Israel/Hamas War Superthread

[Matt_Crimson]

(02-18-2024, 06:26 PM)Dill Wrote: I much appreciate your efforts to clarify your position. It did sound, though, like you did not understand that Palestinians cannot just walk out of the Gaza Strip. They are "contained" there by the Israeli military, and by Egypt on the southern border. Have been for two generations now. I don't find that normal or ok. And you keep insisting that they "choose" to stay, like no one is forcing them to.  Or if someone is, it is still THE GAZANS' FAULT, not that of those who have walled them in. Sometimes it seems you are talking about refugees staying in Gaza City; sometimes it seems you are talking about refugees choosing to stay in the Strip itself. I get confused.

Alright I'm back, sorry for the delay. The confusion you stated here is understandable. 

I'm simply saying (understanding the difficulty of what I'm saying) that if you die in a city (not the entirety of the strip itself) which is most likely to be targeted because Hamas's genocidal operations are being conducted there, you chose to die there. I understand that they are "walled in", but they're not shackled. I understand that by leaving one situation in one city they could possibly be going into another harmful situation. But in my opinion, that's a consequence you have to deal with when living with extremists. Even if they're saying they're going to behead you if you try to run away, you are still making the difficult choice to stay. And I am in no way trying to insinuate that this is an easy predicament to be in. I'm simply stating the fact of the matter. 

You seem to be arguing that there is no choice, only certain death. As if to say, "There is no try, there is only do, and the doing is dying" leaving no room for possible survival in your argument. I'm more so arguing more from the middle ground that survival is made more possible if you flee from a "hot" area of conflict.

Besides that, you are also putting forth the argument that Gazan's have been forced to stay in the Gaza Strip. 

There are three issues i have with this argument.

1. The claim suggests that no one is ever allowed to leave Gaza, which is false. 

2. The claim does not explain why people are denied from Gaza. In order for this to be a contstuctive argument, you would have to break down on a case by case basis why people are being denied travel across the border. WIthout that type of analysis all you really have is a generalized statement that makes Israel look like the "bad guys" because the premise itself presents them in that light by default by suggesting that Israel is "Imprisoning innocent people". Okay, but who are these innocent people? How do you know they're innocent? What makes them worthy of entry into Israel? 

3. The claim suggests that there shouldn’t be a barrier to entry/exit to begin with. Perhaps you can enlighten me Dill, but I don’t see why so many people who share your opinion assume that it should be really easy for people to leave Gaza. Why should it? Are they not being controlled by a terrorist organization that vows to destroy Israel? Israel doesn’t have to make the assumption that everyone in Gaza is evil to deny them entry. They just simply have to desire to protect their border due to a clear threat of violence against them from Hamas. Therefore, anyone living under Hamas rule would then be percieved a possible threat. Not a threat, but a possible one. It has already been established in this thread that you can’t tell a regular Palestinian from a Hamas supporter. Just on that basis alone anyone looking to cross the border will be under heavy scrutiny. 

This all again goes back to my argument that there are consequences to living with extremists with genocidal intentions. Dying with them was the first consequence I mentioned. Having your border crossing privileges severley limited is another consequence to living with extremists. Whether it was your choice or not in this particular instance doesn't matter. 

Quote:The bolded is our primary point of disagreement. Were there no Gazan history of Israeli dispossession, massacre occupation, and containment, Hamas would neither exist nor want to destroy Israel.

 
I agree that this is our primary point of disagreement.

In my opinion, if a victim's response to a prepetrators actions is genocide, then the perpetrator reserves the right to defend themselves in a way that elminates those who wish to commit genocide against them, even if that means innocents will die in the process. That doesn't mean they get to have complete disregard for innocent lives. I still think there needs to be limitations in how they respond, but those limitations cannot be waiting for all innocent lives to get out of the way before attacking any position.

Quote:You want to treat the disease without examining the cause. Hamas said "genocide" so that's all anyone should consider. But you did allow a bit of history in a previous post when you invited to readers to empathize with Israelis suffering an occasional crude rocket, rather than with the people they've penned in Gaza whom they actually bomb with smart munitions--people with nowhere to run.

You're right. I did allow for some history in my argument. However, you're misidentifying the reason for why I used that history as part of my argument. It was niether to create empathy for Israeli's nor was it to argue that Israel's current scorched earth response is understandable from a historical perspective. My argument completely hinges on the fact that Hamas wants to commit genocide against Israel, and I was using the history of their genocidal actions to argue that point. It wasn't to argue that the history of it matters from the perspective of Israel's response but from the perspective of Hama's intentions, whicn is genocide.

You however are arguing that Hamas's actions towards Israel are a historical matter, therefore you're arguing from a histroical perspective to make your point.

Quote:So it's clear you are claiming that history should not matter. But you haven't offered any clear argument as to WHY it shouldn't.
"But one party said 'genocide'" doesn't seem to be a clear standard for dismissing the conflict's history, all the more so given the actual balance of forces.

Second point, this dismissal of history is also a dismissal of everything one needs to know to find a solution which ends the conflict. A sovereign Palestinian state might go a long ways towards that, but it will be much harder now that so many 10s of thousands of Palestinians have been killed. Again.  

I'll address these two points.

First, you said that I didn't offer a clear argument for why history shouldn't matter. I feel as though I have though. My clear argument for why it shouldn't matter is Hamas's genocidal intentions. The moment genocide is claimed against a group of people and that genocide is acted upon, the group of people for which the genocide is claimed against cannot be told how to handle how they respond to the genocidal acts committed against them. 

Now to clarify again, I mean they get to respond how they want to respond within a certian degree of reason. I don't think they just get to launch nukes over there and anniihlate everyone. I think limits should be applied to their response that has some regard for innocent lives. But that does not mean indefinite ceasefires.

Secondly, I take issue with you trying to argue from a historical perspective that if Israel didn't limit the every day lives of the people living in Gaza, then Hamas wouldn't attempt genocide against Israel. It paints Hamas as some "freedom fighter" group when they're not. 

The truth is Hamas doesn't want Israel to exist from a religious perspective. The history of Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip is secondary to Hamas's primary objective of destroying Israel based on the point that the land Israel occupies is "Holy land". Therefore, the history ultimately doesn't matter. If Israel ended their blockade and let transportation flow freely and gave everyone food and water and electricity and gas, it wouldn't matter because it still doesn't resolve the primary issue, which is Israel is occupying the "holy land" of Palestine.

Quote:Third point, in a previous post you said

"What I am condemning, is the belief people have, to think that just because they call a place home and decide to live under tyranny, knowing that by doing so they are going to become human shields for their tyrants, which allows them to further carry out their tyranny, that they then get to decide how a military responds to attempted genocide."

