On a timely note, here she is back with her family.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
On a timely note, here she is back with her family.
Excellent post.
I don’t know, and based on what you’ve posted about the case here I don’t think you know either.
The Corinthian said:
The first centred tweet makes no sense as a stand-alone without the context given in the previous one, which states that the explosion was caused by soldiers randomly shooting her car (which you have since conceded did not happen).
You also wrote “Whole thread is worth a read.”
Hypernormalisation
This is not exactly true and you can verify this by trying to edit Israa's page for yourself. If you look, the page has a padlock top right. This affords the page a degree of protection. You can look at the page's discussion history to see the apparently endless arguments, edits and reedits that have taken place.
You should cite your source if quoting it.
Here's the same news outlet describing the same incident back in 2018:
Palestine Chronicle said:
At first blush the source you are citing isn't particularly consistent in its reporting and seems primarily focussed on presenting Israelis in the most monstrous light possible.
Here's ADDAMEER (the Palestinian NGO providing Israa with a lawyer) describing the same event:
ADDAMEER said:
That sounds bad enough on its own.
Last edited:
Yes, it's grim but not surprising tbh.
You ever been shot in the head with a bullet?
Why don’t you read up on it? I have.
She suffered horrific injuries due to the car explosion. She was then denied the right medical aid. The other tweet highlights this. The whole thread is worth a read as it’s symptomatic of how Israelis treat Palestinians.
Let’s put your thoughts on that specific case to one side.
Do you think Palestinians are given fair trials in Israelis courts?
Do you think the reasons Israel gives (generally) to hold Palestinians indefinitely by Israel is fair and legal?
I have read up a bit on it, and based on what I’ve read I am not prepared to come to a firm conclusion about the details of the case, certainly not to the extent that I would be happy to confidently post about it in this thread.
The Corinthian said:
Given that the thread’s framing of the entire incident rests on what appears to be a lie, why would anyone with that knowledge bother taking the rest of it seriously or even bother reading it?
The Corinthian said:
Yes let’s put the disinformation you have (once again) posted to one side.
No to both. Hence why I am not prepared to accept the ruling of the Israeli court in this case at face value either.
So you think Norman F. is a holocaust denier? And that there's a live holocaust happening right now?
That vague example is called Pisgat Ze'ev stabbings. I prefer perpetrators of crimes to be dealt with in due legal process. Rather then this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...088742-8ba6-11ee-a36e-fdb7be9bd43d_story.html
You tell me. People go berserk about Douglas Murray but praising David Irving seems to be fine:
No, it is not.
And how do you prefer that Palestinian minors held under indefinite administrative detention are dealt with? How's that for due legal process?
That doesn't make him a holocaust denier. And we agree, no live holocaust happening right now.
EDIT: (took a while to find the website but here's a quote from Norman)
Source: Haunted House - Norman Finklestein
I don't know the context behind his endorsement of Irving, but Norman appears to be a complicated man so I don't know exactly what he's referring to, possibly that Irving had some good insight into WW2 from the Nazi perspective? Dunno. But I dont think he's denies that the holocaust happened.
Douglas Murray is a soundbite merchant and shouldn't be listened to. Especially after he shat his pants when Piers offered him to debate Norman.
Happy for people to have an opinion on Norman, as you clearly do but labelling someone a holocaust denier without concrete proof/more rational explanation is a bit silly, especially as he talks about his parents surviving the holocaust.
Last edited:
The problem with this kind of stuff is that there are countless examples of Israelis treating Palestinians in a truly awful way. Posting stuff tjwy turns out to be unverified and potentially a gray area only makes sole people less likely to believe the genuinely awful crap they pull on a regular basis.
I think it's probably having the opposite effect of what you intend it to.
The way those quotes are presented and cut up makes them sound worse than what he actually said.
"I would say that goes to using terms like antisemitic or antisemite. Tony Greenstein, I agree with him on actually quite a lot, but when he says like "if you call Jews killers of Christ you are an antisemite, if you engage in Holocaust denial you are an antisemite." I think Mr. Wadsworth said, if I understood him correctly, and I might be wrong here, he opposed the publication of David Irving's Diaries of Goebbels because Irving is a Hitler apologist.
I think all of that, the labels like antisemite... I don't know if Jews killed Christ or not, frankly I don't care all that much, it doesn't keep me up late at night or exercise me when I get up in the morning, but these are things that can be debated, disputed, and you can come to your own conclusions. Did the Jews do it or not? Well, Mel Gibson did his film The Passion of the Christ. He seemed to started off by blaming it on Jews on the temple, then he was forced to change the script. I don't see why he should be forced to change anything. Express your point of view, if somebody disagrees with it, let them disagree. I don't see why one has to get so excited about it.
In the case of David Irving, well, he was a very good historian, I don't care what Richard Evans said. He was a very good historial, he produced works which were substantive. I happen to have read his book on Goebbels, he had stolen the plates of the diaries and then wrote a book on it. I thought the book was frankly mediocre. But it certainly should have been published. There are 1000 mediocre books published each month. So if it falls in the category of mediocre, OK, not a big deal. I don't see why one would want to stop publication of it. If you don't like it, don't read it. In the case of Irving, he knew a thing or two. Actually, he knew a thing or two, or three. He is competent, so far as I can tell."
