Doubt it. Why would Iran want a conflict? Distraction from domestic events?
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
According to a press report the permit was denied, because the person, who petitioned for it is known to attract antisemitic and violent people. To what extend that's actually true I can't say. But it's also worth keeping in mind that people aren't always truthful with their intentions when they petition for a demonstration. For example someone got a petition for a vigil with 50 people granted and then more than a thousand people showed up and turned it into something else.
Germany is also a federal republic, meaning Berlin's authorities aren't following a state-line on protests, but get to follow their own assessment.
The support for Israel from the AfD and from the German government come from two entirely different directions, so I don't see what bearing it has. I think for the AfD it's more about who Israel oppose than Israel itself. For the government it's the other way around, they have made a commitment to protect Israel's security as a state. And on an diplomatic level I don't see a huge difference compared to other major Western countries. "Israel has the right to defend itself, but has to do so within the limits of international law" is the line pretty much every state seems to follow.
The biggest difference seems to be on the domestic level, as Germany has defined statements that deny Israel's right to exist as hate speech and is very sensitive towards antisemitism. And that's where the trouble with demonstrations lies, because a lot of people seem to find it awfully hard to speak out for Palestinian civilians without either supporting Hamas or denying Israel's right to exist. Because every rejection of a demonstration can be challenged in court and there the authorities have to demonstrate that they have good reasons to expect violence or other criminal outcomes, if it was just political censorship it wouldn't hold up.
It is said that history always repeats itself. The Iranian regime will try to do something reckless for that purpose, exactly like the Argentine military junta did before they faced the full brunt of the British Armed Forces over the Falklands.
Trudeau not ready to accept U.S. finding that Palestinian outfit was behind Gaza hospital blast
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-hospital-blast-gaza-1.7001656
Well the CAF has been quoted before by journalists but yeah I hope not
Let's just call a spade a spade - Biden is firstly fecking old, and I genuinely doubt all the lights are on up there. And secondly, he's as pro-Israeli as can be, so we should take whatever he 'confirms' with a healthy dose of salt. The White House has already had to walk back on 'what he saw'.
Harari’s writing for the conflict have been spot on. If Israel was lead by people like him, this conflict would have ended a long time ago.
Iran and the US have been going at it through proxies for 17 years in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Iranian support for Hamas and Hezbollah, their support of drones to Russia for use against Ukraine, the US assassination of Suleimani etc. The Houthis just shot at a US ship in the past few days - so it would appear conflict with Iran will happen at some point.
B'Tselem on settlers exploiting the war in the West Bank:
Under cover of Gaza war, settlers working to fulfil state goal of Judaizing Area C | B'Tselem (btselem.org)
Under cover of Gaza war, settlers working to fulfil state goal of Judaizing Area C | B'Tselem (btselem.org)
You're asking the right (or inconvenient for Israeli apologists) question.
People often imagine how things would be different if factions like Hamas didn't exist, but the fact is you needn't imagine - just look at the West Bank for your answer. No Hamas or militants there, yet Palestinian children are still murdered, Palestinians are subjected to apartheid, with literal fences being built around their homes and communities, being told where they can and can't walk, where they can or can't open businesses, all while the Israelis build illegal settlements, with violent settlers (backed by the IDF) uprooting Palestinians from homes they've lived in for generations. Not an iota of condemnation there - diplomatically? The US vetoes every UNSC resolution condemning the settlements and as always its become taboo within political circles to condemn Israel.
Israel and its apologists would desperately have you believe this all started with these Hamas attacks and they're acting merely out of self defence to retaliate against an unprovoked attack, but all you need to do is look at the West Bank to immediately rubbish all of that. The only logical conclusion I can devise is the end game goal is to swallow up as much land as possible in the West Bank (with the West's blessing), until the Palestinians can't scrape two acres together to call a nation. Conveniently the remaining Palestinians are all being boarded up in the world's largest open air prison called Gaza.
Last edited:
On this topic, Israeli occupation of Gaza and a
Israeli apartheid in the West Bank/Israel proper, it's become very easy for pro-Israeli folks to obfuscate core systemic drivers of recent events by engaging in serious discussion of the minutiae surrounding the event, while ignoring said underlying drivers, which if solved, resolve vast majority of the minutiae.
