German Hostage Found Dead

[Dill]

(12-11-2023, 01:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It has been an interesting conversation over here. I have been listening to a lot of discussions on the topic of this war and how Americans have been viewing it. The Baby Boomers grew up hearing the stories of their parents and the atrocities of the Holocaust. They and Gen X really saw Israel struggling to exist. My generation and younger have seen nothing but a strong Israel that has the ability to hold off just about anything, has nuclear weapons, and has their "big brother" the US standing over their shoulder. We know what happened, but we have only seen Israel in a position where they have really been the bully, not the bullied, and that colors our perception of it all. This can shift the role of US policy going forward.

I hope the people of Israel, though, will make adjustments in light of everything. I just don't see it happening, though.

Yes, and to the bolded I would add that I saw the movie Exodus in 1960, and remember the theme song as a top hit on the radio.

That movie spread the myth that Palestinians were ordered to leave their homes by the Arab league, so Arab armies could attack without worrying about Arab casualties. Paul Newman, an officer in the Hagenah, unsuccessfully tries to persuade his lifelong Arab friend to stay so Arabs and Jews can build a country together. The friend is eventually killed by Arab irregulars lead by an ex-Nazi. A kind, beautiful you girl is also killed by a sneaky Arab. the girl and the friend are buried together in the final scene, as Jewish settlers dash off to defend their homes from Arab invaders, like hard-working American pioneers defending their land from Mexicans and Indians. I think that movie shaped American perspective on the conflict more than any other event.

I never saw much movement in public opinion after that until the first Intifada, with images of Israeli soldiers fighting women and children. It triggered a lot of questions for some people, not a majority. I think the generational divide in perception which you describe began there.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-11-2023, 02:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem is, though, that the Netanyahu government has worked to ensure Hamas is in power because they have seen it as beneficial to the prevention of the two-state solution. So Israel has propped up Hamas over the years and there needs to be a reconciliation with that in order to make changes moving forward. I am in favor of the destruction of Hamas, but we have been kicking this can down the road for far too long. At this point, once this war is over, I am in favor of bringing everyone to the table and telling them either we come up with an equitable solution or we are officially hands off in the area.

Netanyahu is far from the only outside entity propping up Hamas, but you are correct.  He sees them as useful to enable hard line policies, and he is sadly correct.  I think Hamas still exists in its current form without his intervention, but that, of course, is impossible to say for certain.  As to your last point, I wholeheartedly agree.  Once Hamas is eradicated a serous long term solution needs to be agreed upon that neither side will like or we officially wash our hands of the whole situation.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Two more hostages found dead.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/12/world/middleeast/israel-hostages-bodies-gaza.html

I've seen reports that they were executed, but the linked article does not confirm this.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-09-2023, 10:29 AM)Dill Wrote: One of your "details" was that Palestinians were offered 94% of the West Bank. No source. That's more than just "false." 
It is targeted disinformation.

Same for your "offers of statehood" in '37, '47, '67, and 2008, in which Palestinians rejected the "opportunity" to give their land to someone else,
offers made by people with no right to give away Palestinian land.

But you are sure the details don't matter? That's really just saying the facts don't matter.

One neighbor takes another neighbor's land, bulldozing their family home in the process.

But if dispossessed children throw rocks at the bulldozer, you see THAT as the threat to peace. 

Common sense OtherMike, how long would you put up with a neighbor bulldozing your property? 

So ***** what if it's not 100% accurate as far as the land division goes. 

The point is:
They WERE offered a path to statehood more than once.
Second Point is:
Israel has also tried to make peace more than once. 


For gods sake they can't even maintain a cease fire arrangement for long.

Now as far as the analogy about me owning the Land and so on? 
The Palestinians did NOT own the land nor were they self governing. The British owned all of their rights since 1922 shortly after WWI. By the time UN Resolution 181 came to be, there was already a significant number of Jews in the area.  It's not like they suddenly popped up after the Resolution. 

