I think that he will host him again, face to face, just like he did with Bassam Youssef. Finkelstein has decided to go on the offensive since 10/7 to reach the maximal amount of people he can and Morgan is giving him a big platform.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
I hope so. Or better yet, get Ben Shapiro on and let the two have an Oxford style debate.
Nah, Ben Shapiro doesn't deal with facts and Finkelstein is someone you'd rather interview alone.
As we finally see a cease-fire, has there actually been any sensible thoughts on what things look like after this offensive from Isreal? Obviously that was the large pushback from the US even before it began, but I still see no real potential outcomes here.
Even with the eventual (hopefully soon) breakup of the Netanyahu/far-right coalition, I still don't believe any near-term Isreali government would take 'negotiations' with Hamas seriously. So even after all this devastation and unnecessary loss, who will be in charge and representing Gaza this time next year?
Listened to a couple podcasts (https://www.jordanharbinger.com/mosab-hassan-yousef-the-green-prince-of-hamas-redux/) with Mosab Hassan Yousef and while he's probably too extreme for most, it is another interesting view of Hamas from the inside. Not sure if others have listened, or their takes. Regardless, he makes the point quite vociferously that Hamas will never, ever be a 'partner' with Israel regardless of conditions.
I still just get stuck as to how you remove Hamas and create a platform for a better, more benevolent leadership in Gaza, without massive military action.
Even with the eventual (hopefully soon) breakup of the Netanyahu/far-right coalition, I still don't believe any near-term Isreali government would take 'negotiations' with Hamas seriously. So even after all this devastation and unnecessary loss, who will be in charge and representing Gaza this time next year?
Listened to a couple podcasts (https://www.jordanharbinger.com/mosab-hassan-yousef-the-green-prince-of-hamas-redux/) with Mosab Hassan Yousef and while he's probably too extreme for most, it is another interesting view of Hamas from the inside. Not sure if others have listened, or their takes. Regardless, he makes the point quite vociferously that Hamas will never, ever be a 'partner' with Israel regardless of conditions.
I still just get stuck as to how you remove Hamas and create a platform for a better, more benevolent leadership in Gaza, without massive military action.
No chance Shapiro agrees to that. He's built his faux intellectual reputation on debating college kids, and on the rare occasion his views are put to proper scrutiny by a capable professional he crumbles. The interview he did with Andrew Neil where he hilariously accused him of all people of harbouring 'leftist sentiments' and then proceeding to storm off with his tail between his legs was testament to that.
It is not difficult to see in this case
Take the Russian invasion of Ukraine and compare it to the war in Gaza. The numbers are staggering in Gaza, the amount of destruction and the count of death in Gaza in proportion to Ukraine is unbelievable. Targeting whole families was very easy to prove. The numbers in Gaza equals 30m Ukrainian displaced, 300,000 dead, 100,000 children in only 1 month while in reality it has been 2 years war in Ukraine and the death count is 14000. It was not difficult to call out war crimes on Putin and an arrest have already been issued in his name based on the reports of NGOs like Amnesty. Going in circles around because Israel is a US ally is distortion of the truth.
Now Amnesty have already reported reports calling it damning evidens of war crimes, feel free to check their website. I have no doubt about what they did is crimes against humanity and a very good case for genocide intent.
I always find it quite peculiar how this conflict has invited disproportionate doubt and scrutiny of the claims of war crimes being committed (despite the overwhelming evidence), to the point we spend an excessive amount of time debating pedantic terminology, or rather diluting them as the usual horrors of war. Contrast that to the war in Ukraine where no such benefit is afforded for Putin's warcrimes, which are accepted as objective, open and shut cases.
This picture somehow shook me way more than I would've thought.
Last edited:
Yes, this was very embarrassing. You stay and defend your position, not walk out on it.
It's all good, mate.
Ok - well thank you for the feedback. I do try and follow the rules of the site. I hope you can see in my posting history that I'm not trying to get a reaction, but I can be condescending and sarcastic, so will try and cut that out.
I'll be honest, I never envisaged I'd join a Man Utd forum and spend this much time debating Palestine, but hey ho.