Shouldn't International Humanitarian Law should determine "how a military responds to attempted genocide"? Any military.
I have been surprised at how the "But-they-use-human-shields" argument has come to the fore in discussions about this conflict, to justify disproportional military responses and collective punishment. Like "what else can you do when the people you've imprisoned for two generations on territory you control finally hit back hard?"  I suspect there is something else you can do.

No. I don't think international law should determine that at all when it comes to genocide.

If North Korea announced today that they plan to go to war with the US because of our imperialst actions and that they won't stop until they have completely annihalted the US, and then successfully launched a barrage of misslles over here but they missed their targets and landed in a less populated area of lets say...... 7000 people and it killed all of them, would you want the US to wait for International Humanitarian Law to determine how we respond?

Quote:Like "what else can you do when the people you've imprisoned for two generations on territory you control finally hit back hard?" 

But that's the thing Dill. Hamas isn't just "hitting back hard". They have proclaimed genocide against Israel and are acting on it.

In 1988, Hamas issued the doctrine of Hamas which I'm sure you're familiar with. It contains some of the following peaceful excerpts. Based on these quotes, I find it hard to believe that Hamas is just retaliating because of "Jewish occupation/massacre".

Quote:

Initiatives,   and   so-called   peaceful   solutions   and international conferences are in contradiction to the  principles  of the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the  infidels  as  arbitrators  in  the  lands  of Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem  except  by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.' (Article 13)

Quote:

'The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem  land,  Jihad  becomes  the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews' usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.' (Article 15)

Quote:

'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees,  and  the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.' (Article 7)

Quote:

 The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. (Article 7)

Quote:Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know." (Article 13)

[Dill]

(03-10-2024, 10:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Regurgitate your lame tired horseshit ad infinitum, it doesn't change anything.  You directly, and deliberately, equate the terrorist garbage humans in Hamas to segments of the Israeli government or the IDF.  There is no comparison for a non-apologist for Hamas.  Your circuitous banality and disingenuous arguments change nothing, you make excuses for rapists and murderers, and you do so deliberately.  I haven't had to apply any label to you, I've merely had to point out the label you've willingly applied to yourself.

 So I called MYSELF a "supporter of terrorism"? Silently? You were just pointing it out, saying it out loud FOR ME?

Perhaps you should report me to the moderators for violating the forum code? People should be accountable for their behavior, right? 

Surely the mods will see nothing "DISINGENUOUS" or "CIRCUITOUS" in your argument.  They're figuring out what you've known along.

What I "directly and deliberately say," to repeat, is   

FIRST, that  "what you call 'Hamas propaganda' makes the label so general that it implicitly defines the accurate reporting of international reporters/observers as "support for terrorism." Meaning the only way to avoid that label is to NOT report/discuss what the IDF actually does in Gaza.

And SECOND: That either/or simply assumes what it should be proving, namely that any recognition/criticism of IDF war crimes eo ipso creates "equivalence" and is as such "support for terrorism."  

The logic of that is structurally parallel to a claim that recognition of war crimes by the Union Army in Georgia in 1865 "equates" the Union with the Confederacy and "whitewashes" slavery.  . . .  . Yet you cannot explain why it is suddenly "Hamas equivalence" when IDF war crimes are on the dock.  

These illustrate what you mean by "circuitous banality" and "disingenuous arguments."

I.e., arguments that cannot be refuted with more adjectives and more "just is." 

You cannot EXPLAIN why any acknowledgement of IDF war crimes creates "equation" in this conflict when it does not in others. 

To say that Right wing Israeli political parties MIRROR the Right in Palestinian politics--e.g., because both claim God justifies their
desire to wipe the other out and claim the land "from the river to the sea" (and more in the case of the Israeli right) is a perfectly just
analogy based on the form and content of their claims. And even so it doesn't create "equation" any more than acknowledging Union
war crimes equates them with the Confederacy. 

Which brings me to my THIRD point, namely that this whole "Dill supports terrorism" show is just to prevent discussion if IDF behavior in the current war.
It is an attempt to impose an ideological censorship of discussion, which cannot be argued for, only enforced by doubling down on slander. 

[Dill]

(03-12-2024, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's a description of a behavior and posting history.  If a poster consistently made excuses for the KKK, mitigating their actions and comparing them to BLM, would it not be appropriate to call their conduct as apologizing for racists?  So, I ask you, what do you call it when a person, over the course of years, consistently makes excuses for, and defends, groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah and Hamas?  In this very thread he directly equated Hamas to the right wing of the Israeli government.  Do you think that's an appropriate comparison?

Not that I expect a serious response.

Depends on what you call "mitigating" and "making excuses."  

If BLM wanted to forbid mixed marriage and send white people back to Europe in the name of some "Black Supremacy," 
why would a comparison to the Klan be "inappropriate"?  For the same reason, Israelis who want to cleanse "Greater Israel" of
Arabs may be appropriately compared to Palestinians who want to cleanse Palestine of Jews. 

Why isn't refusal to acknowledge both exist and exert their views in their respective spheres a kind of "making excuses" for one side? 

There is no person on this list who "consistently makes excuses for, and defends, groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah and Hamas."  

That you claim there is raises the question--by what criteria are you measuring/asserting all this? 

E.g., you once called me an "ISIS supporter" simply for refusing, on humanitarian based ethics, to call them "animals" or "savages." 

Is that "apologizing" for them, or rather a refusal to endorse, as you do, the application of de-humanizing language to other humans?
I "support" ISIS because I refuse to dehumanize? And you don't because you do dehumanize??

On the other hand, you once equated ANTIFA to the KLAN because both initiated street violence, and I refused the equation because of their opposite ideals, though I condemned the resort to violence and said both should be subject to the same penalties. I.e., I still didn't, in principle, forbid comparison of their behavior. For that you called me an "ANTIFA supporter." 

Isn't it more accurate to say that there is a guy on this list who consistently accuses people of "supporting" and "apologizing for" groups he denounces 
if they prefer social-scientific comparison/analysis to following him in pointless, repetitive denunciation?  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-13-2024, 04:20 PM)Dill Wrote: Depends on what you call "mitigating" and "making excuses."

I'd go with mitigating and making excuses. 

Quote:Why isn't refusal to acknowledge both exist and exert their views in their respective spheres a kind of "making excuses" for one side? 

Acknowledging them as both existing is not an issue. As I've repeatedly stated throughout this thread, it's the attempt to equate Hamas with the Israeli government or IDF that is, has and will continue to be the issue.

