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

Why don't the Zionists just move to America? They love each other and would be welcomed.
 
Dirty Schwein said:
I hope not but many pro-Israeli think he's the second coming of Jesus. I've never seen a guy chat so much shit and be so revered at the same time.
Click to expand...
He's a fraud who's made a career out of debating college students, talks really fast (often spouting lies or at best - inaccurate 'facts') and galvanises the 'anti-woke' crowd with his signature 'facts don't care about your feelings' mic drop nonsense, often after spouting complete lies himself.

He's the right's/pro-Israeli crowd's idea of an 'intellectual', and he's not exactly joined by esteemed company (unless you consider the famous big brains like Bill Maher and Douglas Murray as such). So its no surprise they wheel him out as some kind of muse.
 


374 doctors and nurses have been murdered by Israel's targeted bombing.
 
the_cliff said:
Well most of them live in American/West and Israel. Israel is like their holiday home.
Click to expand...

Or a playground to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing because their home countries can't be involved directly in such practices anymore.

 




It is being reported that Alan Dershowitz is to lead the defence of Israel in court next week.
 
Giggsyking said:




It is being reported that Alan Dershowitz is to lead the defence of Israel in court next week.
Click to expand...

This guy?

Lawyer Alan Dershowitz: “One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein’s and well-known criminal defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida but also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.” (Attachment 9)

“Dershowitz came “pretty often” to Epstein’s Florida mansion and got massages while he was there” (Attachment 18, sworn testimony from Epstein’s housekeeper Juan Alessi)

“Dershowitz was present alone at the home of Epstein, without his family, in the presence of young girls” (Attachment 18, sworn testimony from Epstein’s housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez).
 
Palestinians to be 'in charge' of Gaza after war ends, says Israeli defence minister
Israel’s defence minister, Yoav Gallant, has said that there will be no Israeli civilian presence in Gaza and Palestinian bodies will be “in charge” of the territory after the war ends.

In a statement by his office, reported by Reuters, Gallant said Hamas would no longer control Gaza and Israel would reserve its operational freedom of action. He was quoted as saying:

"Gaza residents are Palestinian, therefore Palestinian bodies will be in charge, with the condition that there will be no hostile actions or threats against the State of Israel.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...etary-visit-saleh-al-arouri-death#pinned-post
 
That latest Dershowitz rant - calling 'radical feminists' hypocrites for bringing to light his kiddy fiddling ways because they refuse to condemn Hamas. Genuinely thought it was an Onion piece at first, had to do a double take.
 
"The Road to The Hague Is Paved With Israeli Calls for Genocide of Gazans"

 
Bosnian_fan said:
It's like Israel is doing its best to sway even the neutrals who don't perceive Gaza genocide as "their war" to take sides. I mean, who would side with paedophile?
Click to expand...

Maybe those who side with genocidal supremacist soulless evil child murderers and their brainwashed entourage?
 
Frosty said:
I was taught by him, strangely enough.

He also declared in 2003 that the invasion of Iraq was lawfully justified by prior Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq.
Click to expand...

That must be surreal. How was he as a professor?
 
jadaba said:
That must be surreal. How was he as a professor?
Click to expand...
As with many male academics of his age, very reserved and almost impossible to book a meeting with. He never gave any of his politics away, but is a very doctrinal lawyer and fairly conservative with his approach to international law.
 
There Was an Iron Wall in Gaza
BYSETH ACKERMAN
Addicted to territorial aggrandizement and encircled by enemies of its own making, Israel has freed itself of all moral constraints.

https://jacobin.com/2024/01/iron-wall-gaza-israel-defense-forces-realpolitik-palestine-history

Israel, in other words, is grimly marching Morgenthau’s argument to its logical conclusion — proving, before the eyes of the world, that the final and most fundamental alternative to Realpolitik is genocide.

...

The goal, as an adviser to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert put it, was “to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.” Thus, on the one hand, the productive economy was comprehensively wiped out by denying it materials, fuel, and machinery. But on the other hand, Israel would try to estimate how many truckloads of food deliveries per day it would need to approve in order for the minimum caloric requirements of Gaza’s population to be met without producing famine conditions.

The phrase that Israel’s closure administrators used among themselves to summarize their objective was, “No prosperity, no development, no humanitarian crisis.” By October 7, this policy had been in place for sixteen years and a majority of Gaza’s population could not remember a time before it.
...

Whatever one thinks of the morality — or the sincerity — of Jabotinsky’s strategy in “The Iron Wall,” as Realpolitik it made eminent sense. It started from a realistic appraisal of the problem: that the Palestinians could not be expected to give up the fight to preserve their homeland. It proposed a program of focused coercive violence to frustrate their resistance. And it held out a set of assurances safeguarding key Palestinian interests in the context of an overall settlement in which the main Zionist objective would be achieved.

