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

berbatrick said:
Apart from what @marktan said, this one happened in my field:



And whatever you may think of people primarily blaming Israel for 10/7, I don't think that can be construed as a direct line to "pretty fecking antisemitic" - that's what got a whole lot of people fired. I believe many have been fired after saying "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."

A bunch more here: https://jewishcurrents.org/crisis-at-the-92nd-street-y
https://theintercept.com/2023/10/26/artforum-artists-gaza-ceasefire-martin-eisenberg/

The message is pretty clear - shut up - at least, never speak with your own name.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with anything here, although I can understand how communities might be fearful of that chant if it's reality was actualised following 7 Oct.

And I don't think blaming Israel for Oct 7 makes you antisemitic, what I think does evidence antisemitism however are the examples of where people have gone on to be fired from their jobs on the specific feed that was shared. I'm not saying there haven't been unjustified dismissals.
 
3:00 onwards.

These guys could never go back to a Hamas run Gaza after spilling the beans like this.

 
Raoul said:
3:00 onwards.

These guys could never go back to a Hamas run Gaza after spilling the beans like this.

Click to expand...


There will never be a Hamas run Gaza again… So he mightjust be fine if Israel releases him one day, but why would they if he was involved in the massacre of last month ?

But the credibility of these testimonies is inexistent… Only totalitarian regimes uses these stunts.

The israeli propaganda machine is sinking to ridiculous lows under this unbelievably incompetent far right government. We’ve seen Israel fabricate lies before (the first Qana massacre, Lebanon 96) but they used to be good and to work hard on it and make a convincing case...
 
Tibs said:
These settlers are fecking cnuts.

But, I'm so glad that we're finding out in our colleges/uni's/workplaces that who supports apartheid, racism, theft, and mass murder.
Click to expand...

Think that's one thing everyone here can agree on.

Second part not so much. Most people support the civilian populations of Israel or Palestine, hopefully both if you're a half decent person. Just because people try to understand why something is happening, or make sense of the madness doesn't mean they support it, just as I don't think anyone supports those who may turn to terror in revenge, they just understand why some take that path.
 
Beachryan said:
This thread is reasonably fascinating if nothing else. As time goes on, it is largely descending into virtue signaling imo. Who can out-hate Israel the most, with the most provocative Tweet, latest clip of a radical statement from someone Jewish and so forth. I mean, if that brings you joy, I guess who am I to judge.

The last two pages basically read: not only were Hamas justified on October 7th, if anything we should be shocked that Israel and the world are even that upset about it. If you just read certain posters' comments recently, you'd think that Hamas was doing the world a favour on October 7th, by bringing the much-deserved attention to the Gazan situation, as well as demonstrating that Israel is not all powerful. Well done Hamas, good job all around.

I guess I'm now in the minority, but all I see now are people self-satisfied and none contributing towards any kind of solution or longer-term strategy. October 7th was the f*ck you Israel deserved. And if that has single-handedly ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of Gazans, ensured there will now no longer be a two-state solution in our lifetimes well that's just too bad. And Israel's fault.

It's geuninely incredible to me. And some of these views were shared on October 7th and 8th, before Israel had done a single act of retribution.

I just find it agonisingly sad. Listening to the dehumanisation and appalling conditions of the Gazans. How both the west and the Arab world abandoned them to Israel's whims. How the far-right of Israel basically just sought to ignore them in their prison city, hoping the problem would just go away via death. Despite that, I have to believe the answer was never an attack like October 7th. Cutting off kids fingers and making the parents watch. Slowly pulling out eyeballs. Deliberately targeting and slowly killing kids at a music festival.

As per the book, violence is a language Israel understands. By all means, attack military targets. Hell, take hostages - that actually worked well for getting concessiosn in the past for Hamas.

If you honestly believe that indescriminately, deliberately and painfully murdering civilains is the answer to the Gazan question, then you can't be that upset about Israel's actions now imo. Because if you believe those acts have purpose, well then bombing an entire building to kill strategic targets is morally similar, if not superior. At least you can point towards the bombing of a building having a military goal. And if you're up in arms about the horrific things settlers have done to Palestinian citizens, well why are you laissez-faire about what Hamas did to Isreali civilians?