Quote:There is no person on this list who "consistently makes excuses for, and defends, groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah and Hamas."  

If the list has you on it then it does.

Quote:E.g., you once called me an "ISIS supporter" simply for refusing, on humanitarian based ethics, to call them "animals" or "savages." 

Is that "apologizing" for them, or rather a refusal to endorse, as you do, the application of de-humanizing language to other humans?
I "support" ISIS because I refuse to dehumanize? And you don't because you do dehumanize??

It had much more to do with your excuse making for them, excusing or mitigating their actions as more a result of their reaction to US policy than their being revolting religious fanatics.

Quote:Isn't it more accurate to say that there is a guy on this list who consistently accuses people of "supporting" and "apologizing for" groups he denounces 
if they prefer social-scientific comparison/analysis to following him in pointless, repetitive denunciation?  

Careful, I wouldn't want you to break you arm patting yourself on the back.  I'll reiterate and leave it at this, since we're firmly in the Dill vortex now.  Attempts to equate Hamas, a terrorist organization that engages in slaughter and mass rape as well as kidnapping infants, to the Israeli government or the IDF is, 1. making them appear as equally bad actors, which is false, 2. mitigating their actions as a response to equally bad actions, which is false, and 3. a repetition of the exact type of propaganda Hamas spews on the regular.  You can criticize the IDF or Israel while also acknowledging that Hamas is a significant cut above them and a terrorist organization.

So let's do this and see if we can put this issue to bed.  First, state unequivocally that Hamas is a terrorist organization.  Second, acknowledge that the IDF, for it's faults, is not a terrorist organization nor a bad actor on even close the same level as Hamas (I'm leaving you a huge opening here I'm sure you'll take).  Third, acknowledge that civilian casualties are at the very least equally the result of Hamas deliberately embedding themselves within their own civilian populace.  Lastly, acknowledge that Hamas and their allies want to destroy Israel and remove every last Jew from the Middle East.  I know you won't do this, but I'll be amused by your dodging it however you choose to do so.

And with that, I'm done.  Good night, and may god bless.

[Dill]

(03-12-2024, 10:12 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Besides that, you are also putting forth the argument that Gazan's have been forced to stay in the Gaza Strip.

Yow Matt! You've given me a Bengalzona-level response here. Good work, though my response will require more than one post.

(03-12-2024, 10:12 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: There are three issues i have with this argument.
1. The claim suggests that no one is ever allowed to leave Gaza, which is false.

At one point Israel allowed work permits for as many as 17,000 of 2+ million Gazans living in the strip, still less than 1%.  So strictly speaking, it’s not true that “no one is ever allowed to leave.” But the claim is not that “no one is ever allowed to leave”; it is that Israel occupied the Strip until 2005, and has enforced a blockade since 2007 with deadly force. So yes, Israel decides who comes and goes, and Gazans are forced to stay there. Gaza is not sovereign.

(03-12-2024, 10:12 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: 2. The claim does not explain why people are denied from Gaza. In order for this to be a contstuctive argument, you would have to break down on a case by case basis why people are being denied travel across the border. WIthout that type of analysis all you really have is a generalized statement that makes Israel look like the "bad guys" because the premise itself presents them in that light by default by suggesting that Israel is "Imprisoning innocent people". Okay, but who are these innocent people? How do you know they're innocent? What makes them worthy of entry into Israel?

It's HISTORY that explains why people are denied movement out of Gaza, as a group, not "case-by-case." It is hard to fathom the question—"how do I know 2+ million, mostly young people, are 'innocent'.” Most are in Gaza because their land was taken from their grandparents; now they are unarmed and just trying to say alive during a two-decade siege. Surely they are not guilty of robbing themselves, so who is responsible for that initial dispossession and the containment which followed? Unless a double standard is the intent, we should not avoid the answer because it might make Israel look like “ the bad guys.”

What makes Palestinians "worthy” of re-entry into the land taken from them by force? If someone jacked your legally owned car, you wouldn't see the need to explain to law enforcement why you are worthy of getting your car back. Many Americans accept that double standard for Palestinians, though.

To continue with the jacking analogy, if the police just stand by and it’s up to you to get your car back yourself from a better-armed thief, you may decide it’s not worth your life and let the theft go, or you might decide it was forth fighting for—in which case the thief would do his best to deny you access to your property. Israel fears with good reason that some Palestinians will fight to get their land back. That's why people are denied entry from Gaza. And it's only going to be ok for people who think Israel had the right to take the land and then contain its former owners in a stateless limbo for generations.

(03-12-2024, 10:12 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: 3. The claim suggests that there shouldn’t be a barrier to entry/exit to begin with. Perhaps you can enlighten me Dill, but I don’t see why so many people who share your opinion assume that it should be really easy for people to leave Gaza. Why should it? Are they not being controlled by a terrorist organization that vows to destroy Israel? Israel doesn’t have to make the assumption that everyone in Gaza is evil to deny them entry. They just simply have to desire to protect their border due to a clear threat of violence against them from Hamas. Therefore, anyone living under Hamas rule would then be percieved a possible threat. Not a threat, but a possible one. It has already been established in this thread that you can’t tell a regular Palestinian from a Hamas supporter. Just on that basis alone anyone looking to cross the border will be under heavy scrutiny. 

This all again goes back to my argument that there are consequences to living with extremists with genocidal intentions. Dying with them was the first consequence I mentioned. Having your border crossing privileges severley limited is another consequence to living with extremists. Whether it was your choice or not in this particular instance doesn't matter. 

HISTORY again. The border was controlled and the land occupied before Hamas existed, and since effects cannot precede causes, Hamas doesn’t explain Israel's dispossession, occupation, and successive blockades. But that dispossession and occupation do explain why there are Palestinians who vow to destroy Israel.

Why can’t your "living with extremists" argument apply to Israelis? Why isn't "the threat of violence" and "dying" the expected consequence of taking someone else's home? Why can't you say that the Palestinians "simply have a desire to protect their border due to a clear threat of violence against them" from the people who have driven them to Gaza and blockaded them there? 

If Palestinians have equal human rights, then you can say that.

Next I'll look, again, at your argument that Hamas declaring genocidal intent should exempt the vast majority of innocents in Gaza from IHL, which forbids collective punishment and won't recognize efforts to impute responsibility for Israeli war crimes to their victims.

