By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 10:09 - Mar 25 by GlasgowBlue
Why would you be accused of “anti jewish sentiment” for being critical of the disproportionate response by the Israeli government to the massacres of 7/10 and condemning the Israeli government for the indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians? You aren’t using any antisemitic tropes or holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of an Israel.
There are literally 67 pages on this thread of posts criticising the actions of the IDF. No one has been accused of “anti Jewish sentiment” unless they’ve actually strayed into using antisemitic language. And those posts have usually been deleted by admin.
There is absolutely no reason for anyone to accuse you of “anti jewish sentiment”. You seem to have fallen into the trap of believing those who do repeat antisemitic tropes and then bleat “you can’t even criticise Israel without being accused of being an anti semite”. Which of course is absolute nonsense.
[Post edited 25 Mar 10:12]
Struggling a bit with the last paragraph, but cheers for taking the time to reply. The whole situation remains very troubling and sensitive to discuss.
Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness.
1
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 20:39 - Mar 25 with 1444 views
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 20:11 - Mar 25 by Whos_blue
Struggling a bit with the last paragraph, but cheers for taking the time to reply. The whole situation remains very troubling and sensitive to discuss.
It gets worse: " Israel's own ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan... strongly criticises the Security Council, saying it was "very quick" to condemn Friday’s attack on a concert hall in Russia - and asks why the same hasn't been done for Hamas's 7 October attack on Israel.
"Your demand for a ceasefire without conditioning it on the release of the hostages not only isn’t helpful, but it undermines the effort to secure their release," Erdan tells permanent and elected members.
He also says: "To this Council, Israeli blood is cheap. This is a travesty and I’m disgusted."
The level of blinkered inability to see beyond his own agenda, is perhaps understandable, but also terrifying. The idea that the 7 October attack has not been condemned is just dishonest.
0
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 20:45 - Mar 25 with 1431 views
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 19:40 - Mar 25 by Nthsuffolkblue
Is that a bad thing though? Perhaps it will be the beginning of a reduction of support from the US for the genocide.
Sadly, I think the opposite. Israel is a strategic ally in the Middle East so I think America will be cautious not to isolate them any further. Saying that, it is election year, and if it appears that the majority of the American public support a ceasefire, it might push Biden to put more pressure on the Israeli government.
There seems to be some confusion whether the resolution is 'binding' or not. Plus it is unclear what the UN can do if Israel ignore it.
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 20:39 - Mar 25 by redrickstuhaart
It gets worse: " Israel's own ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan... strongly criticises the Security Council, saying it was "very quick" to condemn Friday’s attack on a concert hall in Russia - and asks why the same hasn't been done for Hamas's 7 October attack on Israel.
"Your demand for a ceasefire without conditioning it on the release of the hostages not only isn’t helpful, but it undermines the effort to secure their release," Erdan tells permanent and elected members.
He also says: "To this Council, Israeli blood is cheap. This is a travesty and I’m disgusted."
The level of blinkered inability to see beyond his own agenda, is perhaps understandable, but also terrifying. The idea that the 7 October attack has not been condemned is just dishonest.
You are wrong. The UN Security Council refused to condemn the October 7 attacks by Hamas.
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 20:11 - Mar 25 by Whos_blue
Struggling a bit with the last paragraph, but cheers for taking the time to reply. The whole situation remains very troubling and sensitive to discuss.
You are quite right to be struggling with that last paragraph. You’ll find there are very curated interpretations of what constitutes anti-semitic tropes.
You’ll also notice how the attack on Israel is described as a ‘massacre’ whereas the Israeli response is described as merely ‘disproportionate’.
Israel is guilty of an appalling mass genocide in Gaza, and there is nothing wrong in feeling contempt towards them by voicing your utter disgust, both at them and anyone who condones or even attempts to downplay it.
[Post edited 25 Mar 21:18]
2
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 21:18 - Mar 25 with 1364 views
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 20:04 - Mar 25 by Whos_blue
Pretty much this. I wouldn't go as far as to say I wasn't knowledgable, but I have been cautious. Probably a little over cautious in not expressing a view as often as I perhaps should. This whole UN resolution and Netenyahu's cancelled visit is a significant turn of events that I will watch develop with interest.
Sorry, I didn't mean knowledge generally, I meant knowledge so far as it relates to things like the intricacies of the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
2
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 21:34 - Mar 25 with 1317 views
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 20:11 - Mar 25 by Whos_blue
Struggling a bit with the last paragraph, but cheers for taking the time to reply. The whole situation remains very troubling and sensitive to discuss.
The last paragraph is very simple. Many people who have gone beyond legitimate criticism of Israel and reverted to using anti semitic tropes tend to cry "you can't even criticize Israel without being called anti semitic" when their antisemitism is pointed out to them.