Both sides have claims to that land dating back over 2k years. The British tried to figure out a way to make it work and the Arabs make the Republicans Party of No look like amateurs compromisers. They've made it perfectly clear over the years that anything involving the Jews is a NO Deal.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Resolution-181

1937 - United Nations Resolution 181, resolution passed by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1947 that called for the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, with the city of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum (Latin: “separate entity”) to be governed by a special international regime. The resolution—which was considered by the Jewish community in Palestine to be a legal basis for the establishment of Israel, and which was rejected by the Arab community—was succeeded almost immediately by violence.


https://embassies.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/The-Peel-Commission-Plan-1937.aspx

The Peel Commission Plan (1937)

In 1936, in response to the Arab Revolt against the British mandatory government and repeated Arab violence against Jews, the British government appointed a commission of inquiry headed by Lord Peel to assess the cause of the Arab riots and the performance of the Mandate government. In July 1937, the Peel Commission recommended for the first time a partition of the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state alongside an international zone, stretching from Jerusalem to Jaffa, that would remain under British mandatory authority. The Commission also recommended an exchange of land and population between the two states.

The Peel partition plan was rejected by the Arabs, and was widely debated amongst the Jewish leadership. In 1938, the British declared the plan unimplementable.


Both clearly says 2 states. I'm not going to list anymore, cause you've already made up your mind that i'm wrong your right. Take your nit-picking elsewhere.  

Both sides have created this current mess by pushing each other to this point, to argue over who started it is stupid. It's been going on like this between them for over 2k years. It seems like it's the Crusades all over again.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-09-2023, 10:45 AM)Dill Wrote: I like the neighbor analogy. Seems Dino does too. Let's continue it. Do you live in Ohio? 

Imagine some administrators in Los Angeles awarded me half your property because I wanted to live in your neighborhood.

You seem like a reasonable person, so I think you'd accept the opportunity to gain half what you already owned.

But Palestinians are not like that. I don't know if it is culture or religion or what, but if I were awarded half a Palestinian family's
property, they would insist on keeping ALL of it. I'd need police force to get my share, probably pushing them out of their house 
and into the back yard.

And yeah, I admit a rock throwing problem could follow from that, exactly as you say. Again, I could offer them another settlement--
recognize my right to your house and I'll give you part of the yard--though I'll retain control of access to the property. 

Would they take that chance to prove themselves?

Based on their past behavior, we can assume the offer would not be "good enough." They'd demand a "right of return" to their
house. Some might even want to kill me and my family. How can you deal with people like that, who expect everything to be
handed to them on a silver spoon?  I'd need a constant police presence to keep them in line. 

That's the problem of the occupation right now. Palestinians keep throwing rocks at Israelis bulldozing their homes. Most Americans
understand that makes them difficult neighbors and a security problem. But the international community tends to side with the 
rock throwers, because of universal human rights or something. Or maybe it's anti-semitism. 

Anyway, you've identified the pattern--Palestinians keep rejecting opportunities to give up their land willingly. At some point you just
have to take the land by force, move them off it, and contain them. 

Except you are forgetting that the BRITISH was granted the land and and rights from 1922 (WWI). 
So they live there but have on rights. That's why Statehood was considered important.
The British were the land lords and the rest were just tenets, The British acknowledged that there was a prominent Jewish population already there and that both have claims to the land going back over 2k years. Which is why they tried to do 2 states and give both ownership rights to their land and let them co-exist. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-13-2023, 12:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Two more hostages found dead.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/12/world/middleeast/israel-hostages-bodies-gaza.html

I've seen reports that they were executed, but the linked article does not confirm this.

I'm afraid there will be more of those. 
My guess is he's running Low on live hostages and being a Dill over which Arabs get released as a way to stretch it out.