[GMDino]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/children-killed-gaza-higher-years-global-conflict_n_65f1f917e4b09953f2f8a05a

Quote:More Children Have Died In Gaza War Than Have Been Killed By Conflict Worldwide In 4 Years
“This war is a war on children," UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini said of Israel's months-long offensive in the Palestinian territory.
[/url]



By Sanjana Karanth
Mar 13, 2024, 05:26 PM EDT



1.1K COMMENTS





[url=https://facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fchildren-killed-gaza-higher-years-global-conflict_n_65f1f917e4b09953f2f8a05a%3Futm_campaign%3Dshare_facebook%26ncid%3Dengmodushpmg00000003]








More children have died in the Palestinian territories over the past five months of war than have been killed in all armed conflicts worldwide over the past four years — a startling statistic that puts the casualties from Israel’s ongoing bombardment in perspective.

The current military offensive in Gaza began after Hamas militants launched a deadly attack in southern Israel on Oct. 7 that killed about 1,200 people and took about 250 captive. Hamas released roughly half the hostages during a temporary pause in fighting late last year, and is estimated to still have about 100 captives who are still alive.

An estimated 50 minors were killed in the Oct. 7 attack, the Times of Israel reported in December. Of those 50, two were reportedly infants, 12 were children under 10 years old and 38 were between the ages of 10 and 19.

Since the attack, Israeli forces have launched a massive military offensive on Gaza, displacing most of the territory’s 2.3 million Palestinians, blocking humanitarian aid and killing an estimated 31,000 people, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.


Of that tally, 13,500 were children, the ministry said on Tuesday.

The ministry is part of the Hamas-controlled government. However, most outside organizations and even members of the U.S. State Department have treated the ministry as credible. The United Nations and other international institutions claim that the ministry has for years made a good-faith effort to account for the territory’s dead in difficult conditions.

The death toll for children in Gaza since Oct. 7 has now surpassed the number of children killed in armed conflicts around the world for the last four years combined.

A total of 12,193 children were killed in conflict globally between 2019 and 2022, according to the annual reports by the U.N. By year: 4,019 children were killed in 2019, 2,674 children were killed in 2020, 2,515 children were killed in 2021 and 2,985 children were killed in 2022.

The Israeli offensive has increasingly drawn anger from the international community, which has begun pressuring Israel to halt its offensive and for the country to agree to a permanent cease-fire with Hamas.


Philippe Lazzarini, the commissioner-general for the U.N. agency tasked with helping Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), said on Tuesday that the difference in death tolls is “staggering.”

“This war is a war on children. It is a war on their childhood and their future,” he posted on X, formerly Twitter, repeating his call for an immediate cease-fire in the region “for the sake of children in” Gaza.

ADVERTISEMENT


The stark figures come as humanitarian workers warn of a starvation crisis in Gaza as a result of the war. About one in four Palestinians in Gaza is close to famine, amounting to at least 576,000 people now at risk, according to the U.N.

Northern Gaza has been particularly affected by hunger, with people resorting to animal fodder and plants to sustain themselves as aid is slow to trickle in. According to the U.N. aid coordination office, 25 people in north Gaza have died from severe acute malnutrition and dehydration. An estimated 21 of those 25 were children. The Gaza Health Ministry reported a similar tally Tuesday, recording 27 Palestinians had died of malnutrition, including 23 “children and elderly.”

Children are among the least able to cope with hunger and disease, warned the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Youth who are orphaned, maimed, displaced or sickened have a particularly difficult time accessing food in a territory already struggling to feed its people.

“In 5 months Israel has killed more children in a strip of land the size of Philadelphia than all conflicts worldwide did in the past 4 years combined,” Francesca Albanese, U.N. special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, posted on X.

“Destroying a population from its roots,” she continued. “Genocide is a process, not an act, and what is happening in Gaza is a tragedy foretold.”

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-15-2024, 07:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/children-killed-gaza-higher-years-global-conflict_n_65f1f917e4b09953f2f8a05a

If you believe the numbers supplied by a terrorist organization.  

Also,

“This war is a war on children," UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini said of Israel's months-long offensive in the Palestinian territory.


Hmm, why does the acronym UNRWA ring a bell?  Weren't they infiltrated by Hamas?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-allegations-unrwa-gaza-hamas-rcna142116

A highly anticipated report from the United Nations’ top investigative agency is poised to shed new light on Israel’s allegations that U.N. workers participated in the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks, with the fate of the U.N.’s aid agency for Palestinians hanging in the balance.

An initial report from the U.N.’s Office of Internal Oversight Services, which investigates wrongdoing by U.N. staff, is expected in the coming weeks. The U.N. secretary-general’s spokesperson said late last month that the office was still waiting for Israel to hand over evidence and expected to receive it “shortly.” No further updates have been released.



“The investigation remains ongoing,” said U.N. spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric, adding that investigators planned to visit Israel “soon.” The U.S. State Department, meanwhile, says it’s waiting for that report before deciding whether to restore badly needed funding to UNRWA.



Yet some experts doubt the U.N. can competently investigate itself.



Peter Gallo, a former OIOS investigator, said that the agency’s authority is limited to investigating and punishing U.N. employees and has no mandate to force broader UNRWA reforms. In this case, UNRWA has already terminated the staffers initially accused by Israel.



“So they have no control over them,” Gallo told NBC News. “They can’t require them to turn up for an interview. They can’t threaten them with anything, because they’ve already been fired.”


I have to give Hamas some credit, begrudging as it is.  They got the Western left to swallow their propaganda hook, line and sinker. 

[GMDino]

(03-15-2024, 08:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you believe the numbers supplied by a terrorist organization.  

Also,

“This war is a war on children," UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini said of Israel's months-long offensive in the Palestinian territory.


Hmm, why does the acronym UNRWA ring a bell?  Weren't they infiltrated by Hamas?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-allegations-unrwa-gaza-hamas-rcna142116

A highly anticipated report from the United Nations’ top investigative agency is poised to shed new light on Israel’s allegations that U.N. workers participated in the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks, with the fate of the U.N.’s aid agency for Palestinians hanging in the balance.

An initial report from the U.N.’s Office of Internal Oversight Services, which investigates wrongdoing by U.N. staff, is expected in the coming weeks. The U.N. secretary-general’s spokesperson said late last month that the office was still waiting for Israel to hand over evidence and expected to receive it “shortly.” No further updates have been released.



“The investigation remains ongoing,” said U.N. spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric, adding that investigators planned to visit Israel “soon.” The U.S. State Department, meanwhile, says it’s waiting for that report before deciding whether to restore badly needed funding to UNRWA.



Yet some experts doubt the U.N. can competently investigate itself.



Peter Gallo, a former OIOS investigator, said that the agency’s authority is limited to investigating and punishing U.N. employees and has no mandate to force broader UNRWA reforms. In this case, UNRWA has already terminated the staffers initially accused by Israel.