Anyway, I shall take my leave now, and hope that somewhere in the real corridors of power some smart people have ideas of how to move the situation forward. Because all I see is that October 7th made it far, far worse.
Click to expand...

There's a trend towards everything Israeli or those who support them, even those who don't condemn them are the enemy now. Likely due to the sense of hopelessness as you say.
 
JagUTD said:
Think that's one thing everyone here can agree on.

Second part not so much. Most people support the civilian populations of Israel or Palestine, hopefully both if you're a half decent person. Just because people try to understand why something is happening, or make sense of the madness doesn't mean they support it, just as I don't think anyone supports those who may turn to terror in revenge, they just understand why some take that path.
Click to expand...
Excellent post.
 
Sky1981 said:
Western free speech

It's only free if you're burning Qur'an or making jokes about religion
Click to expand...

I mean, that's kind of what it is. You can include other religious texts though as well as flags and the rest.

Equally you're absolutely free to disagree with it and even protest against it.
 
JagUTD said:
I mean, that's kind of what it is. You can include other religious texts though as well as flags and the rest.

Equally you're absolutely free to disagree with it and even protest against it.
Click to expand...

Except it's not, Try mocking the Tanakh. You'd be cancelled pretty fast and probably any event of burning the Tanakh live would be stopped under the anti semitism law.

Let's not pretend the west is a fair arbiter in all this, they're not.
 
Sky1981 said:
Except it's not, Try mocking the Tanakh. You'd be cancelled pretty fast and probably any event of burning the Tanakh live would be stopped under the anti semitism law.

Let's not pretend the west is a fair arbiter in all this, they're not.
Click to expand...

Of course you are correct. I was just stating the theory of free speech. We all know that in practice it doesn't work like that at all.

You're just as likely to be arrested and cancelled in the UK for burning the Qur'an though. Largely because it's often done to incite hatred.

Often though, those most vocal about something they value being desecrated are quite happy to desecrate something they don't value. Somewhat ironic tbh.
 
JagUTD said:
Of course you are correct. I was just stating the theory of free speech. We all know that in practice it doesn't work like that at all.

You're just as likely to be arrested and cancelled in the UK for burning the Qur'an though. Largely because it's often done to incite hatred.

Often though, those most vocal about something they value being desecrated are quite happy to desecrate something they don't value. Somewhat ironic tbh.
Click to expand...
Not much point engaging him because he will absolutely miss the point deliberately. He is always having snide comments about 'western freedom and democracy'.

Bet he would like to stay under Xi or maybe he already is.
 
Last edited:
The United said:
Not much point engaging him because he will absolutely miss the point deliberately. He is always having snide comments about 'western freedom and democracy'.

Bet he would like to stay under Xi or maybe he already is.
Click to expand...

I mean....he's Indonesian so he's neither under Xi, nor does he live under the west.
 
The Corinthian said:
What's antisemitic about pulling down posters on public property? I went on the twitter feed and 3 of the top 5 tweets are about posters being pulled down.
Click to expand...

I have to say....it's not anti semitic and you shouldn't lose your job over it but it's an incredibly cnuty thing to do.

The person doing it isn't a good person and I really wonder what exactly is going through their minds? And what they think they're doing?
 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...n-two-by-israel-huwara?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

‘We can’t even cross the city’: the Palestinian town split in two by Israel

Residents of Huwara, in the West Bank, cannot cross the main street without permission and must detour for miles to reach other neighbourhoods

While all eyes are on Gaza, let's not forget about the West Bank, where thankfully Palestinians are living high quality, dignified lives because of a lack of Hamas.

A particularly peaceful comment by a government minister:

Earlier this year, Smotrich went even further still, speaking at a financial conference. “I think the village of Huwara needs to be wiped out. I think the state of Israel should do it,” he said.
Click to expand...