[Dill]

(12-13-2023, 07:08 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So ***** what if it's not 100% accurate as far as the land division goes. 
The point is:
They WERE offered a path to statehood more than once.
Second Point is:
Israel has also tried to make peace more than once. 
For gods sake they can't even maintain a cease fire arrangement for long.
Now as far as the analogy about me owning the Land and so on? 
The Palestinians did NOT own the land nor were they self governing. The British owned all of their rights since 1922 shortly after WWI. By the time UN Resolution 181 came to be, there was already a significant number of Jews in the area.  It's not like they suddenly popped up after the Resolution. 
Both sides have claims to that land dating back over 2k years. The British tried to figure out a way to make it work and the Arabs make the Republicans Party of No look like amateurs compromisers. They've made it perfectly clear over the years that anything involving the Jews is a NO Deal.

Here's what-- what you are calling "offers of state" were really offers to give half their land European immigrants. 

There is no Jewish claim to Palestine going back 2,000 years that could be recognized by international law. 

What is your source for the claim Palestinians did not own the land to which they had Ottomoan title since the 16th century? 

(12-13-2023, 07:08 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The Peel partition plan was rejected by the Arabs, and was widely debated amongst the Jewish leadership. In 1938, the British declared the plan unimplementable.
Both clearly says 2 states. I'm not going to list anymore, cause you've already made up your mind that i'm wrong your right. Take your nit-picking elsewhere.  
Both sides have created this current mess by pushing each other to this point, to argue over who started it is stupid. It's been going on like this between them for over 2k years. It seems like it's the Crusades all over again.

The Peel Partition was widely rejected by what then passed for Jewish authority--not even located in Palestine--as evidenced in the link I gave you before. So sure--2 states, both based on Palestinian land. 

I've made up my mind that you don't care much about the factual record. 

The question of whether Palestinians owned the land taken from them is not "nit picking." 

Whether the Palestinians were actually offered a state or a plan to transfer them from land they already owned is not "nit-picking," 
as you would quickly recognize if I offered you a deal to keep half your property and give me the rest. 

"Both sides" haven't created the current mess.  Hundreds of thousands of Jews came from Europe and, facilitated by Great Britain,
drove Palestinians off their land by violence, in a land where a few thousand Jews lived peacefully with hundreds of thousands of
Muslims and tens of thousands of Christians for hundreds of years. There was no authority which could ever give hundreds of 
thousands of European Jews the right to come and take Palestinian land by force--even if the British offered them a state on half of it.

So it has not been "going on like this between them for 2k years."  You call it a "fact" that Palestinians were offered a state and
refused, but you seem to think they had no right to refuse an "offer" to give up their land for free, while Jewish settlers had 
a perfect right to take it.  A lot of Americans think that. That's why we keep giving Israel unconditional aid to keep their state solvent
and hold MILLIONS of people stateless and without rights, under military occupation for decade after decade.

[Dill]

(12-13-2023, 07:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Except you are forgetting that the BRITISH was granted the land and and rights from 1922 (WWI). 
So they live there but have on rights. That's why Statehood was considered important.
The British were the land lords and the rest were just tenets, The British acknowledged that there was a prominent Jewish population already there and that both have claims to the land going back over 2k years. Which is why they tried to do 2 states and give both ownership rights to their land and let them co-exist. 

No. I'm not "forgetting" anything.  The British were not "granted" the land.  Who would have the authority to do that?  
Where are you getting this? Not from the Britannica.  Your link is about the UN partition in '47.

GB awarded themselves control of the southern part of the Ottoman Empire in a treaty with France in 1917;
the League of Nation recognized their de facto control of the land in 1922--to administer it until it could become an independent nation.

In 1917 the British also announced support of a Jewish "homeland, " not a state, in Palestine, not all of Palestine. 

This would become the impetus for a European colonial power facilitating the settling of European Jews in Palestine--without asking
what the people who actually lived there thought. (For which the British later apologized.)

