Israel strike in Gaza destroys building with AP, other media

[Dill]

(05-18-2021, 03:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Just stumbled across this video on YouTube.  Rather a good example of what really underlies many opponents of Israel and supporters of terrorist organization such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

A young woman after Dill's heart.

LOL You tube: beats reading history books. 

When are you going to accuse me of cherry-picking evidence? 

[Dill]

(05-18-2021, 02:08 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: My (piss-poor) analogy was meant to just make a comparison about what we're seeing right now.  (Should Israel retailliate, Did Hamas get exactly what they wanted by engaging in the first place).

As for the rest, like I said I'm no expert.  I don't have the knowledge or the patience to try to get into all of this.  But I do think there's a lot of key information left out in many of these arguments.  (Ex: Israel being attacked from the begining in 1948, Israel being attacked again in the 60's, Israel winning both of these, two state solutions being shot down, etc.)

Wes, you said you were new to the topic. I assumed your analogy was a way of exploring it, figuring out what was at stake, who was causing what, etc. I considered it a good start. You were curious and inviting others to comment.

There is indeed a lot of key information left out. So much really that it is hard to lay out on a message board. My analogy was an attempt to compact both history and the issues raised by it in easily digestible form.  E.g., strangers taking over your house and you fighting to defend it with help from your neighbors--well, you would be the Palestinians attacking Israel "from the beginning," trying to defend your home. 

The two-state solution is shot down once the people who have taken your house start partitioning your garage also--i.e., settlement of the West Bank. 

The ground floor of any discussion of this topic should recognize that one entity, the most powerful state in the Middle East, has dispossessed millions of people of their land. It now controls the land, and its former inhabitants, pushed into occupied enclaves contained for "security" purposes.  

A hundred years ago, Jews and Muslims lived side by side in peace in integrated neighborhoods everywhere, including Jerusalem. But today, if one looks deep into hopeless enclaves like Gaza, it is not hard to find people who hate Jews with a passion, every day all day long, and who would like to see them all driven into the sea.

When people in those enclaves fight back, we are invited by supporters of their domination to consider whether they are fighting fair, and whether their "real" reason for attacking Israel is just anti-Semitism, not self defense. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-18-2021, 05:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Wes, you said you were new to the topic. I assumed your analogy was a way of exploring it, figuring out what was at stake, who was causing what, etc. I considered it a good start. You were curious and inviting others to comment.

There is indeed a lot of key information left out. So much really that it is hard to lay out on a message board. My analogy was an attempt to compact both history and the issues raised by it in easily digestible form.  E.g., strangers taking over your house and you fighting to defend it with help from your neighbors--well, you would be the Palestinians attacking Israel "from the beginning," trying to defend your home. 

The two-state solution is shot down once the people who have taken your house start partitioning your garage also--i.e., settlement of the West Bank.

Was it hard in 1948?  Was Israel in the West Bank then?  You're blatantly dishonest on this topic.

Quote:The ground floor of any discussion of this topic should recognize that one entity, the most powerful state in the Middle East, has dispossessed millions of people of their land. It now controls the land, and its former inhabitants, pushed into occupied enclaves contained for "security" purposes.

I.E. it's all Israel's fault.  Dill, "it's ok when people I like do it", like in 1948.  

Quote:A hundred years ago, Jews and Muslims lived side by side in peace in integrated neighborhoods everywhere, including Jerusalem. But today, if one looks deep into hopeless enclaves like Gaza, it is not hard to find people who hate Jews with a passion, every day all day long, and who would like to see them all driven into the sea.

It wasn't hard back in 1948 either. 

Quote:When people in those enclaves fight back, we are invited by supporters of their domination to consider whether they are fighting fair, and whether their "real" reason for attacking Israel is just anti-Semitism, not self defense. 

I know when I'm defending myself I fire rockets indiscriminately into civilian population centers.  

[Dill]

(05-18-2021, 01:54 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Serious question:  What would you have them do?

Would you continue to just let Palestine indiscriminately launch rockets into Israel?  Remember, the dome or whatever they call is not 100 effective (I think it's like 90%).  Or would you take out the launch sites? 

It seems to me your argument is that because Israel knows there were be more casualties if they retaliate then they should just do nothing.  They can just allow what happens in the video below to continue because of this.

