Political Roundtable Part XXXII

[dobrojim]

Watch on YouTube

This is a little longish @ 20 minutes but to anyone who thinks some are being overly alarmist
about the prospects of a Golfy McBonespurs presidency, you can skip ahead to around 15 minutes into
this.

[TGW]

JHC. I literally cited the dictionary definition. TGW, don't be stupid. Admit you are wrong and apologize for being antisemitic.

You have got to be kidding. I already told you my opinion on what zionists are, and no I'm not changing my opnion for you. Put the pipe down sir.

Btw what a cheap tactic by you. "If you don't agree with me, your antisemetic." FOH.

He didn't say that at all - you changing his anwer is the cheap tactic.

Zionism is a movement created to promote a homeland for the Jewish people.
The fact you go a long way to attach a very negative and biased 'opinion' is your problem.

Your claim is like me saying - 'I think Nazism is great and im not changing my opinion for you'

Which only means I am either a Nazi or just dont really know what Nazism is..

I hope the latter is what applies in your case..

My opinion is not only shared by millions of people, but also Israeli Jews as well. Check out Yoav Litvin's articles on zionism. I'm sure you'll disregard it because you're claiming to be a zionist and refuse to accept your culpability, but there are people who think you're the problem as well:

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/1/9/the-zionist-fallacy-of-jewish-supremacy
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/2/2/on-empathy-and-other-liberal-zionist-canards
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/12/21/the-anatomy-of-zionist-genocide

[2Fluffy4U]

You have got to be kidding. I already told you my opinion on what zionists are, and no I'm not changing my opnion for you. Put the pipe down sir.

Btw what a cheap tactic by you. "If you don't agree with me, your antisemetic." FOH.

He didn't say that at all - you changing his anwer is the cheap tactic.

Zionism is a movement created to promote a homeland for the Jewish people.
The fact you go a long way to attach a very negative and biased 'opinion' is your problem.

Your claim is like me saying - 'I think Nazism is great and im not changing my opinion for you'

Which only means I am either a Nazi or just dont really know what Nazism is..

I hope the latter is what applies in your case..

My opinion is not only shared by millions of people, but also Israeli Jews as well. Check out Yoav Litvin's articles on zionism. I'm sure you'll disregard it because you're claiming to be a zionist and refuse to accept your culpability, but there are people who think you're the problem as well:

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/1/9/the-zionist-fallacy-of-jewish-supremacy
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/2/2/on-empathy-and-other-liberal-zionist-canards
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/12/21/the-anatomy-of-zionist-genocide

You did notice you just provided me with links to Aljazeera articles right?
Making it very easy for me to prove my point.
Aljazeera is pure propganda media outlet funded precisley for this hogwash brainwashing.

Its like logging into Hamas website and reading they are the best organization in the world and actually believing it.

I will be more than willing to read and learn about this zionism opinion of yours from neutral / non biased outlets.. (wikipedia etc.)

I welcome you to copy/paste info about zionism via wikipedia that indicate the narrative you are so much convinced of...

[TGW]

He didn't say that at all - you changing his anwer is the cheap tactic.

Zionism is a movement created to promote a homeland for the Jewish people.
The fact you go a long way to attach a very negative and biased 'opinion' is your problem.

Your claim is like me saying - 'I think Nazism is great and im not changing my opinion for you'

Which only means I am either a Nazi or just dont really know what Nazism is..

I hope the latter is what applies in your case..

My opinion is not only shared by millions of people, but also Israeli Jews as well. Check out Yoav Litvin's articles on zionism. I'm sure you'll disregard it because you're claiming to be a zionist and refuse to accept your culpability, but there are people who think you're the problem as well:

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/1/9/the-zionist-fallacy-of-jewish-supremacy
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/2/2/on-empathy-and-other-liberal-zionist-canards
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/12/21/the-anatomy-of-zionist-genocide

You did notice you just provided me with links to Aljazeera articles right?
Making it very easy for me to prove my point.
Aljazeera is pure propganda media outlet funded precisley for this hogwash brainwashing.

