Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition

[AlexL]

6 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

Israel is an ethno-supremacist genocidal apartheid regime formed by Zionist terrorist groups in the '40s. To call it "mostly free" is a blatant falsehood... Israel is complete and utter garbage by any rational metric, barely a step above a totalitarian state.

🤣🤣🤣

I suppose you can justify each of your claims with - sourced - facts; otherwise, you wouldn't be expressing them on this forum, would you?

Then please do.

Edited May 8 by AlexL

[SpookyKitty]

9 hours ago, EC said:

You are evil if this is what you think. Don't speak to me again. I don't interact with the explicitly evil who support terrorism, murder, rape, racism of aggressors in an unprovoked attack. And I mean it don't *ever* respond to me ever again.

So you don't interact with Zionists?

[SpookyKitty]

3 hours ago, AlexL said:

🤣🤣🤣

I suppose you can justify each of your claims with - sourced - facts; otherwise, you wouldn't be expressing them on this forum, would you?

Then please do.

Yes. But since it's too much of a pain to educate you for free and I'm not in a charitable mood, I will give you one:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/5141/2022/en/

Quote

The comprehensive report, Israel’s Apartheid against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime against Humanity, sets out how massive seizures of Palestinian land and property, unlawful killings, forcible transfer, drastic movement restrictions, and the denial of nationality and citizenship to Palestinians are all components of a system which amounts to apartheid under international law. This system is maintained by violations which Amnesty International found to constitute apartheid as a crime against humanity, as defined in the Rome Statute and Apartheid Convention.

 

[EC]

So a modern day promoter of modern Nazism and terrorists in SK is going to be allowed to post here?

[whYNOT]

There is no replying to the grievously unthinking and under-informed (through historical revisionism and indoctrination).

The purportedly nasty name and concept "Zionism" actually long-predated "Palestine" and "Palestinian".

There were not any countries existing: no Jordan, Lebanon, Syria - nor Palestine (...and Israel...) until the British and French made them up post- WW1 from the vast, defeated, extinct Ottoman empire. More or less successfully according to their indigenous existent 'tribes'; so the Brits believed this mostly empty, underdeveloped, and poor territory was as good a place as any to put the Jews - coming out of an increasingly hostile to Jews, Europe. (Much like now).

If Israel was once a "colony" created by an empire, then so were all the other M.E. nations.

Since it was Romans who pinned the name on those lands "Palaestina" - derived from biblical-era "Philistine". Where there were mostly Jews living until their expulsion by Rome. "Muslim-Arabs" of course were non-existent.

Much later: The Brits picked up the name and called 'from the [Jordan] river) to the sea', "Palestine" (to hence be subdivided, for Arabs and Jews).

I could make the revisionist case that modern Jews of Israel are or at least descend from the original "Palestinians".   

Edited May 8 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

3 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

it's too much of a pain to educate you for free and I'm not in a charitable mood

😁

Don't be insolent: it is not about "educating" me, but about justifying your claims. This is your moral obligation in a rational debate,  especially on this forum.

[SpookyKitty]

4 minutes ago, AlexL said:

😁

Don't be insolent: it is not about "educating" me, but about justifying your claims. This is your moral obligation in a rational debate,  especially on this forum.

Moral obligation? 😆 Pay me. I've already given you one for free and you haven't even addressed that.

[AlexL]

On 1/15/2024 at 3:29 AM, Grames said:

Someday, in a month or so, I'll make a thread about religion and title it "Critical Semite Theory".  Then we'll find out some things.

After 4 months I am still waiting... 

[AlexL]

1 hour ago, SpookyKitty said:

I've already given you one [fact justifying the claims] for free and you haven't even addressed that.

You mean the 2022 Amnesty International report?

Yes, you are correct, I did not address this and I regret it. I focused on your denial of the principle/rule that, in a rational debate one has the obligation to justify one's claims, if asked. I looked back on your older comments in this thread and I found out that now is not the first time that you deny the legitimacy of this rule.

OK, now about your argumentation with this report. 

I asked you to provide facts justifying your claims/conclusions. But instead of facts, you pointed me to a source claiming those same conclusions.

Yes, I guess that that 280 pages report does list some facts in support of its conclusion, but the problem is : if I disagree with the truth o those facts and/or conclusions, to whom I address my objections?

Therefore: take your claims one by one and justify them. 

(Besides, by unreservedly recommending the AI report, you will also have to justify/prove every one of its claims, if asked. This is how it works!)

Here is a free😁advice for you: Only by researching a subject yourself can you justify your claims; merely reproducing the conclusions of others risks embarrassment.