Recall that the immediate cause of the current round of violence was an uptick in the ongoing the eviction of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem, followed by shooting tear gas and flashbangs into praying Muslims. Bibi knows that such shows of force, particularly on holy sites, will likely provoke retaliation from Gaza which, if properly handled, can keep him and Likud in control of the government.

For that to work though, he has to keep people--especially allies which float his military--talking about Israel's right to self defense, NOT about Israeli domination/control of East Jerusalem and Gaza.  

So Serious answer: stop evicting Palestinians from their homes so Israelis can have them. Start treating Palestinians as human beings with human rights. 

Get to work on a two-state or one-state solution. 

Israelis who are not serious about that are quite willing to take a few rockets in exchange for maintaining their control over millions of lives.

[Wes Mantooth]

(05-18-2021, 05:08 PM)Dill Wrote: 1.) Wes, you said you were new to the topic. I assumed your analogy was a way of exploring it, figuring out what was at stake, who was causing what, etc. I considered it a good start. You were curious and inviting others to comment.

There is indeed a lot of key information left out. So much really that it is hard to lay out on a message board. 2.) My analogy was an attempt to compact both history and the issues raised by it in easily digestible form.  E.g., strangers taking over your house and you fighting to defend it with help from your neighbors--well, you would be the Palestinians attacking Israel "from the beginning," trying to defend your home. 

The two-state solution is shot down once the people who have taken your house start partitioning your garage also--i.e., settlement of the West Bank. 

The ground floor of any discussion of this topic should recognize that one entity, the most powerful state in the Middle East, has dispossessed millions of people of their land. It now controls the land, and its former inhabitants, pushed into occupied enclaves contained for "security" purposes.  

A hundred years ago, Jews and Muslims lived side by side in peace in integrated neighborhoods everywhere, including Jerusalem. But today, if one looks deep into hopeless enclaves like Gaza, it is not hard to find people who hate Jews with a passion, every day all day long, and who would like to see them all driven into the sea.

When people in those enclaves fight back, we are invited by supporters of their domination to consider whether they are fighting fair, and whether their "real" reason for attacking Israel is just anti-Semitism, not self defense. 

1.) Just a quick clarification, I did not say I was new to the subject.  I said I'm not educated enough, nor do I have the energy to engage in a detailed discussion.

I mean, I suppose I could.  I think I know enough to have some opinions on the matter.  But as someone who lives thousands of miles aways, whose knowledge on the subject comes from classes I took over 20 years ago and watching the news and has had, in no way, any real world experience of it, I don't think it would be appopriate of me to delve into it a great deal. 

2.) I can appreciate this in most discussion, if only for the sake of ease.  On this one though I'd be lying if I said my spidey sense doesn't go off a bit.  It's an incredibly complex situation and has so much history behind it.  Often I find that people frame it in a way only meant garner support and not to actually explore how exactly we (they) got there, or how to solve it.  (Not saying you're necessarily doing this. This is more based on much of the talk I see on social media, Reddit and places like that)

[Dill]

(05-18-2021, 05:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Was it hard in 1948?  Was Israel in the West Bank then?  You're blatantly dishonest on this topic.
I.E. it's all Israel's fault.  Dill, "it's ok when people I like do it", like in 1948.  
It wasn't hard back in 1948 either. 
I know when I'm defending myself I fire rockets indiscriminately into civilian population centers.  

LOL Uninformed scattershot. But I'll respond.

Did I SAY Israel controlled the West Bank in '48? 
You have to accuse me of dishonesty without proof, because you don't have it.
You are very audience conscious. Will anyone notice that you don't dare get into specifics of this history?

Is it ok when "people you like" take others land, like in 1948?

If it is not "all Israel's fault" that Palestinians were driven from their lands in '48, then whose was it? 
Did they drive themselves off their land? 

[Belsnickel]

(05-18-2021, 06:07 PM)Dill Wrote: If it is not "all Israel's fault" that Palestinians were driven from their lands in '48, then whose was it? 
Did they drive themselves off their land? 