Its like logging into Hamas website and reading they are the best organization in the world and actually believing it.

I will be more than willing to read and learn about this zionism opinion of yours from neutral / non biased outlets.. (wikipedia etc.)

I welcome you to copy/paste info about zionism via wikipedia that indicate the narrative you are so much convinced of...

Ok, well then don't respond to me dude. You're argument is a joke and you've said a whole lotta nothing in this thread other than stupid false equivalencies.

[2Fluffy4U]

My opinion is not only shared by millions of people, but also Israeli Jews as well. Check out Yoav Litvin's articles on zionism. I'm sure you'll disregard it because you're claiming to be a zionist and refuse to accept your culpability, but there are people who think you're the problem as well:

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/1/9/the-zionist-fallacy-of-jewish-supremacy
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/2/2/on-empathy-and-other-liberal-zionist-canards
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/12/21/the-anatomy-of-zionist-genocide

You did notice you just provided me with links to Aljazeera articles right?
Making it very easy for me to prove my point.
Aljazeera is pure propganda media outlet funded precisley for this hogwash brainwashing.

Its like logging into Hamas website and reading they are the best organization in the world and actually believing it.

I will be more than willing to read and learn about this zionism opinion of yours from neutral / non biased outlets.. (wikipedia etc.)

I welcome you to copy/paste info about zionism via wikipedia that indicate the narrative you are so much convinced of...

Ok, well then don't respond to me dude. You're argument is a joke and you've said a whole lotta nothing in this thread other than stupid false equivalencies.

Of course you don't have to answer, but do you mind if I ask how old are you? (No need for precise age, general range is ok)..

[pancakes3]

israel can either give arabs a vote, or they can give them land, and they are doing neither.

and if you are having trouble parsing what a zionist is, try directing your criticism at the israeli government without dragging in an entire religion on a global diaspora.

[Zonkerbl]

Einstein was a Zionist also

I respect Al Jazeera, they're the BBC of the Arab world, good source of alternate perspectives

[Zonkerbl]

Corollary of my previous statement, believing something stupid and wrong is not an "opinion"

It's just stupid and wrong

[Zonkerbl]

A very, very interesting article

https://jewishcurrents.org/yiddish-anarchists-break-over-palestine-1929

[Zonkerbl]

And another, about how what is happening in Gaza is, in fact, genocide

https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide

[pancakes3]

mixed feelings but i'm overall on guyana's side here.

Watch on YouTube

full interview here:

Watch on YouTube

[2Fluffy4U]

And another, about how what is happening in Gaza is, in fact, genocide

https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide

I read both articles you provided. Thank you for sharing.

I will have to point out that similar to my claim about Aljazeera - when you log into this website 'jewishcurrents' about info - they state they are 'Jewish left' activism.

I don't mind it. People can be left wing or right wing etc...but I think this should be considered when I am referring to it as my source for information.
I can easily quote you an artical saying the opposite - viola: https://www.ajc.org/news/5-reasons-why-the-events-in-gaza-are-not-genocide

But would you question my source for information?

We are living in times in which facts are no longer the meaning - and the important thing is how the narrative is being conveyed.

My statement is that factually - Israel is no where close to Genocide. Even in your provided article they state Israel warns civilians prior - but the narrative of this left wing is intended to emphasize a collective punishment narrative (which is still not genocide) just as the article I provided emphasize information debunking the idea of genocide and placing blame on hamas. Is this factual? I can say that putting blame on hams is an opinion (which I tend to agree with but can realise others will decide not to) , but factually speaking - there is no ethnic cleansing or civilians being purposly targted for the aim of eliminiating the palestine people.

[Zonkerbl]

And another, about how what is happening in Gaza is, in fact, genocide

https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide

I read both articles you provided. Thank you for sharing.

I will have to point out that similar to my claim about Aljazeera - when you log into this website 'jewishcurrents' about info - they state they are 'Jewish left' activism.

I don't mind it. People can be left wing or right wing etc...but I think this should be considered when I am referring to it as my source for information.
I can easily quote you an artical saying the opposite - viola: https://www.ajc.org/news/5-reasons-why-the-events-in-gaza-are-not-genocide

But would you question my source for information?