“So they have no control over them,” Gallo told NBC News. “They can’t require them to turn up for an interview. They can’t threaten them with anything, because they’ve already been fired.”


I have to give Hamas some credit, begrudging as it is.  They got the Western left to swallow their propaganda hook, line and sinker. 

Quote:The ministry is part of the Hamas-controlled government. However, most outside organizations and even members of the U.S. State Department have treated the ministry as credible. The United Nations and other international institutions claim that the ministry has for years made a good-faith effort to account for the territory’s dead in difficult conditions.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-15-2024, 08:50 PM)GMDino Wrote:

"Some members" of the US State Department?  Quite the full throated backing there.  Still, that whole being infiltrated by Hamas rather casts the opinion of the UN in doubt a bit, you think?

[Dill]

(03-15-2024, 08:50 PM)GMDino Wrote:
The ministry is part of the Hamas-controlled government. However, most outside organizations and even members of the U.S. State Department have treated the ministry as credible. The United Nations and other international institutions claim that the ministry has for years made a good-faith effort to account for the territory’s dead in difficult conditions.

13,500 dead children--the new Hamas talking point? 

I think if UNWRA hires thousands of people in Gaza, and some of them are Hamas supporters,

then we don't have to believe the people counting bodies over the people killing them, if we don't want to.

The UN has been "inflitrated" by Hamas.

[Dill]

(03-13-2024, 08:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd go with mitigating and making excuses. 
Acknowledging them as both existing is not an issue. As I've repeatedly stated throughout this thread, it's the attempt to equate Hamas with the Israeli government or IDF that is, has and will continue to be the issue.
If the list has you on it then it does.
It had much more to do with your excuse making for them, excusing or mitigating their actions as more a result of their reaction to US policy than their being revolting religious fanatics.

Non answers--in the sense you just continue to assume what you've been asked to demonstrate.

On the hand, you claim that "acknowledging them both as existing is not an issue,"
but on the other,  when it happens, you call any such acknowledgement "equating" Israel with Hamas and "making excuses" for the latter. 
Thus making it an "issue." 

It is exactly as I have said--you begin with the assumption that 1) Israelis/the IDF don't lie or commit war crimes,
and 2) that's ALL Hamas does.  And your posts demand TRUST of IDF accounts of the war and DISTRUST of independent
observers, whose reporting is simply dismissed in advance as "Hamas propaganda." (E.g., see your response to Dino's post # 166.)

Anything which controverts this simple rule for judging before vetting becomes "plenty of evidence" for "excuse making" and "supporting terrorism. "

(03-13-2024, 08:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Careful, I wouldn't want you to break you arm patting yourself on the back.  I'll reiterate and leave it at this, since we're firmly in the Dill vortex now.  Attempts to equate Hamas, a terrorist organization that engages in slaughter and mass rape as well as kidnapping infants, to the Israeli government or the IDF is, 1. making them appear as equally bad actors, which is false, 2. mitigating their actions as a response to equally bad actions, which is false, and 3. a repetition of the exact type of propaganda Hamas spews on the regular.  You can criticize the IDF or Israel while also acknowledging that Hamas is a significant cut above them and a terrorist organization.

Again, no one has attempted to "equate" Israel and Hamas. You just hyperbolically claim it is occurring on a mass scale.

By your refusal to actually define what constitutes "equation," and your continual framing of accurate reporting as "mitigation" and "supporting terrorism,"
you implicitly define that accurate reporting as "repeating Hamas talking points."  Your real beef is with accurate reporting and consistent definition, they kind you can't simply apply according to how you feel.

Can you actually bring together in one post an example of what you are calling the "exact type of propaganda Hamas spews"--preferably from Hamas itself--and then a statement from this forum which is "a repetition" of that "exact type"? And do it in a way that escapes your circular definition?

My claim that Hamas mirrors the Israeli right won't do. It's not a Hamas talking point. And it's a perfectly valid comparison based on the alignment of religious views and goals. Your best bet is to find where Hamas has adopted language (e.g., "settler state") from other sources, then invert the order and claim the source is "spewing Hamas Talking points."  If my reference to the many instances of Israeli use of civilian human shields is "supporting terrorism" is an example, then that demonstrates exactly the flaw in your de facto definition--accurate reporting is in itself "Hamas propaganda" and "supporting terrorism."  The only way to avoid your charges is to stop accurate reporting--on the IDF anyway.

(03-13-2024, 08:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So let's do this and see if we can put this issue to bed.  First, state unequivocally that Hamas is a terrorist organization.  Second, acknowledge that the IDF, for it's faults, is not a terrorist organization nor a bad actor on even close the same level as Hamas (I'm leaving you a huge opening here I'm sure you'll take).  Third, acknowledge that civilian casualties are at the very least equally the result of Hamas deliberately embedding themselves within their own civilian populace.  Lastly, acknowledge that Hamas and their allies want to destroy Israel and remove every last Jew from the Middle East.  I know you won't do this, but I'll be amused by your dodging it however you choose to do so.
And with that, I'm done.  Good night, and may god bless.

Waste of time, since "the issue" is not whether Israel is a terrorist organization and no one is disputing that "Hamas wants to destroy Israel." 
The issue is whether acknowledging Israeli war crimes is, itself, "support for terrorism."

But I can use these questions to clarify some further points, so here goes.

1. I'll state "unequivocally" that Hamas meets the U.S./EU definition of a terrorist organization. But because the U.S. doesn't apply the label consistently to all who merit it, I regard its application as generally political rather than descriptive. The job of propagandists is to get people to accept and apply such labels without thinking; I won't go along. 

2. I cannot acknowledge that a state which dispossessed Palestine of 800,000 indigenous inhabits and illegally holds a large remainder in occupied territories, flouting international law and UN resolutions, and now kills THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN in vengeance, is not a "bad actor." But Israel, as a nation state, differs from the non-state actor, political organization/party Hamas, in that it includes a once strong but now weakened LEFT PROGRESSIVE element and a shrinking moderate center which strive to hold it accountable its fanatical, genocide-preaching right wing--but with less and less success over the last three decades. So no, that nation state, as a whole, does not "equate" to Hamas. I've already said this. But you still hear "equate." 

3. And no, I won't agree that civilian casualties are "equally" the result of Hamas "deliberately embedding themselves within their own civilian populace," if by that you mean Israel is doing its best to avoid civilian casualties but there are a bunch of Hamas fighters looking for groups of civilians to run and hide in. In the past, Hamas embedment has not constrained the IDF to strap children to vehicles or to hold civilians in front of them when going into combat, and now it is not constraining them to mow down civilians carrying white flags (not to mention their own hostages) or indiscriminately bombing civilians, like they had no other choice.