Now, on most of your stuff I tend to agree, but this one, particularly, I have to say that it is not completely the fault of the Israelis that the Arab residents were forcibly removed. The United States had a huge role in it, as well as the UN as a whole. It's one of the reasons that while I'd love for the US to just wash their hands of the mess, I have a hard time with that. In reality, all of these nations agreed to the creation of a Jewish state out of guilt. Their backing of the Jewish state has allowed for the initial expulsion and continued oppression of Arab citizens within Israel and Palestine. Israel is the main perpetrator, but they wouldn't be able to do what they do without the backing of much of the Wetern world.

[Belsnickel]

(05-18-2021, 05:34 PM)Dill Wrote: So Serious answer: stop evicting Palestinians from their homes so Israelis can have them. Start treating Palestinians as human beings with human rights. 

This is the biggest thing to me. Until Israel is held accountable for their crimes with regards to this, there is no possibility for any negotiations.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-18-2021, 06:07 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Uninformed scattershot. But I'll respond.

Did I SAY Israel controlled the West Bank in '48?

Nope, but the fact that it didn't rather throws a wrench into your argument that this is the reason for the violence.  Or was Israel not attacked in 1948?
 

Quote:You have to accuse me of dishonesty without proof, because you don't have it.
You are very audience conscious. Will anyone notice that you don't dare get into specifics of this history?

Wait, you're ignoring that Israel was attacked by a coalition of Arab nations bent on their destruction in 1948, but I'm the one ignoring history? 

Quote:Is it ok when "people you like" take others land, like in 1948?

Reread my posts in this thread an find your answer.

Quote:If it is not "all Israel's fault" that Palestinians were driven from their lands in '48, then whose was it? 
Did they drive themselves off their land? 

I'd lay a rather huge helping of the blame on the Arab nations that attacked Israel precipitating the entire war in the first place.  But you don't seem to blame anyone but Israel for anything to do with this, which is why your take on this is comical.

[Wes Mantooth]

(05-18-2021, 06:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The United States had a huge role in it, as well as the UN as a whole. It's one of the reasons that while I'd love for the US to just wash their hands of the mess, I have a hard time with that.

Here's where I'd like some education.

How does Britain's role in the creation of Isarael compare to the US?

[Belsnickel]

(05-18-2021, 07:45 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Here's where I'd like some education.

How does Britain's role in the creation of Isarael compare to the US?

The US pushed for the Jewish state. The UK's role was that they vacated Palestine and handed it off to the League of Nations/UN to make it their problem. They were hostile towards the Jewish state in the beginning.

Obviously, this is an oversimplification, but the main thing is that the US was really the biggest driving force in the creation of Israel. The evangelical population is the biggest push for it.

[Dill]

(05-18-2021, 06:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nope, but the fact that it didn't rather throws a wrench into your argument that this is the reason for the violence.  Or was Israel not attacked in 1948?
Wait, you're ignoring that Israel was attacked by a coalition of Arab nations bent on their destruction in 1948, but I'm the one ignoring history? 
Reread my posts in this thread an find your answer.
I'd lay a rather huge helping of the blame on the Arab nations that attacked Israel precipitating the entire war in the first place.  But you don't seem to blame anyone but Israel for anything to do with this, which is why your take on this is comical.

Well, you are trying. Sort of. You dared some historical specifics.

I'll start by explaining why my "comical" account "ignores" that Israel was attacked by "a coalition of Arab nations bent on their destruction in 1948."

The story of Palestinian dispossession begins before May 14, 1948. 

E.g., the Deir Yassin massacre took place on April 9th, over a month before Ben Gurion's declaration. "Israel" doesn't exist yet. How to make that happen? "Defensive" war? That's when a future Prime Minister of Israel led an attack which executed 254 peaceful villagers and scattered the remainder to spread their story of terror, creating mass panic as other villagers abandoned their homes in flight. That was one of the events that sent hundreds of thousands in panicked flight to the nearest safe haven. And their land, what of that? Confiscated by the Yishuv to become formally the property of the new state of Israel on May 14.  https://www.deiryassin.org/mas.html  

Some (far right wing) historians do indeed call such actions "defensive," an aspect of Plan Dalet, the Haganah's strategy for the ethnic cleansing of Arab populations, began even before the declaration of statehood. Defensive because, how can you have a secure Israeli state full of Arabs who own 85% of the land and want to keep it?  Plan D appears to have worked, as Haganah and other units went into action, even during the war, driving Arabs from the South, East and North, sending some 700,000 refugees into the nearest safe havens (Gaza Strip being one). Their land was forfeit. And they and their descendants still have no right of return.