We are living in times in which facts are no longer the meaning - and the important thing is how the narrative is being conveyed.

My statement is that factually - Israel is no where close to Genocide. Even in your provided article they state Israel warns civilians prior - but the narrative of this left wing is intended to emphasize a collective punishment narrative (which is still not genocide) just as the article I provided emphasize information debunking the idea of genocide and placing blame on hamas. Is this factual? I can say that putting blame on hams is an opinion (which I tend to agree with but can realise others will decide not to) , but factually speaking - there is no ethnic cleansing or civilians being purposly targted for the aim of eliminiating the palestine people.

Welcome to the political discussion thread. We get articles posted here all the time, the large majority of which the person posting it has not read themselves. I very often read the article and within about 30 seconds can identify information that contradicts what the poster claims the article says. I'm happy to provide that service, under some conditions, since my time and mental health is precious to me. I ask that you cite some information from the article you are posting to prove you actually read it - if you can't be bothered to read it, I certainly can't, and it is maddening to invest time and effort to read an article only to find the person posting it was so lazy they didn't bother to read it carefully themselves. I'm not saying you did this, just - if it turns out to be true I will probably not take you very seriously afterwards and will get increasingly snarky and dismissive of you every time you do it.

I can't control your behavior but I can set some boundaries around how I am going to invest my precious time. This very moment I am in the middle of packing for a trip overseas, and I have about four hours to pack before it is time to leave.

If you are posting an article in response to my article, I ask that you provide some evidence that you actually read the one I posted. This is common courtesy and again, my time and mental health is valuable to me - to preserve my time and sanity, I have set this boundary for myself: no responding to people on the internet who don't have the common courtesy to read and respond to something that I invested time and effort into. I'm certainly not going to expend the effort reading an article you posted after saying "the article you posted is from a left leaning website" and providing no evidence that you even bothered to read it. I would rather stick needles in my eyes.

[doclinkin]

Yeah.. Genocide..
War and Conflict - sure.
Genocide??? Cmon I expected better than this level of debate..

1. If Israel was to perfom genocide - there would not be anyone alive in Gaza..
2. The internationl court in Hag stated there is no Genocide.

Not 'war and conflict'. War Crimes. Systematic violations of international criminal law as both strategy and tactic. Treating a captive populace of non combatants as though all were an armed active military force, with wanton disregard for collateral damage and intentional destruction of public health facilities. Clean water. Hospitals. Food. Attacks against a populace not a military force rises to the level of genocide.

Among the definitions of War Crimes, tick through the list. (Definitions excerpted from the UN office on prevention of genocide).

Spoiler:

--Extensive destruction and appropriation of property
--Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
--Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
--Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
--Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission
--Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
--Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
--Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
--The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies,
--or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
--Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected
--Declaring that no quarter will be given;
--Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
--Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;
--Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;
--Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
--Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;
--Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;
--Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;
--Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
--Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict

To deny that any of these have been enacted is to pretend to believe a fiction. Neither side believes that this has not occurred in any instance, when evidence shows clearly even to defenders of Israel, that yes, indeed, some of this has occurred. "However..." is not an argument, but acknowledgement that crimes are ongoing, but somehow sanctionable. That is not an argument that holds up in history or law. To say "yes, but..." in any case of this list is to admit that in fact the crimes have been committed. That terrorists in opposition to Israel have committed crimes as well does not sanction the wanton murder of non-combatants. "He did it first" is not a justification for war crime.

Genocide:

Spoiler:

the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group";
--Killing members of the group
--Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
--Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

Case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy

Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”

By their own estimation, Israel's military claim they have killed 13,000 militants while suggesting a total of 30,000 people have been killed in total. Even while this figure is highly disputed and actual toll is clearly greater, by these numbers Israel tacitly admits they are responsible for the death of 17,000 citizen non-combatants.

The Hague did not find that there was no genocide. They stated that Israel must ensure that there is not, and suggested there was grounds to conclude there may be.