Finkelstein has always been abrasive. But he was a well-known academic until his career was derailed by Alan Dershowitz, who lobbied DePaul University to deny him tenure after they got into heavy arguing over Dershowitz's book The Case for Israel. It's an infamous case of "cancellation."
Welcome to the club, I'm pretty sure the bulk of my 30k+ posts are concentrated on this subforum
Agreed.
Some of them have been in prison for years and still are teenagers.
Yes but that was essentially the topic of the ENTIRE interview. Piers was clearly not going to let Finkelstein get onto a track where he could debunk Israel’s talking points which is his specialty.
He’s first and foremost an academic of the old-school variety - an absolutely meticulous and devastating fact-checker. Nobody better at chasing down footnotes to expose academic fraud which he’s done most famously to Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz. He’s also shown he’s an independent thinker on this issue. Firmly in the anti-Zionist camp, but unafraid to chart his own path. He’s paid the price in terms of his career (last time I checked a few years ago he was teaching in a random college in the middle of Turkey). He has his issues and is open to criticism, but he is intellectually honest, which is more than you can say for many engaged in this issue.
FFS. Children in prison for many years, not even convicted of anything.
Welcome to the club, I'm pretty sure the bulk of my 30k+ posts are concentrated on this subforum
Yea, it's a shame that his career suffered given he's probably the most forthright and scholarly person on the conflict - he really should be front and centre of most of these discussions on various networks. The fact that he's not given airtime show what agenda the media has (or more accurately, what narrative they want to portray), and secondly how they prefer the type of debate where people (from both sides) are shouting at each other. The scholars and academics should be brought forward, not media personalities.
Another FT article detailing the very specific warnings to Israeli intelligence before 7th October including about Hamas training to blow up border posts and take over Kibbutzim. (Unpaywalled article if that's allowed, if not please take it down).
It seems extraordinary that this, alongside other warnings, were so readily dismissed, but then again it adds up when the overall assessment from the Israeli perspective was that Hamas had been successfully deterred. That's exactly what makes this a conceptual failure, rather than a security or intelligence failure: Israel had become convinced of the view that a blockade coupled with previous devastating wars had effectively resulted in the Palestinians succumbing.
Again it shows the need for a whole new approach because after so many decades of non-peace surely it is obvious that Palestinians will not be defeated through occupation or war. And yet the strategy taken throughout this war indicates that not a single lesson has been learned. Without overwhelming international pressure from Israel's allies, future 'solutions' will always be more military might, a taller fence, and a more suffocating occupation in the pursuit of total Palestinian submission.
It seems extraordinary that this, alongside other warnings, were so readily dismissed, but then again it adds up when the overall assessment from the Israeli perspective was that Hamas had been successfully deterred. That's exactly what makes this a conceptual failure, rather than a security or intelligence failure: Israel had become convinced of the view that a blockade coupled with previous devastating wars had effectively resulted in the Palestinians succumbing.
Again it shows the need for a whole new approach because after so many decades of non-peace surely it is obvious that Palestinians will not be defeated through occupation or war. And yet the strategy taken throughout this war indicates that not a single lesson has been learned. Without overwhelming international pressure from Israel's allies, future 'solutions' will always be more military might, a taller fence, and a more suffocating occupation in the pursuit of total Palestinian submission.
All good. Like I said I'm glad you apologized to @That_Bloke so that's settled. It's good that you will try to moderate some of the outbursts. You will see that the debate will be more engaging and enlightening.
This thread has been an excellent source of information. I barely follow mainstream media thanks to that. I'd like to see this keep going. We can only achieve that by following guidelines, carefully picking reliable sources and respecting fellow users. Disagree the points and report when you think it crosses the line. Mods have been doing a great job in this thread and have dealt with bad faith actors accordingly. Let's keep it going.
The cynic in me believes the goal isn't complete subjugation, but rather forcing them out through suffocation and desperation. Its why it hasn't surprised me that certain voices from the Israeli side have called for neighbouring nations to take them in under 'humanitarian' guises. Its why I also believe the Israelis have no sincere intention to wipe out Hamas, a viewpoint bolstered by Netanyahu's own admission that its in his camps interest to bolster them. Since it allows Israel to prolong their casus belli against the Palestinian people, essentially quashing any plan for Palestinian statehood, and in their eyes hopefully kickstarting another Nakba, allowing their settlers to swallow up the abandoned land. This of course is happening in parallel to the events in the West Bank, where settlers under the indirect blessing of the government and Israeli security forces are essentially colonising patches of territory in a way thats uncannily cutting off Palestinian territories on a daily basis.