Even your Jewish virtual library recognizes that Jews were only 8.1% of the total population in 1918, right after the declaration.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present

So what's happening here is that you keep presenting factually inverted information, which I continually refute, while claiming details  and "nit-picking" don't matter,and declaring an end to the discussion because I have "made up my mind." 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-13-2023, 09:00 PM)Dill Wrote: Here's what-- what you are calling "offers of state" were really offers to give half their land European immigrants. 

There is no Jewish claim to Palestine going back 2,000 years that could be recognized by international law. 

What is your source for the claim Palestinians did not own the land to which they had Ottomoan title since the 16th century? 


The Peel Partition was widely rejected by what then passed for Jewish authority--not even located in Palestine--as evidenced in the link I gave you before. So sure--2 states, both based on Palestinian land. 

I've made up my mind that you don't care much about the factual record. 

The question of whether Palestinians owned the land taken from them is not "nit picking." 

Whether the Palestinians were actually offered a state or a plan to transfer them from land they already owned is not "nit-picking," 
as you would quickly recognize if I offered you a deal to keep half your property and give me the rest. 

Was that so hard to answer, i mean 1k words to admit that the Peel Partition offered 2 states and you are still trying to argue it.
Factual records???  Like how the Jews were there Long before the Arabs?  
Why are you arguing about who owned the land? The British conquered it and took it from the Ottoman Empire.

(12-13-2023, 09:00 PM)Dill Wrote: "Both sides" haven't created the current mess.  Hundreds of thousands of Jews came from Europe and, facilitated by Great Britain,
drove Palestinians off their land by violence, in a land where a few thousand Jews lived peacefully with hundreds of thousands of
Muslims and tens of thousands of Christians for hundreds of years. There was no authority which could ever give hundreds of 
thousands of European Jews the right to come and take Palestinian land by force--even if the British offered them a state on half of it.

So it has not been "going on like this between them for 2k years."  You call it a "fact" that Palestinians were offered a state and
refused, but you seem to think they had no right to refuse an "offer" to give up their land for free, while Jewish settlers had 
a perfect right to take it.  A lot of Americans think that. That's why we keep giving Israel unconditional aid to keep their state solvent
and hold MILLIONS of people stateless and without rights, under military occupation for decade after decade.

King David took Jerusalem and named it as the capital of Israel in 1000 BC for the Jews (and built the first Temple), before them it was the Canaanites.
Then the Assyrians came along and conquered part of Israel and laid siege to Jerusalem in 701 BC.
Then the Babalyonines came along and conquered it all and laid waste to the Temple 586 BC
Then Persian King Cyrus conquered it from the Babalonians and allowed the Jews to return. 516 BC
Switched hands several more times, Alexander the Great, Hasmonean Dynasty of Jewish Rulers, Romans, Persians again.

632 Muhammed, the prophet of Islam, died and was said to ascend to heaven from a rock in the center of where the Jewish Temple used to be. 

That's kinda clear that the Jewish were there first and kicked out???? 

1099 AD Crusades starts.
1187 AD Saladin captures it.
1517 Ottoman capture it.
1917 British Capture it.
1948 State of Israel established.



And yes, both sides have done their fair share to each other to cause the problems we have today. How many K's of words will it take for you to admit that?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-14-2023, 11:28 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Was that so hard to answer, i mean 1k words to admit that the Peel Partition offered 2 states and you are still trying to argue it.
Factual records???  Like how the Jews were there Long before the Arabs?  
Why are you arguing about who owned the land? The British conquered it and took it from the Ottoman Empire.

King David took Jerusalem and named it as the capital of Israel in 1000 BC for the Jews (and built the first Temple), before them it was the Canaanites.
Then the Assyrians came along and conquered part of Israel and laid siege to Jerusalem in 701 BC.
Then the Babalyonines came along and conquered it all and laid waste to the Temple 586 BC
Then Persian King Cyrus conquered it from the Babalonians and allowed the Jews to return. 516 BC
Switched hands several more times, Alexander the Great, Hasmonean Dynasty of Jewish Rulers, Romans, Persians again.