4. I'll acknowledge that Hamas has made statements in the past about destroying the state of Israel--that's another element that mirrors the Israeli Right--but I don't think their behavior and goals can be fixed by the 1988 statements everyone quotes. E.g., the 2017 Document of Principles & Policies distinguishes between Jews and Zionism, and would in principle recognize a Palestinian state within the '67 boundaries. https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf. 

I am more concerned that, since international law obliges countries to act where "genocidal intent" is determined, and ignoring the power imbalance which makes genocide of Israel impossible and the utter destruction of Gaza now a fact, the '88 document will give Israel even greater license ignore IHL.  

[Dill]

(03-12-2024, 12:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: GMDino: There are "elements" of the gop that one could post evidence they support fascism.  

I still don't think we can say that a fellow poster is a "fascist apologist".

To be sure, just as there are elements in the Democratic party that are communist, an equally extreme ideology.  Neither represent the stated goals or objectives of the organization or the beliefs of the majority of their members.  This argument cannot be made for Hamas.  Their goal is the destruction of Israel and eradication of the Jews in the Middle East.  How do we know that, because they flat out say it.  Consequently, anyone who choses to join Hamas, align with Hamas or defend Hamas does so knowing what their exact intentions are.  Hence your analogy falls apart almost immediately.

The oversimplification here--I just can't let it pass.  You've equated Hamas to the Soviet Union--both "evil."

But we allied with the Soviet Union during WWII. I.e., we chose to "align" with them, believing we knew their "exact intentions." 

Few believe that made the US "Communist apologists/supporters."  

But that whole analogy is out of kilter because no one in this forum has "allied/joined" with or "defended" Hamas "knowing their intentions." 

You just claim "plenty of evidence" for that because people introduce reporting and other information which doesn't obey your rule:

TRUST everything the IDF says and DISTRUST anything which contradicts them, whether it comes from Hamas or not.

The "Hamas apologism" you see everywhere up and down the forum you've implicitly defined as any challenge to the IDF version of the war.

(03-12-2024, 12:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote: If someone posts repeatedly the hate gay people and gay people are bad and need to be eliminated or forced to change or not act so "swishy" maybe you have a point. Perspective.
But I still think on these board labeling them would be frowned upon.

If so it's rather a symptom of what's going on in general in this country.  Fear of causing offense leading people to tip toe around behavior that would have been lambasted not long ago.  I would conclude that you've had zero issue labeling me as a GOP supporting conservative, a label I do not believe applies to me at all.  I didn't cry about it, I disputed it with facts.  Whether they convinced anyone is for them to decide, but as an adult I have the ability to stick up for myself.

I have "zero issue" with labeling you as "GOP supporting," given your extensive and repeated support for GOP policies and Trump SCOTUS choices and constant attacks on something you call "the left." I'd call that behavior "aligning" with the GOP or "Right wing apologism."

Resolutely attacking "the Left" and defending right wing politics while disavowing that you are right winger doesn't make you a Republican or conservative any more than it makes you some kind of impartial, centrist "independent" who avoids extremes.

You do "cry" about being labelled though, as you exempt yourself from the standards you apply to others.

And applying labels like "Hamas apologist" and "terrorist supporter" to people in this forum looks rather like an emotional, way-over-the-top attempt to generate "fear of causing offense"; so people will "tip toe" around Israeli behavior they would "lambast" in anyone else. You are quite alone in the extremism of your rhetoric here.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-15-2024, 09:25 PM)Dill Wrote: Non answers--in the sense you just continue to assume what you've been asked to demonstrate.

On the hand, you claim that "acknowledging them both as existing is not an issue,"
but on the other,  when it happens, you call any such acknowledgement "equating" Israel with Hamas and "making excuses" for the latter. 
Thus making it an "issue." 

It is exactly as I have said--you begin with the assumption that 1) Israelis/the IDF don't lie or commit war crimes,
and 2) that's ALL Hamas does.  And your posts demand TRUST of IDF accounts of the war and DISTRUST of independent
observers, whose reporting is simply dismissed in advance as "Hamas propaganda." (E.g., see your response to Dino's post # 166.)

Yes, I give the IDF the benefit of the doubt and I do not give Hamas the benefit of the doubt.  That's because one is a terrorist organization that records itself gleefully slaughtering and raping civilians and then kidnapping infants and toddlers.  Yes, I will do that and I will continue to do that.

Quote:Anything which controverts this simple rule for judging before vetting becomes "plenty of evidence" for "excuse making" and "supporting terrorism. "

Nope, it's the actual excuse making that gets labeled supporting terrorism.  GM, for all his faults, does not engage in the same tactics as you.  You richly deserve the label, hence my using it.

Quote:Again, no one has attempted to "equate" Israel and Hamas. You just hyperbolically claim it is occurring on a mass scale.

You saying this in a thread in which anyone can read you doing exactly that is awesome.  Truly.

Quote:By your refusal to actually define what constitutes "equation," and your continual framing of accurate reporting as "mitigation" and "supporting terrorism,"
you implicitly define that accurate reporting as "repeating Hamas talking points."  Your real beef is with accurate reporting and consistent definition, they kind you can't simply apply according to how you feel.

When defining equation I'll stick with the dictionary definition.  Also, by accurate reporting do you mean the time the IDF bombed a hospital?  That kind of accurate reporting?

Quote:Can you actually bring together in one post an example of what you are calling the "exact type of propaganda Hamas spews"--preferably from Hamas itself--and then a statement from this forum which is "a repetition" of that "exact type"? And do it in a way that escapes your circular definition?

My claim that Hamas mirrors the Israeli right won't do. It's not a Hamas talking point. And it's a perfectly valid comparison based on the alignment of religious views and goals. Your best bet is to find where Hamas has adopted language (e.g., "settler state") from other sources, then invert the order and claim the source is "spewing Hamas Talking points."  If my reference to the many instances of Israeli use of civilian human shields is "supporting terrorism" is an example, then that demonstrates exactly the flaw in your de facto definition--accurate reporting is in itself "Hamas propaganda" and "supporting terrorism."  The only way to avoid your charges is to stop accurate reporting--on the IDF anyway.

Yes, claiming Israel is an equally bad actor is a Hamas talking point.  It validates their actions and responses, which is a Hamas talking point.  It paints them as valiant freedom fighters, which is how we know you view them as you can't even call them terrorists.

