Israeli - Palestinian Conflict *Threadbans in OP*

ChickenDish

Deleted User wrote: »

"systematic destruction of infrastructure"
"murder of children"
"carpet bombing a neighbourhood"
"targeting civilians"

So much hyperbole in your sentence it's hard to know where to start. The following are not military goals of Israel. If they were, Gaza would be a pile of rubble right now, and there wouldn't be a single person alive.

You need to learn how to be precise in your language. If Israel was so bad you wouldn't need to exaggerate and use the most hyperbolic language to describe it. Turkey did largely the same think to the Kurds recently but nobody seems to either know or care, I'm not sure why.

"Carpet bombing" a neighbourhood FFS get a dictionary.

Gaza is a pile of rubble right now.

So the language I use cuts deep, seems I've struck a nerve. As per usual you and your ilk ignore the "facts", don't even try and defend the indefensible and cry because you have been called out on your BS.

My language was precise and intentional. Try and defend your position and stop crying because people are calling your for what you are.

ChickenDish

ChickenDish wrote: »

Gaza is a pile of rubble right now.

So the language I use cuts deep, seems I've struck a nerve. As per usual you and your ilk ignore the "facts", don't even try and defend the indefensible and cry because you have been called out on your BS.

My language was precise and intentional. Try and defend your position and stop crying because people are calling your for what you are.

https://www.webcamgalore.com/webcam/Gaza-Strip/Gaza-City/23010.html

A pile of rubble? Check the link.

Reality contradicts your hyperbole. Reality with its well-known far-right bias.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the difference is that there was somebody to stop the genocide of Jews in WWII. If there was a systematic extermination of Australian Aborigines then why did they stop and when did they stop? What happened to make them abandon the "genocide"?

The Aborigine people to all intents an purposes have been destroyed. They are a fraction of what they once were and their lands stolen by a foreign invader. The Western Australian Aboriginal people call it "The Killing Times". A period where they were forcibly driven from their homes into uninhabitable areas with the express intent to reduce their number. State militia would also routinely carry put culls right up until the 1920's. There was deliberate policy to make life as tough for the Aborigine as was possible and to flood the country with white colonial settlers to tip the odds in population. There's a reason why convicts were given the option to go to Australia or the hangman's noose. Their numbers now amount to half a million, most descendents of mixed race relations, but there's only about 5000 or so full blooded Aboriginal people left in Australia.

That didn't happen by accident.

On the other side of the world the Native Americans were whittled down through ethnic cleansing, warfare, disease, starvation, spoliation and the belief of "manifest destiny" that emboldened a foreign invader to take their land and destroy their way of life. Entire tribes were wiped out.

Both fit the definition of genocide.

As to why this was "stopped", that was down to the fact that not everyone would share the beliefs of those intent on carrying out genocidal means against native populations and over time, things would eventually change.

That doesn't mean that there wasn't a genocide against both groups.

namloc1980

I wonder do the pro-Israel people not think to themselves - "jaysus, here I am trying trying to play down genocide and arguing that certain genocides weren't really genocides, all to defend Israeli actions against the Palestinian people....maybe I'm not on the right side of this?". Doubtful.

cameramonkey

namloc1980 wrote: »

I wonder do the pro-Israel people not think to themselves - "jaysus, here I am trying trying to play down genocide and arguing that certain genocides weren't really genocides, all to defend Israeli actions against the Palestinian people....maybe I'm not on the right side of this?". Doubtful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JOpPNra4bw


Are we the baddies?

Overheal

Fuascailteoir wrote: »

You point is ludicrous. There are lots of Jews, Tutsis, Bosnians around today. Does that mean that genocide that was perpetrated against them did not happen. Jesus Christ

Heard here first: ‘the Holocaust was not a genocide because some got away and repopulated.’

Jesus wept as they say

Overheal

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

So she was Jewish? (Or you didn't believe her?)

Does one apply this "self identifng" "pronoun" to all ethnicities, or ones whose bone fides you suspect? Or just Jews.
Wholly unnecessary.

Arguing antisemitism isn't specifically a Jewish thing, with a Jew, is rather ignorant.