632 Muhammed, the prophet of Islam, died and was said to ascend to heaven from a rock in the center of where the Jewish Temple used to be. 

That's kinda clear that the Jewish were there first and kicked out???? 

1099 AD Crusades starts.
1187 AD Saladin captures it.
1517 Ottoman capture it.
1917 British Capture it.
1948 State of Israel established.



And yes, both sides have done their fair share to each other to cause the problems we have today. How many K's of words will it take for you to admit that?

It's your time to waste, but you'll get nowhere with him on this issue especially.  He can never, ever find fault with the Islamic people of the Middle East and he places 100% of the blame for all conflict there on Israel and Western foreign policy.  

[GMDino]

(12-14-2023, 12:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's your time to waste, but you'll get nowhere with him on this issue especially.  He can never, ever find fault with the Islamic people of the Middle East and he places 100% of the blame for all conflict there on Israel and Western foreign policy.  

Ah...hyperbole.

Refreshing.

Maybe if you and your friends took time to read and discuss rather than complain that the responses are too detailed?

Nah.

This issue is bigger than "I had a Jewish relative" or "the people ELECTED Hamas" or "The Jewish people were there first!  The Bible says so!" 

And just because people look at if from different angles and with historical perspectives doesn't mean they "never" do anything.  This is a "discussion board".  Not a "I'm right and therefore I will pass judgement on all who disagree even slightly with me board."

Carry on.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-14-2023, 01:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: Ah...hyperbole.

Refreshing.

Maybe if you and your friends took time to read and discuss rather than complain that the responses are too detailed?

Nah.

This issue is bigger than "I had a Jewish relative" or "the people ELECTED Hamas" or "The Jewish people were there first!  The Bible says so!" 

And just because people look at if from different angles and with historical perspectives doesn't mean they "never" do anything.  This is a "discussion board".  Not a "I'm right and therefore I will pass judgement on all who disagree even slightly with me board."

Carry on.

I know you can never, ever, criticize anyone on your side of the aisle so this is hardly a surprising response from you.  As for discussion, yes, that is the point.  But you will please forgive me from drawing a line in the sand on what is, and is not, an acceptable position to argue for.  Mitigating and excusing the actions of murderers, gang rapists, torturers and kidnappers is such a line for me.  You have zero issue with him doing so, noted and fine, that's on what passes for your conscience.  I will not allow such a defense of the indefensible to pass without condemnation.  

Carry on.

[GMDino]

(12-14-2023, 01:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know you can never, ever, criticize anyone on your side of the aisle so this is hardly a surprising response from you.  As for discussion, yes, that is the point.  But you will please forgive me from drawing a line in the sand on what is, and is not, an acceptable position to argue for.  Mitigating and excusing the actions of murderers, gang rapists, torturers and kidnappers is such a line for me.  You have zero issue with him doing so, noted and fine, that's on what passes for your conscience.  I will not allow such a defense of the indefensible to pass without condemnation.  

Carry on.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-14-2023, 01:40 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Your meme game is precious.  I suppose you'd have the same reaction to someone calling out the atrocities committed by the KKK or calling out someone denying the Holocaust.  Because that's what you're doing, memes or no.

Carry on. 




(BTW your use of Colbert is unintentionally hilarious)

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-14-2023, 12:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's your time to waste, but you'll get nowhere with him on this issue especially.  He can never, ever find fault with the Islamic people of the Middle East and he places 100% of the blame for all conflict there on Israel and Western foreign policy.  

I'm just waiting for him to tell me there was always an Iron wall there

[Dill]

(12-14-2023, 11:28 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The Peel Partition was widely rejected by what then passed for Jewish authority--not even located in Palestine--as evidenced in the link I gave you before. So sure--2 states, both based on Palestinian land.

I've made up my mind that you don't care much about the factual record.