Can't wait to be accused of virtue signalling or have someone patronisingly tell me that yes the USA should criticise this, while providing no reason why they don't and ignoring the fact that Israel continues to receive unconditional support.
 
africanspur said:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...n-two-by-israel-huwara?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

‘We can’t even cross the city’: the Palestinian town split in two by Israel

Residents of Huwara, in the West Bank, cannot cross the main street without permission and must detour for miles to reach other neighbourhoods

While all eyes are on Gaza, let's not forget about the West Bank, where thankfully Palestinians are living high quality, dignified lives because of a lack of Hamas.

A particularly peaceful comment by a government minister:



Can't wait to be accused of virtue signalling or have someone patronisingly tell me that yes the USA should criticise this, while providing no reason why they don't and ignoring the fact that Israel continues to receive unconditional support.
Click to expand...
Wow, justifying October 7th much?
 
africanspur said:
I have to say....it's not anti semitic and you shouldn't lose your job over it but it's an incredibly cnuty thing to do.

The person doing it isn't a good person and I really wonder what exactly is going through their minds? And what they think they're doing?
Click to expand...
That_Bloke said:
It's not antisemitic but a braindead and heartless thing to do.
Click to expand...
I agree with you both. Unnecessarily provocative yes, but it’s not antisemitic.
 
Halftrack said:
That's not an answer, that's just you waffling to avoid giving one.
Click to expand...
Not at all, it's me saying "it's complicated". Because it is. And it is me saying I am uncertain and doubtful and I am trying to work it out.

Israel CAN legally target hospitals, schools etc under certain specific circumstances. That is the horrific truth. I am prepared to accept that, say, if Hamas has a fcuking base under a hospital, then that can make the hospital a legitimate military target. (Some allege the Al Shifa hospital has exactly that, I dunno if that's true or not.). It's heart breaking, but that's what the law says. And I am prepared to accept that some, maybe even the majority, of Israel's response, could fall into that category if looked at soberly through a legal lens.

Now are ALL Israel's activities in line with international law at the moment? Again I don't know for sure but I suspect not. If not, those acts need to be identified, condemned and the perpetrators brought to justice.

But rather than actually try to work this nightmare out, and maybe think for yourself a bit, instead you can just simplemindedly rant about genocide instead. I guess that sure feels better.
 
nickm said:
Not at all, it's me saying "it's complicated". Because it is. And it is me saying I am uncertain and doubtful and I am trying to work it out.

Israel CAN legally target hospitals, schools etc under certain specific circumstances. That is the horrific truth. I am prepared to accept that, say, if Hamas has a fcuking base under a hospital, then that can make the hospital a legitimate military target. (Some allege the Al Shifa hospital has exactly that, I dunno if that's true or not.). It's heart breaking, but that's what the law says. And I am prepared to accept that some, maybe even the majority, of Israel's response, could fall into that category if looked at soberly through a legal lens.

Now are ALL Israel's activities in line with international law at the moment? Again I don't know for sure but I suspect not. If not, those acts need to be identified, condemned and the perpetrators brought to justice.

But rather than actually try to work this nightmare out, and maybe think for yourself a bit, instead you can just simplemindedly rant about genocide instead. I guess that sure feels better.
Click to expand...

There are lots of bad and dubious things you can accept "soberly through a legal lens."
 
Last edited:
nickm said:
Not at all, it's me saying "it's complicated". Because it is. And it is me saying I am uncertain and doubtful and I am trying to work it out.

Israel CAN legally target hospitals, schools etc under certain specific circumstances. That is the horrific truth. I am prepared to accept that, say, if Hamas has a fcuking base under a hospital, then that can make the hospital a legitimate military target. (Some allege the Al Shifa hospital has exactly that, I dunno if that's true or not.). It's heart breaking, but that's what the law says. And I am prepared to accept that some, maybe even the majority, of Israel's response, could fall into that category if looked at soberly through a legal lens.

Now are ALL Israel's activities in line with international law at the moment? Again I don't know for sure but I suspect not. If not, those acts need to be identified, condemned and the perpetrators brought to justice.

But rather than actually try to work this nightmare out, and maybe think for yourself a bit, instead you can just simplemindedly rant about genocide instead. I guess that sure feels better.
Click to expand...

Is the legal view more important than the moralistic view here?
 
Pintu said:
But the credibility of these testimonies is inexistent… Only totalitarian regimes uses these stunts.