Sadly, when people read that enough times they believe it to be true, amd are wary of voicing their opinion n the dreadful situation in Gaza.
You can condemn the actions of Israel without being accused of having "anti Jewish sentiments". For example, I believe that by cutting off the water supply and electricity to the people of Gaza, Benjamin Netanyahu should stand trial for war crimes. I believe that Benjamin Netanyahu is propped up in power by far right religious extremists and terrorism supporters such as Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir. I believe their influence on Netanyahu is dangerous to both the people of Israel and the Palestinian people. I believe that the illegal Israeli settlements on the West Banks should be demolished. I believe in a two state solution that sees the Palestinian people given their own state to govern. I believe that although Israel has the right to self defence, and the right to completely eradicate Hamas, the indiscriminate bombing campaign is not only a disproportionate response, it is killing tens of thousands of innocent Palestinian citizens.
None of what I have posted above constitutes having "anti Jewish sentiment" and is proof that everyone is free to legitimately criticise the Israeli state.
There was absolutely no need for you to fear being accused of having "anti Jewish sentiment" with what you said in your post. Hope that explains the final paragraph better.
Even a broken clock etc. Though I do wish the resolution had at least condemned the Hamas attack. I presume politics at play for it not to.
How many times do people have to make the obvious statement that the hamas attack was abhorrent, before we are allowed to say that Israel should stop ethnic cleansing?
1
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 21:58 - Mar 25 with 1306 views
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 21:37 - Mar 25 by redrickstuhaart
How many times do people have to make the obvious statement that the hamas attack was abhorrent, before we are allowed to say that Israel should stop ethnic cleansing?
It's my understanding the UN as a body hasn't condemned the Hamas attack once, let alone "many times".
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 23:17 - Mar 25 by redrickstuhaart
Every significant government has.
Its the same mentality as getting an apology out of an mp. Get them to say something, score a point, sod the actual issue.
Every significant government has condemned the terrorist attack on Russian soil but that, rightly, didn't stop the UN from doing the same.
The odd thing is, if they had added it to the resolution, they would have really backed the US into a corner over supporting it rather than abstaining.
What the Israeli government is doing to the Palestine people is abhorrent. The resolution should have been agreed months ago. But by avoiding something which should really be put down on record, the UN is feeding the far right in the country in saying they lack sufficient support beyond their borders.
As regards the Security Council on an issue such as this, global politics plays a big part in trying to agree a form of words acceptable to all, but the US is as much to blame on this as anyone else having vetoed several resolutions.
For example, the US vetoed a Security Council resolution on 18 October that would have unequivocally rejected and condemned the terrorist attacks by Hamas that took place in Israel starting on 7 October. It did so because the resolution didn't mention Israel's right to self defence.
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 00:13 - Mar 26 by pointofblue
Every significant government has condemned the terrorist attack on Russian soil but that, rightly, didn't stop the UN from doing the same.
The odd thing is, if they had added it to the resolution, they would have really backed the US into a corner over supporting it rather than abstaining.
What the Israeli government is doing to the Palestine people is abhorrent. The resolution should have been agreed months ago. But by avoiding something which should really be put down on record, the UN is feeding the far right in the country in saying they lack sufficient support beyond their borders.
But we know the UN is hamstrung by the internal politics of it all. Which unfortunately gives certain parties an excuse to hide behind "but they wont say X, so we don't have to stop murdering."
Meanwhile it is weaponised. The Israeli position is, broadly, that failure in the resolution (to stop them murdering en masse) to explicitly repeat something which every significant government has already made abundantly clear (due to the internal politics of the UN), is actually anti semitism and justifies their objections to the substance of the resolution. Its playground stuff.
[Post edited 26 Mar 9:00]
0
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 09:09 - Mar 26 with 1093 views
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 08:58 - Mar 26 by redrickstuhaart
But we know the UN is hamstrung by the internal politics of it all. Which unfortunately gives certain parties an excuse to hide behind "but they wont say X, so we don't have to stop murdering."
Meanwhile it is weaponised. The Israeli position is, broadly, that failure in the resolution (to stop them murdering en masse) to explicitly repeat something which every significant government has already made abundantly clear (due to the internal politics of the UN), is actually anti semitism and justifies their objections to the substance of the resolution. Its playground stuff.
[Post edited 26 Mar 9:00]
And because of the politics of it all the UN is next to useless. As reported by the BBC this morning, Hamas has maintained the ceasefire should remain conditional, Israel has bombed Rafah and the hostages remain in place. It has little to no impact. From a diplomatic point of view it might be seen as a major event but, in reality, it has barely moved the dial.