Take October 7. The wide rhetoric from people in power and influence deliberately disposed with any questions of "how did we get here and how can we end this once and for all", preferring to simply stand with Israel and ignore subsequent war crimes committed by Israel. Look at the baby murdered conversation. Collective decades were spent on the inhumanity and barbarism of the alleged beheadings. There's only one side going, "hey hey, that's horrible. Let's figure out how we got to this point, and what can solve it". And the other side is going "la la la beheadings la la la"
And because history does repeat, it's very easy to find similar examples, where there are the oppressed resisting against the oppressor, a very go to tactic is to ignore the underlying issues and focus on the minor nonsense.
Not to say that the oppressed are perfect. But again, another tactic: insisting that they be perfect before a political solution is found. That violence (towards the oppressor, not the oppressed) be renounced on their end. Any slip up is further excuse by supporters of the oppressors to either ignore the underlying issues more, or loudly support the right of the oppressors to maintain "law and order"
The alternative is actively saying, "I don't give a feck about oppression/discrimination/apartheid... I stand with the oppressors openly" but if you're bitch made you can't say that out loud so you just keep quiet and play devil's advocate on behalf of Israel or so on.
That's my takeaway from seeing so many politicians, important/famous people, and regular joes (on NYTimes comment sections and the CAF) dance around the main issue, habitually.
Israeli apartheid in the West Bank/Israel proper, it's become very easy for pro-Israeli folks to obfuscate core systemic drivers of recent events by engaging in serious discussion of the minutiae surrounding the event, while ignoring said underlying drivers, which if solved, resolve vast majority of the minutiae.
Take October 7. The wide rhetoric from people in power and influence deliberately disposed with any questions of "how did we get here and how can we end this once and for all", preferring to simply stand with Israel and ignore subsequent war crimes committed by Israel. Look at the baby murdered conversation. Collective decades were spent on the inhumanity and barbarism of the alleged beheadings. There's only one side going, "hey hey, that's horrible. Let's figure out how we got to this point, and what can solve it". And the other side is going "la la la beheadings la la la"
And because history does repeat, it's very easy to find similar examples, where there are the oppressed resisting against the oppressor, a very go to tactic is to ignore the underlying issues and focus on the minor nonsense.
Civil rights movement in America: ignore decades of systemic Jim Crow and de facto segregation. Spend a disproportionate amount of time bemoaning riots and "non-optimal ways to get "peace""
Apartheid in South Africa: ignore wretched conditions of majority Africans. Disproportionately focus on necklacings and corrupt township administrators as the reason an Apartheid country can't get along and prosper
Algeria War of Independence: ignore second class citizenship of Algerians. Call FLN barbaric terrorists, disproportionately focus on their neck cutting. Justify the use of torture (and export this to Israel/South America by the way)
Vietnam, Ireland... one can go on.
Apartheid in South Africa: ignore wretched conditions of majority Africans. Disproportionately focus on necklacings and corrupt township administrators as the reason an Apartheid country can't get along and prosper
Algeria War of Independence: ignore second class citizenship of Algerians. Call FLN barbaric terrorists, disproportionately focus on their neck cutting. Justify the use of torture (and export this to Israel/South America by the way)
Vietnam, Ireland... one can go on.
Not to say that the oppressed are perfect. But again, another tactic: insisting that they be perfect before a political solution is found. That violence (towards the oppressor, not the oppressed) be renounced on their end. Any slip up is further excuse by supporters of the oppressors to either ignore the underlying issues more, or loudly support the right of the oppressors to maintain "law and order"
The alternative is actively saying, "I don't give a feck about oppression/discrimination/apartheid... I stand with the oppressors openly" but if you're bitch made you can't say that out loud so you just keep quiet and play devil's advocate on behalf of Israel or so on.
That's my takeaway from seeing so many politicians, important/famous people, and regular joes (on NYTimes comment sections and the CAF) dance around the main issue, habitually.
Last edited:
Biden about to address the nation from the oval offfice. Wondering if the Israelis are going to start the ground war after he’s finished.
This address aint great
Saw a tweet with this quote about what is a secondary aim, and that "cemetery" bit, from one of those mysterious twitter aggregators. Google showed it, but it seems the url/article has changed. Took a screenshot of the result with the original quote:
He looks like he’s taking an eye test
Did Obama read off teleprompter?
Pretty sure they all did. Obama and Reagan were better than most.
Obama is one of the more gifted speakers I've ever seen, wouldn't surprise me if he could just go for it sans teleprompt. Really hard to connect with Biden on any sort of level here.
Combining his age with the massive jetlag also ain't gonna help either.