The israeli propaganda machine is sinking to ridiculous lows under this unbelievably incompetent far right government. We’ve seen Israel fabricate lies before (the first Qana massacre, Lebanon 96) but they used to be good and to work hard on it and make a convincing case...
Click to expand...

New head of Hasbara:
_128162283_georgesantos.jpg
 
do.ob said:
Is there a singular moralistic view?
Click to expand...

No, but each person has their own moral view, which they can communicate.

In this case it does read like the poster doesn't want to communicate theirs, and is redirecting the conversation elsewhere.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
No, but each person has their own moral view, which they can communicate.

In this case it does read like the poster doesn't want to communicate theirs, and is redirecting the conversation elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I think like all states Israel has a right to defend itself, and horrible, horrible things happen in war. But there are rules for how wars are fought, so that within these horrible events, some moral distinctions can be made, and those distinctions matter.

I find the bombings horrible, the deaths terrible. Enough of that has been said in this thread, I have nothing to useful to add to it.
 
nickm said:
Not at all. I think like all states Israel has a right to defend itself, and horrible, horrible things happen in war. But there are rules for how wars are fought, so these distinctions matter.

I find the bombing horrible, the deaths terrible. Enough of that has been said in this thread, I have nothing to useful to add to it.
Click to expand...
In your view is Israel conducting its operation with the view to minimalise civilian casualties and the scale of human suffering?
 
do.ob said:
Is there a singular moralistic view?
Click to expand...

I'd really hope there's a baseline moral view that's shared at least when it comes to the safety of children. I completely understand and empathise that those closer to the situation may find there's challenged though.

It feels a bit distasteful and offensive for some to try and obfuscate the ongoing deaths of children behind legal frameworks. It's bad enough when politicians do it in their diplomatic role, I can't think of any good reason for individuals to pull out the Blair act.
 
Another day with videos of dead Palestinian civilians, grieving parents looking for their kids and family members and last but not least kids that has survived so far but are shaking with fear and look completely dead inside, yet there's still debate on whether Israel are in their right or if it should be a ceasefire or not. The situation is extremely damning for the whole geopolitical scene. I say whole, not just the West, because nothing is being done except for discussions and negotiations. It's not the first conflict where civilian casulties are being swept under the carpet for the sake of geopolitical stability, but has there been a more public one in the modern times that has been allowed to go one for as long as this one considering the number of casulties?
 
You can take this info with a massive grain of salt, but this is from an article by the Washington Post, published a few days ago:

"The Jabalya strike, because it was a planned attack, shows that Israel must have a tolerance for civilian casualties which is orders of magnitude greater than that that was used by, say, the U.S. Air Force in the war against ISIS", said Mark Lattimer, executive director of the Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights.

Another U.S. administration official told The Post the Israeli calculus about acceptable levels of civilian casualties was clearly different than that of the United States, but insisted there was a robust process in place to assess each strike. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about sensitive conversations.

The United States provides the Israeli army with military and intelligence support, and is therefore required by the Geneva Conventions to ensure that bombing raids in Gaza do not breach international law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/05/israel-strike-targets-gaza-civilians-hamas/
Click to expand...

This is why talking about legality only gets you so far.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
You can take this info with a massive grain of salt, but this is from an article by the Washington Post, published a few days ago:



This is why talking about legality only gets you so far.
Click to expand...
I think their level is 'who fecking cares?'.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
You can take this info with a massive grain of salt, but this is from an article by the Washington Post, published a few days ago:



This is why talking about legality only gets you so far.
Click to expand...
Its an interesting point to explore.

I suppose the difference is the US' involvement, particularly in Iraq during the ISIS campaign, was a sensitive one for the Iraqis. Frankly, they couldn't afford to be seen as being culpable for large numbers of civilian deaths, not after the Iraq war debacle. Not to mention they were fighting alongside the Iraqi Security forces, many of whom harbour bitter sentiments towards the US for the decades prior.

Contrast that to Israel where polling has shown that most Israelis believe that the cost of civilian casualties should not be factored in by the IDF. In other words, civilian deaths were seen as palatable by Israelis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.