I don't think Israel are using the lack of condemnation as a reason to continue their attacks. It's the reason given for America not recording.a vote. Even if the resolution did specifically condemn October 7th, Israel would have continued attacking Gaza, but it would have potentially put pressure on America's position at the security council. And morally, it would have been the right thing to do.
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 09:09 - Mar 26 by pointofblue
And because of the politics of it all the UN is next to useless. As reported by the BBC this morning, Hamas has maintained the ceasefire should remain conditional, Israel has bombed Rafah and the hostages remain in place. It has little to no impact. From a diplomatic point of view it might be seen as a major event but, in reality, it has barely moved the dial.
I don't think Israel are using the lack of condemnation as a reason to continue their attacks. It's the reason given for America not recording.a vote. Even if the resolution did specifically condemn October 7th, Israel would have continued attacking Gaza, but it would have potentially put pressure on America's position at the security council. And morally, it would have been the right thing to do.
I agree- they would continue regardless. But they can hide behind it and feign disgust at the resolution in the meantime.
0
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 09:17 - Mar 26 with 1065 views
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 09:09 - Mar 26 by pointofblue
And because of the politics of it all the UN is next to useless. As reported by the BBC this morning, Hamas has maintained the ceasefire should remain conditional, Israel has bombed Rafah and the hostages remain in place. It has little to no impact. From a diplomatic point of view it might be seen as a major event but, in reality, it has barely moved the dial.
I don't think Israel are using the lack of condemnation as a reason to continue their attacks. It's the reason given for America not recording.a vote. Even if the resolution did specifically condemn October 7th, Israel would have continued attacking Gaza, but it would have potentially put pressure on America's position at the security council. And morally, it would have been the right thing to do.
The fact that the US didn't veto the resolution is a pretty big step for them.
It shows their frustration but I think the only real way they can influence things is to consider cutting off the arms supplies.
In any event, it is a bit hypocritical of them to be arming Israel, not condemning Israeli action, and then crying crocodile tears over the consequences for civilians.
And in an election year, the longer this drags on the more it seems to me that it damages Biden.
As it is, I wonder if a younger, stronger and more mentally agile President Biden would have dealt with things better and had more influence. I thought it extraordinary that it took some time for Biden to visit Israel after 7 October, and he has not been back since. But he doesn't come across as in charge of things, so further visits may have made little difference, and maybe he just isn't up to them physically anyway.
[Post edited 26 Mar 9:52]
1
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 09:50 - Mar 26 with 1020 views
A couple of interesting snippets, the first from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and the second from the Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom.
"Netanyahu deliberately preferred a showdown with the world and the US. He managed to turn a just war and an imperative, justifiably harsh retaliation into world condemnation. In terms of the security council, Israel will conveniently tell itself that the resolution is not a big deal, there will be no sanctions, the sun will shine today and, besides, the UN was always and remains anti-Israel. [The deterioration of US-Israeli relations] under Netanyahu has been written about extensively and profusely over the past year, but the security council resolution is a new low. For the past four months, the US has negatively revised its assessment of Israel under Netanyahu: He does not behave as an ally. He has accrued a debilitating credibility deficit over the years on a multitude of issues and behavioral patterns. He failed to come up with a plan for postwar Gaza – and he is seriously suspected of prolonging the war for his own political survival."
"In a no-holds-barred interview, former US President Donald Trump told Israel Hayom that he supports Israel's defensive war against Hamas and said he would have responded to the October 7 attack in a very similar way. He added that "what I saw October 7 was one of the saddest things I've ever seen," but says Israel should draw the fighting to a close. "You have to finish up your war. To finish it up. You gotta get it done. And, I am sure you will do that. And we gotta get to peace, we can't have this going on. And I will say, Israel has to be very careful, because you're losing a lot of the world, you're losing a lot of support, you have to finish up, you have to get the job done. And you have to get on to peace, to get on to a normal life for Israel, and for everybody else."
[Post edited 26 Mar 9:51]
0
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 09:52 - Mar 26 with 1010 views
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 09:50 - Mar 26 by DJR
A couple of interesting snippets, the first from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and the second from the Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom.
"Netanyahu deliberately preferred a showdown with the world and the US. He managed to turn a just war and an imperative, justifiably harsh retaliation into world condemnation. In terms of the security council, Israel will conveniently tell itself that the resolution is not a big deal, there will be no sanctions, the sun will shine today and, besides, the UN was always and remains anti-Israel. [The deterioration of US-Israeli relations] under Netanyahu has been written about extensively and profusely over the past year, but the security council resolution is a new low. For the past four months, the US has negatively revised its assessment of Israel under Netanyahu: He does not behave as an ally. He has accrued a debilitating credibility deficit over the years on a multitude of issues and behavioral patterns. He failed to come up with a plan for postwar Gaza – and he is seriously suspected of prolonging the war for his own political survival."