Quote:Waste of time, since "the issue" is not whether Israel is a terrorist organization and no one is disputing that "Hamas wants to destroy Israel." 
The issue is whether acknowledging Israeli war crimes is, itself, "support for terrorism."

But I can use these questions to clarify some further points, so here goes.

1. I'll state "unequivocally" that Hamas meets the U.S./EU definition of a terrorist organization. But because the U.S. doesn't apply the label consistently to all who merit it, I regard its application as generally political rather than descriptive. The job of propagandists is to get people to accept and apply such labels without thinking; I won't go along. 

See, you can't even call Hamas a terrorist organization.  But you sure can vomit up post after post criticizing Israel.

Quote:2. I cannot acknowledge that a state which dispossessed Palestine of 800,000 indigenous inhabits and illegally holds a large remainder in occupied territories, flouting international law and UN resolutions, and now kills THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN in vengeance, is not a "bad actor." But Israel, as a nation state, differs from the non-state actor, political organization/party Hamas, in that it includes a once strong but now weakened LEFT PROGRESSIVE element and a shrinking moderate center which strive to hold it accountable its fanatical, genocide-preaching right wing--but with less and less success over the last three decades. So no, that nation state, as a whole, does not "equate" to Hamas. I've already said this. But you still hear "equate." 

Except you do equate them in your very next paragraph.

Quote:3. And no, I won't agree that civilian casualties are "equally" the result of Hamas "deliberately embedding themselves within their own civilian populace," if by that you mean Israel is doing its best to avoid civilian casualties but there are a bunch of Hamas fighters looking for groups of civilians to run and hide in. In the past, Hamas embedment has not constrained the IDF to strap children to vehicles or to hold civilians in front of them when going into combat, and now it is not constraining them to mow down civilians carrying white flags (not to mention their own hostages) or indiscriminately bombing civilians, like they had no other choice.

See?  Everyone else does.  BTW anecdotal evidence is not proof.  You've told me so yourself.

Quote:4. I'll acknowledge that Hamas has made statements in the past about destroying the state of Israel--that's another element that mirrors the Israeli Right--but I don't think their behavior and goals can be fixed by the 1988 statements everyone quotes. E.g., the 2017 Document of Principles & Policies distinguishes between Jews and Zionism, and would in principle recognize a Palestinian state within the '67 boundaries. https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf. 

Another example of you equating Israel and Hamas.  But you never do that, right?

Quote:I am more concerned that, since international law obliges countries to act where "genocidal intent" is determined, and ignoring the power imbalance which makes genocide of Israel impossible and the utter destruction of Gaza now a fact, the '88 document will give Israel even greater license ignore IHL.  

You think attacking Israel is impossible?  Iran is doing is damndest to accomplish that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-15-2024, 11:10 PM)Dill Wrote: The oversimplification here--I just can't let it pass.  You've equated Hamas to the Soviet Union--both "evil."

But we allied with the Soviet Union during WWII. I.e., we chose to "align" with them, believing we knew their "exact intentions."

Ahh, someone has never heard f the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  Let's also ignore the sentiment, most exemplified by Patton, that the Soviets should have been next after Germany fell.

Quote:Few believe that made the US "Communist apologists/supporters."  

Because they weren't.

Quote:But that whole analogy is out of kilter because no one in this forum has "allied/joined" with or "defended" Hamas "knowing their intentions." 

You mean no one except you.

Quote:You just claim "plenty of evidence" for that because people introduce reporting and other information which doesn't obey your rule:

TRUST everything the IDF says and DISTRUST anything which contradicts them, whether it comes from Hamas or not.

Incorrect, as I have stated repeatedly.  I distrust anything that comes from Hamas because I don't think trusting a terrorist organization is ever a good idea.

Quote:The "Hamas apologism" you see everywhere up and down the forum you've implicitly defined as any challenge to the IDF version of the war.

Again, incorrect.  I see continued and strident attempts to equate Hamas to the IDF or Israeli government as Hamas apologism.

Quote:I have "zero issue" with labeling you as "GOP supporting," given your extensive and repeated support for GOP policies and Trump SCOTUS choices and constant attacks on something you call "the left." I'd call that behavior "aligning" with the GOP or "Right wing apologism."

Resolutely attacking "the Left" and defending right wing politics while disavowing that you are right winger doesn't make you a Republican or conservative any more than it makes you some kind of impartial, centrist "independent" who avoids extremes.

Thank you.  You literally just stated why my calling you an apologist for Hamas is both accurate, by your own standards, and allowable.

Quote:You do "cry" about being labelled though, as you exempt yourself from the standards you apply to others.

Someone doesn't know the definition of the word "cry". 

Quote:And applying labels like "Hamas apologist" and "terrorist supporter" to people in this forum looks rather like an emotional, way-over-the-top attempt to generate "fear of causing offense"; so people will "tip toe" around Israeli behavior they would "lambast" in anyone else. You are quite alone in the extremism of your rhetoric here.

Not to people, to you.  You are quite alone in the extremism of your rhetoric here.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Dill, please do me the courtesy of directly answering the following questions as I believe a true answer from you will be illuminating.

1. Does the state of Israel have a right to exist in any form as it has since the end of WW2?

2. Do you, personally, believe Hamas is a terrorist organization?

3. Do you think the IDF commits atrocities on par with those of Hamas and at the same, or greater, frequency.

I always do you the courtesy of giving direct answers, kindly return the favor. And with that I bid you a nice weekend. Lookin forward to your response, it'll be interesting I'm sure.

[Dill]

THE LEFT IS FINALLY BUILDING A RESPONSE TO AIPAC
AIPAC has become the key force against progressives in Democratic primaries, but a new coalition is seeking to protect the party’s left flank.
https://theintercept.com/2024/03/11/reject-aipac-democratic-party-israel-progressives/

AFTER DECADES OF avoiding direct involvement in electoral politics, the country’s flagship Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, formed a pair of political action committees in recent years and has been spending millions on political races.

Its targets have been progressives, with AIPAC becoming heavily involved in Democratic primaries. In addition to recruiting candidates to challenge incumbent Democrats, the group plans to spend at least $100 million on 2024 races.

Now, progressives are fighting back, building a bulwark against the pro-Israel lobby onslaught with a new campaign to reject AIPAC.

A group of 25 progressive organizations — including Justice Democrats, the Working Families Party, the IfNotNow Movement, and Jewish Voice for Peace Action— launched the Reject AIPAC coalition Monday. The coalition plans to organize against AIPAC across electoral, political, and digital arenas. One facet of the plan calls for a seven-figure electoral spending campaign to defend members of Congress being targeted by AIPAC.