So that is where and when the first and most massive dispossession begins. AL NAKBA. The disaster. The prospect of genocide and ethnic cleansing was one of the factors that triggered alarm in surrounding Arab states, and sent them into hasty mobilization. (In #17, I gave you a link to their cablegram to the Secretary General of the UN, giving bloodshed and dispossession as their motivation.) The cleansing was underway BEFORE May 14, 1948, and the consequent Arab "war of aggression."  And when that war was over, an army almost wholly composed of recent European immigrants, 117,000 strong manning defensive positions, had defeated the uncoordinated, divided attempts of some 60,000 Arabs from five nations to protect their brethren's lives and homes. David vs Goliath!  Kicked ass! 

Absent this knowledge, you could, of course, see a "wrench" in my account, imagining I was only referring to the West Bank, rather than including it as one moment (not even the most important) in a 70-year+ history of dispossession which began before any Arab invasion, and which continues even now with the Jerusalem evictions.  

But for the Israeli Foreign Ministry and Horowitz, the story begins on May 14, as if Israel dropped from the heaven with Ben Gurion's pronouncement, and clean title to the land between the Jordan and the sea. Only THEN did jealous Arabs, motivated by age-old hatred of Jews, attack. Like I totally forgot that, wearing my leftist ideological blinders, and you caught me.

[Dill]

(05-18-2021, 06:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Now, on most of your stuff I tend to agree, but this one, particularly, I have to say that it is not completely the fault of the Israelis that the Arab residents were forcibly removed. The United States had a huge role in it, as well as the UN as a whole. It's one of the reasons that while I'd love for the US to just wash their hands of the mess, I have a hard time with that. In reality, all of these nations agreed to the creation of a Jewish state out of guilt. Their backing of the Jewish state has allowed for the initial expulsion and continued oppression of Arab citizens within Israel and Palestine. Israel is the main perpetrator, but they wouldn't be able to do what they do without the backing of much of the Wetern world.

You are not wrong here. I was referring to the kinetic action. 

Some qualifications though--though U.S. was not all that interested in helping Israel at the time. Many of Truman's advisors/cabinet were dead set against recognizing the new state.* I believe we had a UN team working on a form of trusteeship when Truman yanked the rug from under them with surprise recognition of the new state. We didn't start giving them serious military and economic support until after the Suez Crisis and a decade later the '67 war, in part because Nassar and Assad were outfitted with Soviet military gear. Also, other nations were not very forthcoming when helping the Israelis. The British blocked the movement of arms into the country even after '48, and many countries  forbid arms sales to the region. The largest share of their arms came from Czechoslovakia in '48, not the WWII Allies. France was their biggest military supplier before '67.

The UN played a role in voting for a partition which ignored the majority population in Palestine. But as the Yishuv planning documents from '46 on indicate, the war would have happened anyway. (And whew! the Haganah's Plan Dalet.) UN partition or no. And the goal was a Jewish state, not some "partition" with an Arab state. The Arabs had to go. 

Finally, I have to give credit where it is due. With all that the Yishuv had going against it, they managed to cobble together and efficient, 1st world Army which outnumbered the divided Arab forces arrayed against them in '48. They used connections in manifold countries to lobby for votes and finagle under the table arms deals. Palestinians were so far behind, had no idea what was coming . . . .
*There was tremendous concern that we might offend oil-rich Arab allies. And the USSR had no important presence in the ME yet. Finally, I suspect guilt over holocaust, while great among liberals, was not so widespread in segregated U.S. as it is now. 

[NATI BENGALS]

Couldn’t make it through 4 pages. All I want is the quick explanation as to how Biden managed to get Jews and Muslims to fight each other? Pretty sure this has never happened before and he is solely responsible.

[Dill]

(05-18-2021, 05:56 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: 1.) Just a quick clarification, I did not say I was new to the subject.  I said I'm not educated enough, nor do I have the energy to engage in a detailed discussion.

I mean, I suppose I could.  I think I know enough to have some opinions on the matter.  But as someone who lives thousands of miles aways, whose knowledge on the subject comes from classes I took over 20 years ago and watching the news and has had, in no way, any real world experience of it, I don't think it would be appopriate of me to delve into it a great deal. 