In the Court’s view, at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention.

In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts...

Intent, deliberate nature, aimed at a populace:

The Court also refers to the statement by the UNRWA Commissioner-General that the crisis in Gaza is “compounded by dehumanizing language”. In this regard, the Court has taken note of a number of statements made by senior Israeli officials. It calls attention, in particular, to the following examples: statements made by Mr Yoav Gallant, Defence Minister of Israel, on 9 and 10 October 2023, by Mr Isaac Herzog, President of Israel, on 12 October 2023, and by Mr Israel Katz, then Minister of Energy and Infrastructure of Israel, on 13 October 2023. The Court also takes note of a press release of 16 November 2023, in which 37 Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts and members of Working Groups part of the Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council voiced alarm over “discernibly genocidal and dehumanising rhetoric coming from senior Israeli government officials”. Concerns were also expressed on 27 October 2023 by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination about “the sharp increase in racist hate speech and dehumanization directed at Palestinians since 7 October”.
In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.

Concluding:

The Court considers that the civilian population in the Gaza Strip remains extremely vulnerable. It recalls that the military operation conducted by Israel since 7 October 2023 has resulted, inter alia, in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries and the destruction of homes, schools, medical facilities and other vital infrastructure, as well as displacement on a massive scale. The Court notes that the operation is ongoing and that the Prime Minister of Israel announced on 18 January 2024 that the war “will take many more long months”. At present, many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have no access to the most basic foodstuffs, potable water, electricity, essential medicines or heating. The World Health Organization has estimated that 15 per cent of the women giving birth in the Gaza Strip are likely to experience complications, and indicates that maternal and newborn death rates are expected to increase due to the lack of access to medical care. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the Court renders its final judgment.

However, this is an open case, which means that it will take years for this action to be investigated. One cannot rule definitively without an investigation into the facts. War crimes tribunals follow an atrocity, they tend not to be prosecuted while the action is ongoing.

Like many others in this argument, Israel's military does not make a distinction between 'Hamas' as an organization and 'Palestinians' as an ethnic group. They are comfortable with a 75/25 ratio of noncombatant deaths to active militants. That they have destroyed sources of water, power, food distribution, medical care, schools, housing, etc, is factual and undeniable. This systematic and wanton destruction of infrastructure and the use of war crimes as a tool of war enacted on a captive populace rises to the level of genocide.

Claims that these are somehow not a crime because the inhabitants were warned before the destruction is not a defense that holds up in international courts of law. To warn a person you are going to kill them if they don't move, then doing so, only shows premeditation. The military claims that each instance was a case of targeting a military target. Knowing that this will have to be disproven after the fact, relying on the fog of war to prevent investigation. Especially given the high toll of death among journalists and aid workers.

To say one does not like Netanyahu, but to handwave away his actions or justify them, and argue that genocide is not genocide because it is not complete extermination, is in fact supporting his unlawful actions. Even partial extermination of a particular populace is in fact genocide.

Again, war crimes do not justify war crimes. That people were killed and raped and taken hostage by Hamas deserves justice. Justice is not attained by further injustice. Magnified by thousands, only magnifies the injustice. Netanyahu cited Amalek, then prosecuted exactly what was threatened by that statement: the systematic destruction of a population's home, farms, water, hospitals, lives, regardless of combatant status or military target value. War crimes as tactic and strategy.

[doclinkin]

At this point it is not worth debating facts on the sources of information. Israel acknowledges its actions, but justifies them. The above quotes are from the UN, not from Aljazeera. Israel did not deny that these actions occurred, they denied the intent behind them. That yes they were doing all of these things, but that you cannot prove their that intent is genocide. Even if the effect is.

That is the 'playing games with words' that you refer to.

Only by "words" we mean the deaths of 14,500 children.

[2Fluffy4U]

At this point it is not worth debating facts on the sources of information. Israel acknowledges its actions, but justifies them. The above quotes are from the UN, not from Aljazeera. Israel did not deny that these actions occurred, they denied the intent behind them. That yes they were doing all of these things, but that you cannot prove their that intent is genocide. Even if the effect is.