In a press release announcing its launch, the coalition said it would work to “organize Democratic voters and elected officials to reject the destructive influence of the Republican megadonor-backed AIPAC on the Democratic primary process and our government’s policy towards Palestine and Israel.”

Financed by AIPAC’s major donors, including Republican billionaires and key GOP funders, the 2021 launch of the Israel lobby’s new super PAC was readymade to outspend progressives. AIPAC and its allies have reshaped the electoral field in key primaries, shifted the balance of power in Congress, and imposed costly consequences for criticism of U.S. support for Israel’s human rights abuses.

The Washington debate around the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has become particularly fraught amid Israel’s relentless assault on the Gaza Strip. Even as the International Court of Justice ruled that a case against Israel for genocide should proceed, progressive members of Congress have been attacked for using the term — or, early on in the war, just for calling for a ceasefire.
AIPAC recruited and is bankrolling a challenger to Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., for instance, who made early and forceful calls for a ceasefire in the Gaza war. Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., who faced an AIPAC spending onslaught in 2022, is expected to face millions in AIPAC expenditures again this year.

“We have watched as AIPAC has done everything it can to silence growing dissent in Congress against Netanyahu’s assault on Gaza — which has killed over 31,000 Palestinians — even as Democratic voters overwhelmingly support a ceasefire and oppose sending more blank checks to the Israeli military,” the coalition said. “Now, AIPAC’s Republican donor-funded Super PAC, the United Democracy Project, is threatening to spend $100 million targeting the handful of Black and brown members of Congress who have led the calls for a ceasefire and the equal protection of Palestinian and Israeli lives.”

AIPAC AND ITS allies’ growing influence on Democratic Party politics has presented a major problem for progressives. The organizations backing progressives rely mostly on small-dollar donors and can’t compete with AIPAC’s war chest.

Even as it attacks Democrats on the parties left flank, however, AIPAC has cozied up to the GOP’s far right. In the 2020 election, AIPAC endorsed more than 100 Republicans who voted to overturn the results of that year’s presidential race.
This year, the group encouraged Republicans to switch parties to vote in at least one Democratic primary where it recruited Westchester County Executive George Latimer to run against Bowman. AIPAC is the biggest donor to Latimer’s campaign so far, The Intercept reported.

While progressive candidates like Lee have fended off AIPAC and its allies, its chilling effects reach far beyond elections. The group also has an outsized lobbying influence on Capitol Hill and spends millions of dollars a year on lobbying efforts, another arena in which the left has been outmatched.

The Reject AIPAC coalition says it will try to counterbalance those efforts on the Hill and call on members to disavow AIPAC’s endorsement and instead sign a pledge not to take any more money from the group. For the moment, however, many senior Democrats, including those in leadership, have benefited from AIPAC’s largesse.

“The overwhelming influence of corporate Super PACs on our democracy and elections has expanded the gap between voters and their elected leaders into a canyon that has been exploited by every special interest and corporate lobby,” the coalition said. “Rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.”

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-16-2024, 12:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill, please do me the courtesy of directly answering the following questions as I believe a true answer from you will be illuminating.

1. Does the state of Israel have a right to exist in any form as it has since the end of WW2?

2. Do you, personally, believe Hamas is a terrorist organization?

3. Do you think the IDF commits atrocities on par with those of Hamas and at the same, or greater, frequency.

I always do you the courtesy of giving direct answers, kindly return the favor. And with that I bid you a nice weekend. Lookin forward to your response, it'll be interesting I'm sure.

(03-18-2024, 10:10 AM)Dill Wrote: THE LEFT IS FINALLY BUILDING A RESPONSE TO AIPAC

I read thru all of that, but i didn't see your answers to ss's questions?
Or did i miss it??

[Dill]

(03-18-2024, 06:38 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I read thru all of that, but i didn't see your answers to ss's questions?
Or did i miss it??

You missed something, likely.  I already answered a similar set in my post #171.

His question about "terrorism" is just a re-ask.  And he's not really answered the questions I asked in post #163

"Why isn't refusal to acknowledge both [right wing Israelis and Palestinians] exist and exert their views in their respective spheres ..."making excuses" for one side?
There is no person on this list who "consistently makes excuses for, and defends, groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah and Hamas." 
That you claim there is raises the question--by what criteria are you measuring/asserting all this?"

He just continues to assert that criticizing Israel a "Hamas talking point."

In any case, he is at the end of a queue. I'm working on responses to Matt right now, who tries to build serious arguments himself
and doesn't respond to serious argument with quips and personal attacks. Substance gets priority.

While I've got your attention, though, maybe you could go on record:

Do you think that acknowledging or reporting on Israeli war crimes is "supporting terrorism"?

If you think so, would you conclude the news should be censored; our list discussion as well?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-18-2024, 06:38 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I read thru all of that, but i didn't see your answers to ss's questions?
Or did i miss it??

He won't answers those questions, because he knows a true answer will be wildly unpalatable to most here. Also, despite his assertion otherwise, he has never directly answered any of those questions.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-18-2024, 07:08 PM)Dill Wrote: You missed something, likely.  I already answered a similar set in my post #171.

His question about "terrorism" is just a re-ask.  And he's not really answered the questions I asked in post #163

"Why isn't refusal to acknowledge both [right wing Israelis and Palestinians] exist and exert their views in their respective spheres ..."making excuses" for one side?
There is no person on this list who "consistently makes excuses for, and defends, groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah and Hamas." 
That you claim there is raises the question--by what criteria are you measuring/asserting all this?"

He just continues to assert that criticizing Israel a "Hamas talking point."

In any case, he is at the end of a queue. I'm working on responses to Matt right now, who tries to build serious arguments himself
and doesn't respond to serious argument with quips and personal attacks. Substance gets priority.

While I've got your attention, though, maybe you could go on record:

Do you think that acknowledging or reporting on Israeli war crimes is "supporting terrorism"?

If you think so, would you conclude the news should be censored; our list discussion as well?

Acknowledging or reporting is not an issue to me, but i keep looking the Why are they doing this? Prior to Hamas sending missiles, the Palestinians were getting a ton of aid (fresh water, food, medical aid), after the missiles they are barely getting anything. And because of Hamas' style of attacks, I have little to no remorse about it. Why don't the Palestinians themselves deliver Hamas's head on a silver platter and let Israel know that he doesn't represent them anymore? 

As long as Hamas is running around freely, he will keep playing his games. Sadly the only answer i can foresee is he needs to be removed completely from the field. Peace has zero chance of happening while he is still in play. Should he also be brought up and charged with War Crimes? He's just as much at fault if not more as Israel for innocents being killed.