2.) I can appreciate this in most discussion, if only for the sake of ease.  On this one though I'd be lying if I said my spidey sense doesn't go off a bit.  It's an incredibly complex situation and has so much history behind it.  Often I find that people frame it in a way only meant garner support and not to actually explore how exactly we (they) got there, or how to solve it.  (Not saying you're necessarily doing this. This is more based on much of the talk I see on social media, Reddit and places like that)

Sorry I said "new" then. But I still assume you are curious and exploring the topic.

No problem if you don't have "energy" to go into this much. A number of threads I don't even click on.

And yeah, you want to compare accounts of the I-P conflict. Because each side depends on our good will, part of their "information war" is fought in our media--though here, as on the ground there, there is a great mismatch. 

As far as your question about GB and the US role in the formation of Israel. I could expand a bit on Bels' comments.

In the late 19th century, London was a kind of headquarters for the Zionist movement. By WWI, their representatives worked closely with the British government on what was to happen to possessions of the Ottoman Empire when the war was over. In 1917, the British gov. issued the Balfour Declaration which committed his majesty's government to promoting a Jewish homeland in Palestine. That sent tremors through the Arab population. 

After the war, the area directly south of Turkey--the Levant--went to France. Britain got the rest, except what was to become Saudi Arabia (not yet united, comprised of several kingdoms). The area south of Lebanon and Syria, North of the Saudi Kingdom of Hejd, and west of Transordan, was called the "British Mandate" or Mandatory Palestine. The area had been administrated by the Ottomans, which meant, for example, they recorded land deeds. Now it was Britain's job to keep the peace--and records.

Which they could not not do do, ultimately, facing numerous, expensive revolts in their far flung Empire. The loss of India in '47 clinched it. But up till then they'd had to manage considerable unrest in Palestine, as Jews and Arabs, fearful of each other's intents, began fighting each other. After two Arab insurgencies in the 30s, the Brits had produced a "White Paper" in 1939 to shape British policy there. It called for the establishment of a Jewish State within 10 years. After '45, Britain attempted to slow/regulate the flood of hundreds of thousands of Jews from Europe (working with the US on joint committee to set quotas in "consultation" with Arab leaders, who did not want to consult), but could not. These new masses considerably upset the traditional balance of power, and a zionist insurgency began. That included what some then defined as terrorist groups, like the Irgun* and Stern.

British citizens wanted their guys OUT of a place with no oil and no other riches to speak of (and 223 dead soldiers between 46 and 48.). So they set a date, May 15, 1948, upon which their mandate ceased. But already by fall of 47, when the British declared martial law, it was every ethnic group for itself, and by Feb. '48 NO ONE WAS REALLY IN CONTROL.  Out manned and under gunned Palestinians stood no chance of preventing the establishment of an Israeli's state, as their leaders vowed to fight. Mid-May, British soldiers marched on to ships and sailed away as Jews and Arabs began the fight for their respective futures. 

So BEFORE '48, it's almost all GB. One could say they dropped the ball, screwed the pooch, set the stage for ethnic conflict. One wonders what would have happened if they had committed to a real secular democracy in the '20s and then nurtured it. (the reasons behind that fail may be clarified by that CRT we were discussing on another thread.) The U.S. was the first to recognize Israel, but actually did rather little to help it until the 60s (see my post to Bels above). At this point, the U.S. provides them with almost 3.8 billion in aid every year--a legacy of Carter's Camp David Accords (1978); Egypt gets around 1.5 billion. That is why some of us have been lamenting the US does not use its leverage to bring both parties to the table. Trump made no pretense of being "heavily biased in favor of one side." 

*These guys set off a bomb in the Kind David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 91 people.

[Dill]

(05-19-2021, 12:15 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Couldn’t make it through 4 pages. All I want is the quick explanation as to how Biden managed to get Jews and Muslims to fight each other? Pretty sure this has never happened before and he is solely responsible.

It wasn't really Joe.

Both sides were getting along just fine until Jill Biden sent Ismail Haniyeh a picture of Sara Netanyahu in a bathing suit.

Haniyeh promptly sent it out on the entire Hamas share list which, he should have known, was surveilled by Mossad. 