"I don't see the reason to get excited about Holocaust deniers. First of all, I don't know what it is. Some people say if you deny the centrality of 6 million Jews being killed and you bring in other groups of people, you become a Holocaust denier. Other people say if you deny the centrality of the gas chambers, you become a Holocaust denier. Then by that standard, Daniel Goldhagen, the author of Hitler's Willing Executioners, the best selling --, he's a Holocaust denier, because he said the core of the Holocaust did not happen in the gas chambers but in the killing fields. Then the fella who made the 12-hour film Shoah, Lanzmann, he started to accuse Goldhagen of being a Holocaust denier because Lanzmann focused on the gas chambers. And then the question of the numbers, like how many were killed... These are statistical, scholarly questions. Why can't we answer with a number and present our sources? Some African Americans will tell you 100 million Africans perished in the middle passage. I was very surprised when I read Robert Blackburn's history of slavery and he put the number at 1.2 million. I'm almost certain of that. Does that mean that Robin Blackburn is a slave trade denier? Or do we just go through the numbers, evaluate, assess, as any serious scholar does? I don't see the point of becoming hysterical over these issues. You patiently weight through the evidence, if you don't agree, you explain why. I don't believe in censoring these people, including I have to say, censoring the rapper Mr. Wiley. If you don't like it, get off of Twitter and maybe crack a book. That might be an exciting adventure for you.
I'm much more exercised by Mark Regev appearing so respectfully on British television justifying the murder, in the case of Operation Protective Edge, justifying the murder of 550 Palestinian children, justifying the destruction of 80,000 Palestinian homes. That really makes me very indignant, very angry, he has the right to do it, but it makes me angrier than what Mr. Wiley has to say about the Holocaust. In the same way, Kanye West says lunatic things every day. He said slavery couldn't have been so bad because slaves accepted it for 400 years. Then he said H-arriet Tubman didn't really free slaves because she ended up finding them jobs with other white employers. As if her responsibility was not just to get african americans out of slavery, but a responsibility to give them a lifetime pension. Rappers say stupid things, lunatic things, I think it's your problem to look from political wisdom from a rapper. In my stupid youth I looked for political wisdom from Jane Fonda and Vanessa Redgrave. That was dumb, I agree. But to get hysterical, get exercised, I don't see that at all. If you want to get exercised, get exercised for people who are apologizing in public for crimes that are being committed in real time. Not about what someone has to say about the Nazi holocaust, slavery, or the middle passage. Maybe it's dumb, but we can open our normal protocol of separating the truth from lies."
It absolutely does worth bearing the nature of the messenger as well as the message itself. I suspect you always take whatever statements from Hamas with a pinch of salt and understandably so, why so would you then offer more credibility for someone who has their own wider agenda, and one that's notoriously laden with bigoted, ill-researched sentiment?
Even if you ignore Murray's motivations, his rebuttal was also nonsense if you take it at face value. He accused Finkelstein of exploiting his family's experiences with the holocaust to justify his sentiments which is nonsense considering Finkelstein historically doesn't like using the holocaust card, and in this instance it was Piers Morgan who brought it into the conversation. Not to mention his complete and utter adherence to the Israeli side of events, which recent history has shown us is far beyond the realms of authentic or objective.
His whole segment was a joke, he was gratuitously given a 5 minute uninterrupted monologue by Piers Morgan for him to spout his nonsense, and when asked as to whether he would debate Finkelstein, he turned it down. You'd think someone confident with their convictions would jump at the opportunity to cross-examine someone like Finkelstein personally.
When I say the thread can not go lower, you surprise me with yet a mind boggling post. How are you still allowed to post here I can not comprehend.
Last edited:
Trump and The Republicans would be 10x worse.
Your posts here has been nothing but a disgrace and thought it is better to ignore your posts, but then said I will try one last time. What has your example anything to do with the primary discussions about hundreds of palestanian children in Israeli prison for throwing rocks at the fecking occupying military personal?
and this is before they tightened the sentence of throwing rocks.
Give your head a fecking wobble.
Last edited:
Thank you. My point exactly. A single shitty source devalues countless good ones this way. We have so many terrible atrocities happening right now, there is absolutely no need to use these shady and biased sources.
Dont let apartheid apologists fool you.
Absolutely and it angers me when I see people posting anything, absolutely anything to push their own agenda without realizing that it actually hurts the cause and makes an easy job for the other side to pick it apart and discredit them.
Stick to the facts, post something from a reputable source, preferably not from a dubious Twitter account.
Particularly a 2nd Trump term when he’s out for revenge
Palestinians have every right to resist the occupation of their territories and that includes armed resistance, that's not me saying it but the international law. Soldiers and military checkpoints or bases are legitimate targets but not civilians, under any circumstances. The same right to self-defense that's been hammered ad nauseam by well, everyone, can't be invoked by Israel because it's an occupying power.
Israel has been on the wrong side of History since 1967 (and that's letting the Nakba in 1948 slide) and no amount of mental gymnastics and/or victim blaming will ever change that.
Last edited:
Human Rights Watch’s conclusion
Not surprised at all and it's the most logical conclusion for me.
Some interesting back and forth here on the legal status of Palestinians being released in the hostage deal.
Maybe @Amir can corroborate the Hebrew article cited below.
Maybe @Amir can corroborate the Hebrew article cited below.
This. Everytime this.
Third hostage release is in the books...
Surely not 10x worse for the Palestinian people as that would mean a death toll of 140,000 or 2800 daily.
I don't know where each of these people is from or if they have an Israeli ID, but I have heard some are from Jerusalem.
While Israel does arrest people for long periods (by law) without trial - by claiming them to be a security risk - these people have indeed stood trial and were convicted.
Good to see you back in this thread. We need posters like you, more than ever.
Christ, horrendous…
Dont let apartheid apologists fool you.
I wonder whether the Irish Prime Minister will rejoice because some of these kids were "lost" and have now been "found", according to his logic.
Good news on the hostages front