Edited May 8 by AlexL

[tadmjones]

The name Palestine is basically a Roman bitch slap on top of a genocide of uppity Jews.

[SpookyKitty]

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

You mean the 2022 Amnesty International report?

Yes, you are correct, I did not address this and I regret it. I focused on your denial of the principle/rule that, in a rational debate one has the obligation to justify one's claims, if asked. I looked back on your older comments in this thread and I found out that now is not the first time that you deny the legitimacy of this rule.

OK, now about your argumentation with this report. 

I asked you to provide facts justifying your claims/conclusions. But instead of facts, you pointed me to a source claiming those same conclusions.

Yes, I guess that that 280 pages report does list some facts in support of its conclusion, but the problem is : if I disagree with the truth o those facts and/or conclusions, to whom I address my objections?

Therefore: take your claims one by one and justify them. 

(Besides, by unreservedly recommending the AI report, you will also have to justify/prove every one of its claims, if asked. This is how it works!)

Here is a free😁advice for you: Only by researching a subject yourself can you justify your claims; merely reproducing the conclusions of others risks embarrassment.

I ain't typing all that. Free Palestine!

[EC]

This answers all of the nonsense stated here accurately. And no, I won't be responding to those who promote it and evil.

https://newideal.aynrand.org/hamas-and-the-tyranny-of-need/

[Eiuol]

5 hours ago, EC said:

This answers all of the nonsense stated here accurately. And no, I won't be responding to those who promote it and evil.

https://newideal.aynrand.org/hamas-and-the-tyranny-of-need/

indeed, we definitely should completely ignore that Hamas and Palestine are different things, any support of Palestine is inherently support of Hamas. Palestine is obviously the same as Hamas. After all, it's easier to be a tribalist. If you don't support Israel, then you are part of the evil tribe. Very simple, reason not required.

 

 

[EC]

10 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

indeed, we definitely should completely ignore that Hamas and Palestine are different things, any support of Palestine is inherently support of Hamas. Palestine is obviously the same as Hamas. After all, it's easier to be a tribalist. If you don't support Israel, then you are part of the evil tribe. Very simple, reason not required.

 

 

Did you actually watch the video because that is not the argument at all, it is both much more complex and much simpler in other ways.

[Eiuol]

22 minutes ago, EC said:

it is both much more complex and much simpler in other ways.

So stop trying to simplify it. Post something and expand on it, get into the complexities. 

[AlexL]

On 5/8/2024 at 7:43 PM, SpookyKitty said:

I ain't typing all that. Free Palestine!

So, you are incapable of justifying any of your claims; in other words, you know nothing about the subject. Furthermore, you deny that it is your duty to justify your claims.

I will report you—again!—to the moderators for not abiding by the rules of rational debate.

Additionally, I will ask them to take a stance towards your "Free Palestine!" statement, which I consider a call for murder.

@Pokyt @Eiuol @William O

[whYNOT]

From a post I wrote at OL.

"Hamas' political arm knows its audience.  Capture hostages, commit murderous attacks. The threefold plan: 1. they know the Israelis are guaranteed to come in hard to rescue hostages. Good. The trap is set. 2. the hostages serve as protective shields 3. hostages can be negotiated as leverage for a ceasefire. Objective achieved: Plenty of their own Gazan civilians die and the world turns on Israel and pulls support, and they buy time to reorganize, re-equip and to do it again. 

I've seen it all before.

I could not read much of Mr Unz's sophistry and inversions. Don't misunderstand these folk, they delight in seeing Israelis killed, the country brought low, and even eradicated as Hamas promises".

Edited May 9 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

 your "Free Palestine!" statement, which I consider a call for murder.

@Pokyt @Eiuol @William O

Of course it is, don't allow them to be in any doubt.

"Free Palestine" = "kill Israelis" (Or "Zionists" as such people try to hide behind.)

They are either: a. useful idiots or b. complicit in an intended mass murder. And no other option.

I am pleased to see you get to the core, however.

Edited May 9 by whYNOT

[Eiuol]

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

Additionally, I will ask them to take a stance towards your "Free Palestine!" statement, which I consider a call for murder.

Taking positions about a war always amounts to supporting the killing of someone. The entire thread is practically a demonstration in discourse that is not rational in any sense. I don't participate in this thread precisely because no one seems actually interested in figuring anything out. But there is at least a semblance of discourse, even if it goes nowhere. 

Edited May 9 by Eiuol

[whYNOT]

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

indeed, we definitely should completely ignore that Hamas and Palestine are different things, any support of Palestine is inherently support of Hamas. Palestine is obviously the same as Hamas. After all, it's easier to be a tribalist. If you don't support Israel, then you are part of the evil tribe. Very simple, reason not required.