That is the 'playing games with words' that you refer to.

Only by "words" we mean the deaths of 14,500 children.

So lets not debate about sources. Lets debate solutions.

Give me a solution. Tell me what you think Israel and Palestinians should do in order to have peace with each other.

[dobrojim]

This ish kept me up last night (sorry, I know, poor me).

I’m in Richmond today after my son’s graduation yesterday.

There is not much sympathy I’m seeing/hearing for Israel’s position
among the young college age people to put it mildly. Biden needs to
pull a Jimmy Carter somehow or this could have very undesirable
ramifications not just in Gaza.

[2Fluffy4U]

This ish kept me up last night (sorry, I know, poor me).

I’m in Richmond today after my son’s graduation yesterday.

There is not much sympathy I’m seeing/hearing for Israel’s position
among the young college age people to put it mildly. Biden needs to
pull a Jimmy Carter somehow or this could have very undesirable
ramifications not just in Gaza.

There is a reason why college age people 'lack sympathy' for Israel's position. And critical thinking is not it.

This issue is very complex and I know I can't say much about the Darfour civil war (which has around than 150,000 deaths since 2023 per wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Sudan_(2023%E2%80%93present) ).. but I wonder how come no one is talking about it?

Why is the UN and world not outraged about this unfathomable number of casualties?
Be critical in your thinking..
Because no one cares when people kill their own / or when no political gain can be made by interfering..
As noted before - these are 'usful idiot' accroding to Hamas and Islamic chaliphate pursuers..

[doclinkin]

At this point it is not worth debating facts on the sources of information. Israel acknowledges its actions, but justifies them. The above quotes are from the UN, not from Aljazeera. Israel did not deny that these actions occurred, they denied the intent behind them. That yes they were doing all of these things, but that you cannot prove their that intent is genocide. Even if the effect is.

That is the 'playing games with words' that you refer to.

Only by "words" we mean the deaths of 14,500 children.

So lets not debate about sources. Lets debate solutions.

Give me a solution. Tell me what you think Israel and Palestinians should do in order to have peace with each other.

Is this a solution? Destruction of 70% of all housing in the area to kettle and contain a refugee population into a narrow area looks more like what Germany did in Poland in WW2. The precursor to the 'final solution'.

I can tell you what the US should do. The same thing we do with any bad actor. Stop sending weapons when they are used against populations not military targets. Push for ceasefire. Broker talks. Use the leverage of our aid to insist on inspections/oversight/investigations. Work with the UN to bring war criminals to court and enforce justice. Hamas and Israel alike. Show that justice works hand in hand with law.

Post ceasefire? Same as after many conflicts. Rebuild. Repair. Humanitarian aid. Hospitals. Enforce law. Israel must arrest settlers that enflame tensions with illegal seizures of property. Palestinian authorities do likewise on militant actors. The latter will not be easy given that even a partial genocide tends to radicalize the survivors. 15,000 dead kids have that effect.

But all your other arguments are pointless obfuscation and distraction.

War crimes are not made legal by pointing at other crimes elsewhere and going 'yeah well, Sudan is also happening, why are you not bothering those guys'. Same thing: economic sanctions, pressure, attempt to bring justice. As the US has been attempting for decades in that region. The difference is a matter of dollars and influence. We send many more billions to Israel, we should have proportionate influence over their action and requirement to follow international law. I do have a say what is done with my tax dollars.

Stop excusing the inexcusable and casting blame on propaganda. If your country is misbehaving, hold them to account and insist they represent you in the best of all possible ways. A genocide in Sudan does not cancel a genocide in Palestine. Stop using infantile arguments that we learned were not justifications even in grade school. "He did it too..." does not cancel your own bad actions. Insist Israel does better, as in this case I insist mine does as well.

[2Fluffy4U]

https://youtu.be/I5VPFw0vI6U?si=XF2-gIp0BQyvaXbb

A long watch but essential IMO to better understand the complexities of the situation.
01:48:00 minute mark onward recommended for our debate about colleges etc..