My guy. It was Facebook. You’re scraping a barrel for an angle that isn’t there. She was a Jewish newlywed and a friend of an acquaintance

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

"systematic destruction of infrastructure"
"murder of children"
"carpet bombing a neighbourhood"
"targeting civilians"

So much hyperbole in your sentence it's hard to know where to start. The following are not military goals of Israel. If they were, Gaza would be a pile of rubble right now, and there wouldn't be a single person alive.

You need to learn how to be precise in your language. If Israel was so bad you wouldn't need to exaggerate and use the most hyperbolic language to describe it. Turkey did largely the same think to the Kurds recently but nobody seems to either know or care, I'm not sure why.

"Carpet bombing" a neighbourhood FFS get a dictionary.

all are factually correct happenings, and activities deliberately engaged in by the IDF.
they are military goals of israel, however israel is only going to get away with drip ethnic cleansing and genocide.
israel is as bad as described, the fact the poster's claims aren't exaggeration but fact, shows it.
the state you support, i suspect because they aren't muslims, engage in mass scale war crimes and genocide and have nearly 100 UN resolutions against it for breaching every single human rights and international law.

PeggyShippen wrote: »

Yeah iv read all about the 'trail of tears' and the Aboriginal troubles in Australia. Terrible events. There was no genocide though. If either the Australian or American governments of the day enacted an organised genocide then their overwhelming power would have left no Cherokee or Aborigines . There are many of both alive and kicking today.

a genocide doesn't need to lead to complete eradication to be a genocide.

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

I wonder do the pro-Israel people not think to themselves - "jaysus, here I am trying trying to play down genocide and arguing that certain genocides weren't really genocides, all to defend Israeli actions against the Palestinian people....maybe I'm not on the right side of this?". Doubtful.

I think people are drawing the line between genocides and "horrible things that don't quite fit the word genocide".

Armenian genocide = True
Holocaust = True
Attempt to kill Bosnian muslims = True
Rwanda = True

Israel/Palestine = Not true
Turkey/Kurds = Not true
Aborigines/Native Amercians = Not true

China/Uighurs? Not sure

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

all are factually correct happenings, and activities deliberately engaged in by the IDF.
they are military goals of israel, however israel is only going to get away with drip ethnic cleansing and genocide.
israel is as bad as described, the fact the poster's claims aren't exaggeration but fact, shows it.
the state you support, i suspect because they aren't muslims, engage in mass scale war crimes and genocide and have nearly 100 UN resolutions against it for breaching every single human rights and international law.






a genocide doesn't need to lead to complete eradication to be a genocide.

Does Britain's actions in Ireland count as genocide? Does 9/11 count as genocide? Do the killing of white farmers in South Africa count?

paulaa

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.webcamgalore.com/webcam/Gaza-Strip/Gaza-City/23010.html

A pile of rubble? Check the link.

Reality contradicts your hyperbole. Reality with its well-known far-right bias.

If you look at the webcam it says "Live" yet just above that it says "This webcam is currently offline!"

Another fake excuse to downplay Israel's orgy of terror in Gaza. I have seen this same excuse after every attack on Gaza . Shame on you belittling the suffering and great loss of families in Gaza.

Sand

Overheal wrote: »

My guy. It was Facebook. You’re scraping a barrel for an angle that isn’t there. She was a Jewish newlywed and a friend of an acquaintance

Out of curiosity, was this person an Israeli to your knowledge?

Overheal

Sand wrote: »

Out of curiosity, was this person an Israeli to your knowledge?

I’m not sure if she was Israeli herself. She did mention friends and relatives in Israel though as part of her rant/ad hominem. Couldn’t say where eg if they were West Bank or whatever

Sand

Overheal wrote: »

I’m not sure if she was Israeli herself. She did mention friends and relatives in Israel though as part of her rant/ad hominem. Couldn’t say where eg if they were West Bank or whatever

Just thought it was odd she would announce herself as Jewish as if it added any weight to her arguments. I was born Catholic - it doesn't give me any special insight into international affairs.

I can understand people being concerned by relatives in the firing line, but the slaughter is so one sided these days. You might imagine concern for their relatives might open a window into concern for the Palestinian families being wiped out.