 

 

I've noticed your soft opinions on the PA, whose Palestinians I'd inform you have been polled recently to be heavily in favor of Hamas' actions in October.

Have you not heard of Abbas' "pay for slay" program? It is not new. Murder civilian Jews or soldiers/policemen and go to prison - or best, be killed while being arrested, and your family receives cash benefits on a sliding scale.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://emetonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Pay4Slay_Fact-Sheet-FINAL.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjCouzm3oGGAxUvRvEDHfo9CYMQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw24sCFxIU0yLh396ZYsTgz7

Edited May 10 by whYNOT

[necrovore]

I tend to side with the Israelis because they at least have a secular, pro-laissez-faire element, whereas the Palestinians have no such thing and want to establish an Islamic dictatorship.

The political Left commonly thinks that crime is "justice" and actual justice is a crime; they treat business owners in the cities the same way they treat Israel. The Left also favors policies that encourage the use of human shields.

[AlexL]

29 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

Additionally, I will ask them to take a stance towards your "Free Palestine!" statement, which I consider a call for murder.

Taking positions about a war always amounts to supporting the killing of someone.

"Free Palestine!" is not taking positions about a war, because:

1. "Free Palestine!" means suppressing an occupation,
2. The current war is the one between Gaza government and Israel.

During this war no occupation took place. Therefore "Free Palestine!" does not mean taking positions about a war.

Your comment tries to whitewash SpookyKitty's "Free Palestine!" call, which is a call for murder, a call for genocide, more precisely.

There exist, however, also a legitimate call "Free Palestine!".

Edited May 10 by AlexL
Clarity

[whYNOT]

Not often I quote Hillary... but, yeah, she's right, Palestine could have maybe turned out well if Arafat implemented that 96% sovereignty deal in the West Bank which Israel offered.

96% was an excellent offer. Israel always looked for peace. The PA/PLO, as "rejectionist" as ever.

Apparently they wanted all of Israel then, and they want it all now.

Free Palestine!!

Right.

They wish for the entire territory for "Free".

 

Hillary Clinton slams anti-Israel protests on college campuses, says students have been fed propaganda

By Jacob Magid

Former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton tears into the pro-Palestinian protest movement that has swept across American colleges, calling them ignorant and lamenting that they’re being misinformed by propaganda on social media and in the classroom.

“I have had many conversations with a lot of young people over the last many months. They don’t know very much at all about the history of the Middle East or frankly about history in many areas of the world, including in our own country,” Clinton tells MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

“With respect to the Middle East, they don’t know that under the bringing together of the Israelis and the Palestinians by my husband — then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, the then-head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization Yasser Arafat — an offer was made to the Palestinians for a state on 96% of the existing territory occupied by the Palestinians with 4% of Israel to be given to reach 100% of the amount of territory that was hoped for.”

“This offer was made and if Yasser Arafat had accepted it there would have been a Palestinian state now for about 24 years. It’s one of the great tragedies of history that he was unable to say, ‘yes,'” Clinton laments.

 

Edited May 10 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

25 minutes ago, AlexL said:

"Free Palestine!" is not taking positions about a war, because:

I fail to see why "implications" are not recognized around here. The slogan ~implies~ murderous intent. A free Palestine implies an UN-free Israel. 

[EC]

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

So stop trying to simplify it. Post something and expand on it, get into the complexities. 

My position on this matter is identical to all of ARI's positions in every respect. And not because they said it but because I completely agree with everything that they have released and there is a ton of content on this subject released from them that goes explicitly into each position and issue involved. I'm not going to go over every aspect of every issue here which is what this would require from innocents in war, the history of the situation, what Justice requires, the list is endless and I know how the discussions on this forum on an issue like this goes with context constantly dropped (not accusing you of that) and random questions thrown out. ARI's many analysis videos and commentary on this subject from the very start of this context (and really since 9/11) match my own with me having arrived at the same conclusions for the same reasons but they answer everything explicitly and in the detail I wouldn't want to personally attempt here. But will state being against those supporting and/or engaging in terrorism is not in any way equivalent to being against any true innocents involved in the conflict (or any conflict for that matter). I just see zero reason to reargue what has been essentially near perfectly argued by them here and in this sort of an environment where I can predict how this sort of conversation will go and mostly by which members. There is no point in rearguing and explaining what is done over and over again in elegant manner by ARI and is freely available to all in this format which quickly becomes a crapshoot of essentially randomly thrown out questions when every question, answer, explanation, and moral principle is covered in that manner. I don't have the time or energy to do that here versus hostile individuals or groups and refer them to that mass of content that made every argument while covering essentially every possible objection already perfectly.