Whether this Bismarckian program could have “worked” (from the Zionist perspective) will never be known, however. For in the years that followed, a very different sort of scenario gained prominence in the thinking of the Zionist leadership.

This was what was known as “transfer”: a euphemism meaning the “voluntary” or involuntary physical removal of the Palestinian population from the “Land of Israel.”

In 1923, when he wrote “The Iron Wall,” Jabotinsky was firmly opposed to transfer. “I consider it utterly impossible to eject the Arabs from Palestine,” he wrote. “There will always be two nations in Palestine.” He maintained this stance quite adamantly until the final years of his life, holding firm even as support for the concept steadily spread through both the mainstream Zionist left and among his own increasingly radicalized right-wing followers.

...

With the brute physics of military compulsion now forcing the Arabs to rethink their long-held attitude toward the Jewish state, Israel had a unique opportunity to finally pursue the Bismarckian type of settlement that Jabotinsky had advocated fifty years earlier (albeit in a very different context).

But for reasons originating both in the traumas of Jewish history and the political circumstances of the post-1967 world, Israel was unable to do it. Since the war, its political culture — on both the Left and the Right, among the secular as well as the religious — had become suffused with a messianic belief in the imperative of Jewish territorial expansion and the illegitimacy of territorial compromise. Israelis clung to a concept of “absolute security” (in Kissinger’s sense) that over the years would drive them into a series of military disasters, most notably the 1982 “incursion” into Lebanon, which was supposed to last a few weeks but ended up dragging on for almost two decades. And a grossly distorted mental image of Israel’s Arab neighbors was cultivated in the nation’s collective psyche, based on the self-fulfilling prophecy of eternal enmity driven by a timeless hatred of Jews.
...

Israel acted quickly to foil Arafat’s strategy. In 1975, it extracted from Secretary of State Henry Kissinger a signed memorandum of agreement in which Kissinger pledged that the US would not “negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organization so long as the Palestine Liberation Organization does not recognize Israel’s right to exist.” By making PLO recognition of Israel a precondition for dialogue with the US, the agreement ruled out any scenario in which recognition might be granted in exchange for US commitments.

Kissinger had no qualms about signing away his ability to talk to the PLO. He was convinced that nothing could come of such talks — not because the Palestinians were rejectionists, but because the Israelis were. “Once [the PLO] are in the peace process,” he told a meeting of US Middle East ambassadors in June 1976, “they’ll raise all the issues the Israelis can’t handle” — the issues of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

According to Kissinger, anyone foolish enough to think a US administration could use its leverage to force Israel to concede on those issues “totally underestimates what it involves in taking on the [Israel] lobby. They never hit you on the issue; you have to fight ten other issues—your credibility, everything.” In short, “We cannot deliver the minimum demands of the PLO, so why talk to them?”


Top US officials were forced to ritually repeat this fiction — that the PLO was bent on Israel’s destruction — even though they knew first-hand that it wasn’t true. “We have to consider what the parties’ position is” Jimmy Carter’s secretary of state, Edmund Muskie, said in June 1980, defending the US’s increasingly isolated stance opposing PLO involvement in peace talks, “and the PLO’s position is that it is not interested in a negotiated settlement with Israel. It is interested only in Israel’s extinction.”

Meanwhile, privately the CIA was telling the State Department that, far from refusing to recognize Israel, the PLO was internally debating what to demand in exchange for recognition: “Despite efforts by Fatah moderates [such as Arafat] to convince the rest of the [PLO] leadership that a dialogue with the US entails sufficient long range benefits to justify [recognizing Israel], the PLO leadership remains largely convinced that it must demand more than just talks with the US before giving up what it considers to be its only major ‘card’ in the negotiating process.”


Finally, in 1988, Arafat caved. In exile in Tunisia following the PLO’s bloody expulsion from Lebanon, he pushed the Palestinian National Council (PNC) for a unilateral recognition of Israel with no assurance that any movement toward a Palestinian state would be forthcoming. In his memoirs, then–Secretary of State George Shultz gleefully summed up the episode this way: “Arafat finally said ‘Uncle.'”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:


We haven't seen this level of journalism before. There were times that you can do this, but subtle and unseen. Now it's out loud and with no guilt in talking like that. It's disgusting.
 
Giggsyking said:


We haven't seen this level of journalism before. There were times that you can do this, but subtle and unseen. Now it's out loud and with no guilt in talking like that. It's disgusting.
Click to expand...

Unbelievable but unsurprising. That "journalist" is consistently wrong with her takes. Barghouthi did well to keep his cool. I don't think he should waste his time with this type of programs where the agenda is clear.
 
GDE3XpFWIAAdkbP
 
Giggsyking said:


We haven't seen this level of journalism before. There were times that you can do this, but subtle and unseen. Now it's out loud and with no guilt in talking like that. It's disgusting.
Click to expand...

The lack of respect of the Westerner to Easterner on display. This is far beyond just this specific conflict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.