So, 2 days ago, Hamas said (to NBC) that they would release non-military hostages if bombing ceased for an hour. Does anyone know if Israel has responded? There is a report from about 5 days ago, saying they will not talk, but nothing more recent than that.
Also, does anyone know if Hamas followed through on the threat to kill hostages while the bombing continues? Couldn't find anything, but it could be censored for sensitivity/to keep morale...
Also, does anyone know if Hamas followed through on the threat to kill hostages while the bombing continues? Couldn't find anything, but it could be censored for sensitivity/to keep morale...
Last edited:
Wonderful - WW3 is on the cards then.
We're already fighting Russia, add Iran, China and NK to the mix and let the good times roll.
Clinton would ad lib ten minutes of some speeches when the teleprompter was loaded incorrectly.
Not the speech I watched. One may disagree with his reasoning but why post idiotic tweets like that with no resemblemce of reality?
Fox praising yet another Biden speech. We are truly through the looking glass.
Not the speech I watched. One may disagree with his reasoning but why post idiotic tweets like that with no resemblemce of reality?
Yeah it’s nonsense. Everyone knew going in he was planning on asking Congress for a 100b package for both Ukraine and Israel to fight terror and tyranny.
Last edited:
Biden may have good (or at least reasonable) intentions. I believe he does. But the effect is he is doing 2 very different things. He is giving Ukraine well needed money to defended itself against a tyrannical superpower…
On the other hand he is giving Netanyahu money with a green light to do almost whatever he wants, which is precisely what the tweet says and which is very similar to what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
(I don’t believe “defeating Hamas” require unlimited money… I believe it require a smart war + politics strategy. And this Israeli government is not interested in working a political solution)
There are many correct answers to this but I would say the biggest reason is the strategic value of having a guaranteed ally in the Middle East.
Israel isn't going to turn against the US or UK. Without their support it would be very vulnerable so the relationship is beneficial to all parties.
The US has always given Israel money so this would be nothing new, especially for replenishing the Iron Dome defenses. The Ukraine aid is necessary for obvious reasons and is one of the best investments the US has ever made. But that's for another CE thread.
I’m certain he doesn’t. If only you gave time to learn from actually good information, you might know more too.
here, I posted a source. Predictably no traction as it’s too clinical, boring, and doesn’t make wild claims. https://www.justsecurity.org/89489/expert-guidance-law-of-armed-conflict-in-the-israel-hamas-war/
And @moses tbis is what I mean. People just want to consume grief to backup their views. I’ve posted several excellent sources which nobody bothers to read or comment on, because they don’t give the sort of traction to juvenile consumption that people expect.
Was trying to find the context for these numbers...
In Cast Lead, when the death ratio was ~100:1, US public support for Israel's military actions was 63%.
In 2014, when the death ratio was ~30:1, US public support was 57%.
This time, so far, the ratio is ~3:1, and with a far, far larger initial attack by Hamas. So I wonder if this poll is an outlier or there has been a shift.
(numbers for previous wars from here: https://www.jta.org/2014/07/23/unit...ent-of-americans-back-israel-in-gaza-conflict)
To paraphrase Ann selzer (a particularly good pollster and statistics wizard), the magic is in the framing of the question; where slight deviations can bring big changes.
I think the most interesting statistic there is that only 57% would send aid to the Palestinians, whereas 76% would send to isreal, when Palestinians clearly need it more.
it speaks to a lack of engagement in the topic by cbs viewers (probably), as well as a good 20% likely being very isolationist.
is cbs a dem or gop channel in viewership, and how radical does it lean?
The whole general vibe of demanding support/statements/solidarity from all sorts of governments, sporting bodies etc. has seemed really weird to me
I've always felt the Iranian government lacks the support of the Iranian public, so committing their armed forces to a direct battle with the US would leave them wide open to revolt and being overthrown.
CBS is pretty centrist overall with a slight left bias I would say, certainly not a Dem or GOP station, it's not a cable news channel like Fox or CNN, more akin to ITV, BBC or Channel 4 news, and it's audience is much bigger than any cable show, you can say pretty much the same about NBC and ABC news as well
Edit: Should also add that hese national channels are actually local affilliates, they carry national news but also have local news and are owned by a lot of different groups
I think many, many Americans do not want to help Muslims/terrorists, it is among the least surprising things in that poll.
That's true. Sooner or later the US will have to deal with Iran, just like the Israelis are with Hamas, as the Iranians have a growing list of proxies in the region, which is itself odd for a regime that's struggling to remain afloat.