The question of whether Palestinians owned the land taken from them is not "nit picking."
Whether the Palestinians were actually offered a state or a plan to transfer them from land they already owned is not "nit-picking," 

as you would quickly recognize if I offered you a deal to keep half your property and give me the rest.

Was that so hard to answer, i mean 1k words to admit that the Peel Partition offered 2 states and you are still trying to argue it.
Factual records???  Like how the Jews were there Long before the Arabs?  
Why are you arguing about who owned the land? The British conquered it and took it from the Ottoman Empire.

So much confusion here. The British did not "own" the land they administrated after the Ottoman collapse. As I've already said.
You are just assuming they owned it because they won WWI and the Ottomans lost and because you aren't familiar with international law
or the mission of the Mandate.

Before that collapse, there were land records showing who owned what land where. The British kept and honored those records.
And they kept a court system intact to register land sales and ownership. That's how we know that as of 1947, Jews owned less than 6% of Palestine. It was Palestinians who owned the rest--NOT the British.

You keep returning to the Peel Partition--how did the British get the right to give Palestinian land to European Jews--and without any
input from Palestinians? They didn't. And realized their error too late.

But you still want to spin this offer to give up land--an offer Jews rejected as well--as an example of Palestinian intransigence
rather than robbery perpetrated by invaders.

I've always "admitted" that the Peel Partition offered Palestinian land to European Jews.

Though both Arabs and Jews rejected the partition, you want to frame that as Palestinians being unreasonable,
not giving their land away because people in Britain decided that was a good idea.

[GMDino]

(12-14-2023, 01:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your meme game is precious.  I suppose you'd have the same reaction to someone calling out the atrocities committed by the KKK or calling out someone denying the Holocaust.  Because that's what you're doing, memes or no.

Carry on. 




(BTW your use of Colbert is unintentionally hilarious)

No one is defending what Hamas did in October.  No one.

That's a lie you've told over and over.

The discussion is about the Palestinian people and land and how they have been treated also. 

It's your own arrogance that won't let your lie go.  That and your hate for Dill. Maybe you can physically threaten him to get another thread closed that you don't like how its going?

And I figured a guy who faked a character was a good choice for the slow cap in this situation. 

[Dill]

(12-14-2023, 11:28 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: King David took Jerusalem and named it as the capital of Israel in 1000 BC for the Jews (and built the first Temple), before them it was the Canaanites.
Then the Assyrians came along and conquered part of Israel and laid siege to Jerusalem in 701 BC.
Then the Babalyonines came along and conquered it all and laid waste to the Temple 586 BC
Then Persian King Cyrus conquered it from the Babalonians and allowed the Jews to return. 516 BC
Switched hands several more times, Alexander the Great, Hasmonean Dynasty of Jewish Rulers, Romans, Persians again.
632 Muhammed, the prophet of Islam, died and was said to ascend to heaven from a rock in the center of where the Jewish Temple used to be. 
That's kinda clear that the Jewish were there first and kicked out???? 
1099 AD Crusades starts.
1187 AD Saladin captures it.
1517 Ottoman capture it.
1917 British Capture it.
1948 State of Israel established.
And yes, both sides have done their fair share to each other to cause the problems we have today. How many K's of words will it take for you to admit that?

I'm familiar with this history. Your conception of "sides" is rather too simple here.

E.g., only some Jews were taken to Babylon, their upper classes. The rest remained living and farming in Palestine. The land was not empty.
With the Muslim conquest, many Jews converted to Islam by the 8th century.  Today's Palestinians are a mixture of all the people who have
lived in Palestine throughout history--including Jews.

The question of land ownership in Palestine and statehood for Palestinians can't be settled by appeals to nations dissolved thousands of years ago and whose ancestors are now on "both sides" of the present conflict.