"In a no-holds-barred interview, former US President Donald Trump told Israel Hayom that he supports Israel's defensive war against Hamas and said he would have responded to the October 7 attack in a very similar way. He added that "what I saw October 7 was one of the saddest things I've ever seen," but says Israel should draw the fighting to a close. "You have to finish up your war. To finish it up. You gotta get it done. And, I am sure you will do that. And we gotta get to peace, we can't have this going on. And I will say, Israel has to be very careful, because you're losing a lot of the world, you're losing a lot of support, you have to finish up, you have to get the job done. And you have to get on to peace, to get on to a normal life for Israel, and for everybody else."
[Post edited 26 Mar 9:51]
Classic Trump. You have to have peace. But you do that by "finishing the job". Completely non committal but also justifying continued genocide.
0
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 10:15 - Mar 26 with 978 views
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 21:18 - Mar 25 by DJR
Sorry, I didn't mean knowledge generally, I meant knowledge so far as it relates to things like the intricacies of the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
When it comes to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, it is interesting to note the views of Kenneth Stern (a Zionist and the American Jewish Committee's expert on antisemitism for 25 years) who drafted it.
Stern has opposed efforts to enshrine it in university policies and in December 2016 wrote a letter to members of the US Congress warning that giving the definition legal status would be "unconstitutional and unwise".
In 2011, he co-authored an article about how the 'Working Definition' was being abused in Title VI cases, because it was being employed in an attempt to "restrict academic freedom and punish political speech."
In November 2017, Stern explained to the US House of Representatives that the definition has been abused on various US university campuses. He warned that it could "restrict academic freedom and punish political speech" and questioned whether definitions created by minority groups should be legislatively enshrined, giving as one of several examples:
"Imagine a definition designed for Palestinians. If "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist" is antisemitism, then shouldn't "Denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination, and denying Palestine the right to exist" be anti-Palestinianism? Would they then ask administrators to police and possibly punish campus events by pro-Israel groups who oppose the two state solution, or claim the Palestinian people are a myth?"
In December 2019, Stern said: "It was created primarily so that European data collectors could know what to include and exclude. That way antisemitism could be monitored better over time and across borders. It was never intended to be a campus hate speech code."
EDIT: Here's a link to an interesting recent article about Stern's difficulties with regard to the use of his own IHRA definition.
"Without providing many details, Israel is currently pursuing a massive project in the Gaza Strip – the establishment of a buffer zone adjacent to the border fence with Israel. The planned zone will be about one kilometer wide, and upon completion will encompass some 16 percent of the Gaza Strip's area.
The project involves IDF engineering forces which are operating in the field, significantly expanding the area declared by the IDF as a Palestinian no-go zone before the war. The project is already provoking stark criticism from the international community. Haaretz has learned that a project director has been appointed by the IDF."
[Post edited 29 Mar 8:59]
0
Does this sound as bad in Hebrew as it does in English ? on 10:06 - Apr 5 with 489 views
'Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s office says it will allow “temporary” aid deliveries via a crossing in the northern Gaza Strip “to ensure the continuation of the fighting and to achieve the goals of the war”.'
I don't see this quote on the BBC (or on Le Monde's news in English), has something got lost in translation from Hebrew to Arabic to English ? Am I being too literal in seeing aid as synonymous with peace ? Or are other media sources being cautious with what they report ?
'Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s office says it will allow “temporary” aid deliveries via a crossing in the northern Gaza Strip “to ensure the continuation of the fighting and to achieve the goals of the war”.'
I don't see this quote on the BBC (or on Le Monde's news in English), has something got lost in translation from Hebrew to Arabic to English ? Am I being too literal in seeing aid as synonymous with peace ? Or are other media sources being cautious with what they report ?
[Post edited 5 Apr 12:17]
They have to demonstrate provision of aid in order to have plausible deniability in terms of the geneva convention. So they can continue the ethnic cleansing.
1
Does this sound as bad in Hebrew as it does in English ? on 11:14 - Apr 5 with 441 views
'Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s office says it will allow “temporary” aid deliveries via a crossing in the northern Gaza Strip “to ensure the continuation of the fighting and to achieve the goals of the war”.'
I don't see this quote on the BBC (or on Le Monde's news in English), has something got lost in translation from Hebrew to Arabic to English ? Am I being too literal in seeing aid as synonymous with peace ? Or are other media sources being cautious with what they report ?
[Post edited 5 Apr 12:17]
"Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s office says it will allow “temporary” aid deliveries via a crossing in the northern Gaza Strip “to ensure the continuation of the fighting and to achieve the goals of the war”.'"
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
