• 0 Posts
  • 79 Comments
Joined 17 days ago
cake
Cake day: September 30th, 2024

help-circle
  • Are you serious?

    Hamas deliberately puts their civilians in harm’s way. That’s why they have dug 500km of tunnels underneath cities. That’s why they operate out of hospitals and schools. They want civilians to die and the more the better.

    Israel, on the other hand, has spent billions to protect its citizens. And not just the Iron Dome either. There is a law in Israel that all new buildings and homes must be built with safe rooms and bomb shelters. They have a highly advanced early warning system so that civilians know to find shelter and exactly how much time they have to do so. Most of the rockets and missiles that have gotten through have been allowed to fall in open areas where they won’t do damage.



  • https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919 “Ms Donoghue explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.”

    But the IDF is accountable for its own actions, and some of these seem to break both international and Israeli law> Yes, that is true. But no military can perpetrate a war without killing civilians. It’s impossible. International law only requires that they take reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties. The fact that civilians have been killed in Gaza is not evidence of genocide, nor does it establish that Israel is morally wrong in their actions.

    The one thing that people can’t seem to grasp about Israel, because they are so blinded by their hatred and ideological brainwashing, is that Israelis don’t want war. That will become clear in time, when the Iranian regime is eventually dealt with, the Abraham Accords move forward, and we enter a new era of peace in the Middle East. And maybe then, just maybe, all the Western anti-Zionists will say, “Hmm, I guess Israel wasn’t the bad guy after all.”


  • You guess wrong about Stewart. If he understood Israel, he would know that the Holocaust narrative is very much not a part of Israeli culture. It’s a Jewish diaspora phenomenon. Israelis hate when people (like Coates and Stewart) connect Israel and the Holocaust because they resent the image of the Jew as a weak victim. So the accusation they make that the Holocaust makes Israelis feel justified in treating the Palestinians poorly is just plain ignorant.

    Its been a week or two since I watched the Jon Stewart interview, but one of the final questions Stewart asked Coates was something to the effect of “So what is the answer? Where do we go from here with the two side so far apart?” Thank isn’t a difficult question?> What I mean is, he didn’t challenge him at all. He didn’t question any of his assumptions or narratives, he just accepted it all at face value. It wasn’t a journalistic interview, it was a conversation between two people who think the same way.

    The fact that strawmanning and attacks are the only thing you’re recognizing as journalism shows how much journalism has deteriorated.> First of all, how did Dokoupil strawman Coates? Second, it wasn’t like Coates offered a thoughtful, intellectual argument. There’s no substance at all to what he says about Israel. he just gives his impressions based on his very limited experience and dresses it up in intellectual clothing.




  • Stop throwing around baseless accusations.

    Many military experts have commented that Israel has done a very effective job at minimizing civilian casualties. If if were truly indiscriminate, the death toll would be much, much higher.

    And you have absolutely no evidence for your claim that “the current government of Israel would like to see all Palestinians dead., and is willing to act on that desire whenever they think they can get away with it.” This is an ignorant statement with no basis in reality. If this were true, all Palestinians would be dead. It should be very obvious to you that Israel has the ability to do far more damage than they have done.


  • On 26 January 2024, the ICJ said that it was plausible that Israel had breached the Genocide Convention.>

    That is not what they ruled. In this video the former head of the ICJ clarifies the ruling: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919 “Ms Donoghue explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.”

    And I really don’t care what biased groups say about Israel. Did you know that back in 2014, the last time there was major armed conflict between Israel and Hamas, critics were accusing Israel of committing genocide then…when the death toll was a whopping 2500 people? All they’re doing is diluting the meaning of the term so much that it carries no weight anymore.


  • But Israel/IDF has indeed been found to probably have committed genocide. By agencies and systems in the UN. At this point it’s kinda pedantic if it’s called terrorism or not, because it’s genocide.>

    This is false. The former chair of the ICJ herself clarified the ruling. They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk, which is a fancy way of saying the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.

    And those horrors you refer to were all brought about by Iranian terror proxies who declared war on Israel. Unfortunately civilians suffer the most in war.




  • Typical. Can’t engage in a discussion, huh? I’m guessing that’s because you know as much about Israel as Coates does.