And in a courtroom--international or Israeli--the theft of land from legally titled owners in the present cannot be adjudicated by foggy historical both-sidesism.  Land taken by force in '47, or today in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, cannot be legitimated by vague references to Saladin's conquest of Jerusalem.
Present claims and titles do not legally rest on some determination of who was in Palestine first millennia ago. They rest on contemporary conceptions of law and universal human rights existing deeds. 

No one who supports existing law and conceptions of universal rights can look at the current conflict and infer that "both sides" have done their "fair share" to cause the problems we have today, when only one side invaded the country and took it by force from the people living there. The problem is not something that happened in the 7th century CE.  It's an illegal occupation going on right now. Today.

Quite a double standard at play if someone looks at this history and reframes forcible seizure of land as Palestinian refusal of statehood.

[Dill]

(12-14-2023, 03:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: No one is defending what Hamas did in October.  No one.
That's a lie you've told over and over.
The discussion is about the Palestinian people and land and how they have been treated also. 
It's your own arrogance that won't let your lie go.  That and your hate for Dill.  Make you can physically threaten him to get another thread closed that you don't like how its going?
And I figured a guy who faked a character was a good choice for the slow cap in this situation. 

Yes. Someone who just joined the forum and read SSF's posts might assume some guy was actively defending Hamas
calling for "negotiation" or "concessions" or making "false equivalences" to the IDF or whatever. But there are no defensible examples of such.

So why the repeated, loud "condemnation" and drawing lines and reducing complex social events to a simple binary for clubbing others, blocking wider analysis and other viewpoints?

Since there are no examples of anyone defending Hamas, the accusation is really a kind of bank shot around the facts, 
like so many we've seen before--

People who refuse to use de-humanizing terms on any group, including ISIS, become ISIS supporters--for refusing to de-humanize.
People who disagree with SSF' views of racism are themselves racist.
If you, Dino, disagree with SSF's take on China then you are "carrying water" for China.
You challenge him and a switch flips, turning you into what he opposes. Analysis of the facts ends and its all about your character.
To borrow one of his favorite terms, this is "predictable." "Calling out" is a framing mechanism brought to every discussion
which shuts down critical analysis and turns discussion into repeated denunciation, extreme rhetoric, and personal attack of forum members.

And that's what's happening here: people who link discussion of the Arab-Israeli to the historical record in ways that disrupt IDF propaganda, are--switch on--"apologists" for Hamas who just can't criticize Muslims. Even if they have denounced Hamas and think they must be destroyed. Insistence that discussion be limited to condemnation of Hamas just decontextualizes the current conflict, reducing its causes to religious fanaticism--the kind of analysis least likely to resolve conflict and "move forward" because it ignores actual causes and preserves one side from its responsibility for the conflict.

People who are serious about understanding this conflict ought to get back to discussing its actual causes, with the goal of understanding them, and stop repeatedly twisting threads about it into the exercise of personal grievances about US politics.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-14-2023, 03:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: No one is defending what Hamas did in October.  No one.

Excusing and mitigating their actions while drawing equivalencies to the IDF is absolutely defending them.

Quote:That's a lie you've told over and over.

Except it's not a lie.

Quote:The discussion is about the Palestinian people and land and how they have been treated also. 

Actually (your word again for you), this thread is about the female hostages who have been raped, kidnapped and murdered by Hamas.

Quote:It's your own arrogance that won't let your lie go.  That and your hate for Dill.  Maybe you can physically threaten him to get another thread closed that you don't like how its going?

Dear lord.  That you make this claim mere posts after accusing me of hyperbole is one for the ages.  Let's set aside, for the moment, the utter absurdity of physically threatening someone over the internet who you will never, ever, in your life meet.  That you're actually trying to claim that my intentionally extreme analogy was an actual threat is sophomoric, and one might say disingenuous.  Being well versed in what constitutes a threat I can safely assure you no such comparison can be drawn, despite how extreme you and your delicate sensitivities may be.  

Quote:And I figured a guy who faked a character was a good choice for the slow cap in this situation. 

Yeah, you were incorrect.