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

"systematic destruction of infrastructure"
"murder of children"
"carpet bombing a neighbourhood"
"targeting civilians"

So much hyperbole in your sentence it's hard to know where to start. The following are not military goals of Israel. If they were, Gaza would be a pile of rubble right now, and there wouldn't be a single person alive.

You need to learn how to be precise in your language. If Israel was so bad you wouldn't need to exaggerate and use the most hyperbolic language to describe it. Turkey did largely the same think to the Kurds recently but nobody seems to either know or care, I'm not sure why.

"Carpet bombing" a neighbourhood FFS get a dictionary.

What would you call the throwing out of Palestinian families from their homes and moving in settlers?
I’d love to hear your definition as PeggyShippen failed to answer.

Overheal

Sand wrote: »

Just thought it was odd she would announce herself as Jewish as if it added any weight to her arguments. I was born Catholic - it doesn't give me any special insight into international affairs.

I can understand people being concerned by relatives in the firing line, but the slaughter is so one sided these days. You might imagine concern for their relatives might open a window into concern for the Palestinian families being wiped out.

Because she wasn’t being rational. She thought by screaming I’m Jewish that my fact based argument (Palestinians are a Semitic people) would wither because she was Jewish. Totally absurd and said after I told her I wasn’t going to engage in ad hominems having been asked if I ever went to Israel or Palestine. As though either of us are the subject. Didn’t stop her, she was Jewish and in her eyes that meant anything I said was wrong.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

I’m not sure if she was Israeli herself. She did mention friends and relatives in Israel though as part of her rant/ad hominem. Couldn’t say where eg if they were West Bank or whatever

I think it was unnecessary to add "Jewish identifying", I doubt any reasonable person would add such a "pronoun" to any ethnicity as they recount a discussion about discrimination their ethnicity is subject to.

But you saw fit, as is your perogative.

Overheal

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

I think it was unnecessary to add "Jewish identifying", I doubt any reasonable person would add such a "pronoun" to any ethnicity as they recount a discussion about discrimination their ethnicity is subject to.

But you saw fit, as is your perogative.

Because then woman made it the raisin d’etre of her entire argument. So of course I’m going to mention what was said as part of that toxic discourse?

Had I just said Jewish you still would have bothered to ask “*deep breathes* Overheal why do you think she was Jewish?” Because she told me directly as her justification for telling me to **** off pointing out that Palestinians are semites. She identified herself as Jewish. A self identified Jewish woman.

What other complaints to you have about my Ted Talk, Mike? It’s a lovely weekend outside.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Because then woman made it the raisin d’etre of her entire argument. So of course I’m going to mention what was said as part of that toxic discourse?

Had I just said Jewish you still would have bothered to ask “*deep breathes* Overheal why do you think she was Jewish?” Because she told me directly as her justification for telling me to **** off pointing out that Palestinians are semites. She identified herself as Jewish. A self identified Jewish woman.

What other complaints to you have about my Ted Talk, Mike? It’s a lovely weekend outside.

Had you said Jewish, I probably wouldn't have noticed, but it appears to be an issue for you.

But hey, you use your words as you see fit. I'm not in the business of coaching.

Me, I think you were being deliberately provocative arguing antisemitism is bigotry towards all Semetic people, with a Jew, whereas its not.

Just back from a walk. Lovely outside.

Sand

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Me, I think you were being deliberately provocative arguing antisemitism is bigotry towards all Semetic people, with a Jew, whereas its not.

By definition, antisemitism is a bigotry towards Semitic people. It is why the anti is placed in front of the semitism. You disregarding all the non-Jewish Semites as being irrelevant to the definition of antisemitism is in itself antisemitic.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

By definition, antisemitism is a bigotry towards Semitic people. It is why the anti is placed in front of the semitism. You disregarding all the non-Jewish Semites as being irrelevant to the definition of antisemitism is in itself antisemitic.

I think most people would accept that antisemitism generally means the same thing as anti-Jewish. If you are arguing over that then it shows you're not really willing to hear other arguments and search for truth, it just means you're willing to fight every tiny battle to prove you are "right" and the other side is "wrong".

Igotadose

Sand wrote: »

By definition, antisemitism is a bigotry towards Semitic people. It is why the anti is placed in front of the semitism. You disregarding all the non-Jewish Semites as being irrelevant to the definition of antisemitism is in itself antisemitic.