Obviously a flat out genocide is terrible optics for Israel, so stepping short of that and inflicting a carnage-filled campaign with the hope that ethnic cleansing serves as an alternative 'kindness' allows them to achieve their goals of homogenising the land without resorting to violently purging Palestinians with the eyes of the world watching. Its also why I believe its no coincidence they've caused the amount of structural damage they have, destroying huge blocks of homes, hospitals, educational institutions and essential civilian apparatus, deeming the region completely inhospitable for years to come.
Now the conspiracy theorists might indulge the idea that Israel knew such an attack was forthcoming and perhaps allowed it to play out to give them carte blanche to - and I quote Jordan Peterson - 'give em hell'. Personally I'm reluctant to entertain such theories, but its an interesting thought to ponder nonetheless considering the increasingly convincing evidence that these warnings were plentiful and timely, coupled to Israeli's sophisticated intelligence network who you'd feel would be privy to such plans well ahead of time.
Last edited:
I hope Biden and the Democrats eat shit in every election henceforth until he kicks the bucket and some sane voices emerge from that shitshow of a political system they have there. Unfortunately all this will be too late for the majority of the Palestinian population.
I don't think the outlook is particularly positive regardless of who's at the white house. A Sanders type character would be their best shot of seeing some form of balanced mediation, but its almost impossible for someone of that profile to be elected. Not when its considered political suicide to convey a semblance of sympathy or solidarity for Palestinian suffering within the US political system. Perhaps that might change in years to come with Gen Z being predominantly more sympathetic to the Palestinians, but like you say by then I fear it might have been too late.
The Israeli-Palestinian problem deciding the Presidential election in the US would be the height of insanity, though. Criticize Biden all day long for how he has handled it, but don't kid yourself into believing that it would be any different under a Republican president. They would just encourage Israel even more.
Biden and his administration has been handed a lose-lose situation with this, and it might end up costing the US and the world a lot of progress on many fronts, if it means another Trump term.
10/7 is a textbook example of "pride comes before the fall".
It partly explains why the military retaliation is so disproportionate, even by Israeli standards. Israel's reputation of invincibility that's been carefully crafted for decades has been utterly shattered in an instant. By as small group of inmates with limited means, operating from the most watched prison in the world. It has to be restored and a message to all the inmates has to be sent. Except it won't and all what Israel has managed is to create even more angry and desperate people while dragging their own image through the mud.
It would also never have been so "successful" if Netanyahu didn't send most of his army in the West Bank to protect and help the settlers do settler shit.
It never worked in the past and never will. History is full of cautionary tales and Israel is on the wrong side of it at the moment.
Last edited:
Kiss goodbye to any Ukraine assistance if Trump gets in. He's a significantly worse prospect as we all know.
Its no surprise that our Government has been very quiet about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Its a lose/lose discussion.
The way Piers leans (in this conflict) has been crystal clear from Day.1, which is his right… though I disagree with him. To me, good is good, bad is bad regardless of who does it.
But what I hate is he’s using this conflict for likes and ego… the guy‘s still got the Ronaldo interview pinned on his Twitter account. He‘s jumped on this conflict to try and stay relevant and look to be giving all sides an equal voice (*he hasn’t). I can picture him rubbing his hands with glee when this escalated.
He ignored the abuse he got in early/mid Oct because he’s an egotistical d**k and think he’s always right. Then when public opinion changed (or in reality, just got louder/more vocal), he tried to look balanced. He’s not, as his interviews and questioning shows.
He‘s a dinosaur, a spoiled child, a ghoul… basically a w***er.
Absolutely right and I’ve made this point to plenty of people (incl one on this site) before now. The pre-standing bias of most of the Western world is absolutely clear in these two conflicts - pro Israel, anti Russia, nothing to do with “right” - but good is good, bad is bad.. to me. But to be so hypocritical when we’re talking about mass murders, war crimes and (in my opinion) genocide is just abhorrent.