    There are roads that both Israelis and Palestinians are prevented from using FOR SECURITY PURPOSES. That’s the problem with Coates’ perspective, he refuses to even ask how it got to this point. He just looks around, sees fences and soldiers acting as security guards and says, “This feels like apartheid.”


  • It’s not the job of a journalist to kiss the interviewee’s ass and finish their sentences for them. That’s not journalism, that’s marketing and promotion.

    The Jon Stewart interview is two people who don’t understand Israel at all talking as though they’re experts on Israel. Stewart didn’t ask Coates a single difficult question or challenge his narrative in any way at all.

    Dokoupil did his job and the fact that he’s received so much backlash shows just how far journalism has deteriorated.



  • Thank you. I didn’t really understand what I did to warrant a ban.

    I’m old enough to remember George W. Bush arguing in favor of invading Iraq going “They’re violating 17 UN resolutions!” and the reaction from sane people was “Yeah? And Israel is violating 80? 90? We going to invade Israel too?”> Okay, but also not analogous. Bush used this as justification for invading another country that didn’t pose a threat to the US.

    Where Squid went off was the whole “UN doing nothing” thing. It’s pretty clear to me you MEANT nothing about 1701, but they are doing a lot of good humanitatarian work on the ground, you know, when Israel isn’t SHOOTING AT THEM.> I’m sure they are. They’re just not doing what they’re supposed to be doing with respect to 1701, and their failure to do so poses an existential threat to Israel. I’m sure you’re aware that in recent days the IDF has uncovered both Hezbollah plans to carry out a 10/7-style attack but on a larger scale, and multiple instances of Hezbollah operating from positions within very close proximity to UNIFIL positions. Kinds looks like UNIFIL has basically been providing cover for Hezbollah.

    And you know full well that the Lebanese are controlled by Hezbollah. Unless they want to plunge the country into another devastating civil war, they’re not going to challenge Hezbollah.


  • Really? Does every country have this “right”? Or just Israel? Cause it sounds to me like you granted all of Israel’s enemies the right to go to war against Israel.> Do I really have to walk you through this? Israel has the right to go to war because it was attacked first and has lived with genocidal enemies on its borders for decades.

    The responsibility of the consequences of a bullet being fired or a bomb being dropped rests with the person who pulls the trigger. This is true even when those actions are justified. Israel still has agency, and therefore moral responsibility. Nothing you said even brings to refute this.> None of those deaths would have happened if not for the attack on 10/7 that started the war. While the proximal responsibility lies with the people who pull the trigger, the moral responsibility ultimately lies with the organization that carried out the attack knowing full well that Israel would respond and civilians would die.

    Says the guy trying so hard to justify the murder of children lol. Just a few thousand more bruh, that’ll make Israel safe.> Deaths that occur during military actions are not murder. That’s why the concept of collateral damage was articulated. This is basic stuff here.

    Your movement is defined not by your words by the actions taken in its name. The moral bankruptcy of those actions speaks for itself .> Actions are being taken to defend the existence of the Jewish homeland, and any other nation would do the same. I’m sorry you find the idea of Jews defending themselves from annihilation “morally bankrupt.”



  • No, the creation of Israel was an act of the UN. The UK had promised to help establish both Jewish and Arab homelands in the region. When the UK turned on the Jews and started restricting immigration, in the midst of the Holocaust, that’s when the Zionist militias fought back against the UK. Israel was actually created in spite of the UK, not because of it.

    And there was no foreign invader. The Ottoman Empire, which controlled Palestine for hundreds of years, was a foreign invader. They lost control of the land in WWI and Britain took temporary control. Jews didn’t invade anything. They literally purchased land and moved in, like immigrants do. They had to establish a militia to protect themselves from Arab aggression.

    Do you know how many countries in the world have been established through partition plans and political agreements? Why is that not good enough for the Palestinians?

    Every citizen of Israel participates in government, Arabs included. To repeat: Palestinians aren’t citizens of Israel. The people of Gaza elected Hamas as their government, remember? Why should they have their own territory with their own government but also benefit from Israeli citizenship?

    “You clearly are a supporter of the geonicide, the settlements, the throwing Palestinians out of their homes, burning their fields, killing, raping, spitting on them as they walk the street below in jerseleum, and the myriad of crimes isrealis commit daily.”

    Pretty childish, which is typical of Palestinian activists. You know you don’t have the facts on your side so you resort to rhetoric, strawman arguments, and ad hominem attacks.