No, it's bigotry towards Jews.

Mimon

Deleted User wrote: »

Does Britain's actions in Ireland count as genocide? Does 9/11 count as genocide? Do the killing of white farmers in South Africa count?

First one, at certain stages in some areas definitely yes. We are speaking English on here which tells it's own tale.

Second one not, it was an act of terror.

Third one in my opinion yes also.

Odhinn

Meanwhile, on the ground -

Israel uses declaration of public land (“state land”) in the West Bank as a significant means to reinforce its settlement enterprise in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt). This report presents and analyses a specific feature of Israel’s declaration policy: declaring Palestinian land to be “state land” in areas where settlement of title was halted after Israel occupied the West Bank, in order to appropriate this land.

https://www.yesh-din.org/en/ill-gotten-gains-theft-of-palestinian-land-declaring-state-land-where-settlement-of-title-was-halted-when-israel-occupied-the-west-bank/

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

I think most people would accept that antisemitism generally means the same thing as anti-Jewish. If you are arguing over that then it shows you're not really willing to hear other arguments and search for truth, it just means you're willing to fight every tiny battle to prove you are "right" and the other side is "wrong".

Igotadose wrote: »

No, it's bigotry towards Jews.

If you're going to call it only one thing, then name it as that thing. Antisemitism is one thing. Antijewish is another. As I said, claiming semitism is equivalent with judaism is in itself antisemitic. Plenty of semites and Israelis aren't jewish. Israel is a broad, multicultural society with a significant non-jewish population. Hence criticism of Israeli policy inherently cannot be interpreted as being criticism of jewish people.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

If you're going to call it only one thing, then name it as that thing. Antisemitism is one thing. Antijewish is another. As I said, claiming semitism is equivalent with judaism is in itself antisemitic. Plenty of semites and Israelis aren't jewish. Israel is a broad, multicultural society with a significant non-jewish population. Hence criticism of Israeli policy inherently cannot be interpreted as being criticism of jewish people.

Antisemitism= anti Jewish/ness
Anti-Israeli policy =/= antisemitism.
Anti-Semite is another thing

This is elementary school stuff.

Overheal

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Had you said Jewish, I probably wouldn't have noticed, but it appears to be an issue for you.

But hey, you use your words as you see fit. I'm not in the business of coaching.

Me, I think you were being deliberately provocative arguing antisemitism is bigotry towards all Semetic people, with a Jew, whereas its not.

Just back from a walk. Lovely outside.

Hard to see your angle when I had no idea who this woman was when I made the argument. It wasn’t her wall post I was replying to. So what you think, is impossible.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Hard to see your angle when I had no idea who this woman was when I made the argument. It wasn’t her wall post I was replying to. So what you think, is impossible.

We're going around in circles, I'm moving on. I've my view , you've yours.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Does Britain's actions in Ireland count as genocide? Does 9/11 count as genocide? Do the killing of white farmers in South Africa count?

Deleted User wrote: »

I think people are drawing the line between genocides and "horrible things that don't quite fit the word genocide".

well, whether it be that they are trying to draw a line (unlikely) or stating that what happened to particular groups doesn't equate to genocide because that suits a particular agenda, either in general or simply against that group for whatever reason, which is highly likely, they still remain factually incorrect in their line drawing.

Deleted User wrote: »

Armenian genocide = True
Holocaust = True
Attempt to kill Bosnian muslims = True
Rwanda = True

Israel/Palestine = Not true
Turkey/Kurds = Not true
Aborigines/Native Amercians = Not true

China/Uighurs? Not sure

israel/palestine equals true, most definitely and all of the evidence available supports it.
it's an example of claiming something to not be a genocide to push a particular agenda, as the fact that israel is engaging in genocide doesn't suit a particular agenda.
all the others you claim to be untrue are in fact true also, ergo you are factually incorrect in your claims.






actually yes, what happened in ireland under british rule would fit the definition.
the killing of white farmers in south africa may also do so, 911 on the other hand doesn't.

Lucy8080

Deleted User wrote: »

"systematic destruction of infrastructure"
"murder of children"

"targeting civilians"

Your words.

Is it possible that others see it that way, and may not like what they see?