I hope every politician‘s comments and stance are remembered come election days… but the alternative may be worse because we live in a time of completely useless politicians, worst in my lifetime.
Grim times.
The bolded does not reflect the reality. Figures for areas which are under Russian control remain mostly uncounted. 25,000 civilians + may have died in Mariupol alone. The level of destruction Israel has unleashed in Gaza is horrific. That fact can be very adequately demonstrated without folk diminishing the level of destruction Russia has visited on Ukraine.
I think what we see is also something different. We see that the law of armed conflicts has not kept up with the evolution of war. It is not sufficiently equipped to deal with urban or cyber warfare for example. A lot of the law in this field goes back to 1907. This is also not the first time this has happened. The Geneva Convention was expanded after 1945 to include some form of civilian protection which was not in the law before. It is an unfortunate reality that international law often lags behind reality and has to be adapted ex post.
I agree, there is no objective benchmark. I am not sure there is any path to agree on one. The polarization is so huge and the topic is so sensitive, and so many actors, with different goals, feelings of injustice etc. Therefor any discussion will neccesarilly ends in clash what is the standard. I mean, there are for sure legal definitions. But as demonstrated in this thread in everyday use the same word can carry many different definitions.
Look, Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years by many different entities because of ethnicity. No other people suffered so much and at such intensity, culminated in soa. Therefore it is extremely sensitive to compare/accuse them of a such behavior. I hope there is no need to point out it is not exclusive. Any people should not be unjustifiably compare/accused of such actions.
Does it give them freepass/immunity to do whatever they want. Of course not. The same applies to Bosnian Muslims, Armenians, Ukrainians (Stalin or Putin) and so on.
But it also does not give anybody free pass to use label genocide/ethnic cleansing etc. just as they see fit. I mean, of course, free speech. But do not be suprised by the reaction in return (I dont mean you personally).
I fundamentally disagree with the precedent you pointed out. I don't want to say it is complicated, because nothing in the world politics is easy. But it is complex. I am not sure I would like to turn this into historical exercise. I will now say Israel was attacked by Arab countries. Israel was victim of attack and successfully defended itself. Arab countries were aggressors and their goal was to destroy Israel. And they lost. You will then mention Plan D, Deir Yassin, and so on. Then we will start to talk about refugees, where again are strong differences. I will start asking why all world refugees belong to UNHCR and Palestinians have special organization. I will ask if Jews have right to return to Gaza settlements, that were there for hundrets of years before 1948. I will ask if 3rd generation of Sudeten Germans descendants have right to return to the Czech cities, and if Czech Republic is obliged to give these territories back to Germany.
I don't want to cut off the debate like this, to usurp the right of the last word. I will gladly read your response (no sarcasm). But I don't want to get into long historical debates. At least not now. So I apologize in advance if I wont make any further comment to your reply.
Fair enough. I think we'll agree to disagree on this one, and perhaps hone in on other contemporary points in this thread.
You make a valid point.
The issue for me are how these laws, antiquated or otherwise are being interpreted and to what means, or rather the consistency of which they're being enforced. Its why I brought up the ongoing Ukraine conflict as a yard stick, since to most in the western world there is little to no ambiguity over the violations perpetrated by the Russians, nor is there any debate over the semantics of terminology used to validate these crimes. Accusations of targeting civilians, genocide and other classifications under the 'war crime' umbrella are aimed at the Russians with little to no scrutiny over their authenticity or validity. Contrast that to Israel, where you can use this thread as a microcosmic case study as to how its suddenly deemed paramount that we scrutinise these claims, despite the overwhelming consensus amongst various charitable, human rights and relief organisations that Israel are guilty of these same crimes.
Even if we were to refresh these conventions to apply to the modern realities of warfare, I don't think we'd succeed in establishing objective markers for the rules of war. Instead we'll still see them used selectively to condemn or absolve various factions based on geopolitical or personal agendas.
Israeli hostages being handed to the red cross right now in Khan Younis.
12 Thai nationals released so far.
That too. I’m assuming the Thai government negotiated those independently.
The Thais went through Iran and got it sorted quick enough.
People aren't arbitrarily claiming it, a ground swell of subject matter experts are stating it, and laymen are agreeing, based on the arguments being put forward by those experts.