The saying itself predates Hamas' creation, emerging in the 1960s.

But that does not mean the majority on the march took that view. We can't know that either way,
I was at the march - there was no Hamas flags, no pro-Hamas chanting, no glorifying terror. I know I didn't speak / see everything but it was a great show of solidarity for Palestine from all walks of life.