. . . which had similar pictures of certain Haniyeh family members which they, in turn, released to the Hamas list.

PRECISION strike! Haniyeh lost it and order their entire complement of Qassam rockets be fired on Tel Aviv. 

For the last 72 hours N and H have been trading insulting messages on facebook. I haven't followed all of it, but there seems to be
a strong anti-feminist them, talk of the other guy's "panties" and girl fear etc.

I doubt they'll get over this one.

[Mickeypoo]

(05-19-2021, 12:15 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Couldn’t make it through 4 pages. All I want is the quick explanation as to how Biden managed to get Jews and Muslims to fight each other? Pretty sure this has never happened before and he is solely responsible.

"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to F@#k things up." - Obama

[BoomerFan]

(05-17-2021, 09:23 AM)Dill Wrote: For so many Americans, there is no other version of the Gaza conflict than Israel's. Efforts to question that version or offer conflicting accounts are immediately dismissed as anti-Semitism and support for "terrorism," and "bias." Keep the conversation about that, not human rights, international law, and the historical record. 

Asking people to not bring anti-Semitism up would seem to obscure facts, not bring more to light. Discussions aren't some zero sum game and the conversation doesn't have to be about either one thing or the other. Larger contexts can include both perspectives. For instance, you are able to post what you have, and I can add to conversation some evidence of how Israel is treated unfairly by some world organizations (which then creates more negative popular sentiment in a sort of feedback loop). And this is important contextually because world sentiment abroad actually still does get driven in part by real old fashion anti-Semitism to this day and you can see this in certain international organizations.

Example 1: The UN Human Rights Council spends more time looking at Israel than any other country. Say what you will about Israel, hopefully we can agree they are not the worst human rights offenders in the world and are nowhere close to North Korea, Eritrea, Sri Lanka, the Central African Republic, Iraq, and Nigeria (Boko Haram). These latter entities are only just now starting to get attention from the UNHRC, but still Israel gets way more time and denounciation:

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/UNHRC_Country_Specific_v1.pdf

"Thirty-one of the 802 [country-specific reports submitted to the Human Rights Council] between 2006 and 2015 concerned Israel/Palestine, by far the most for any one country."

https://time.com/3060203/united-nations-human-rights-council-israel/

"Since its inception in 2006, the UNHRC has released a total of 103 resolutions. Astonishingly, 56 have focused on criticizing Israel."

Example 2: UNESCO claiming the Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Temple Mount are not Jewish (I realize the sources aren't unbiased but the facts are verifiable):

https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/UNESCO-No-connection-between-Temple-Mount-and-Judaism-470050


https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2016/11/01/unesco-decision-jerusalem-temple-mount-distorts-history/5Mn4mz83yuGKwB44hwtXWO/story.html

"The United Nations’ animus toward Israel took a truly deplorable turn last week with the passage of a resolution implicitly denying the Jewish people’s historic connection to the holiest site in Judaism."

"That site is Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, so named for the two Jewish temples that stood on the site for almost nine centuries — the first built by King Solomon nearly 3,000 years ago, the second destroyed by the Roman legions under Titus in 70 A.D. One needn’t be a Bible scholar or a historian to know that the cultural, religious, and emotional bonds that link the Jews to Jerusalem are unparalleled. For millennia, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount have been central to Jewish self-awareness — and thus to Christianity as well, since the Temple figures prominently in the Gospels’ account of the life of Jesus."

"Alas, that didn’t stop the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO — the UN’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — from adopting an Orwellian resolution on the status of conservation in Jerusalem that pointedly ignored Judaism’s connection to the Temple Mount. By a 10-2 vote, with eight abstentions, the committee approved a document that not only accuses Israel of endangering the revered compound, but also refers to the site throughout solely by its Arabic name, Haram al-Sharif. This was no innocent oversight. An earlier draft of the resolution had even more aggressively airbrushed the Jewish ties from Jerusalem’s Old City. For example, it had identified the Western Wall by its Islamic name, while placing the far more familiar Jewish title in quotation marks."

[Belsnickel]

(05-21-2021, 11:12 AM)BoomerFan Wrote: Asking people to not bring anti-Semitism up would seem to obscure facts, not bring more to light. Discussions aren't some zero sum game and the conversation doesn't have to be about either one thing or the other. Larger contexts can include both perspectives. For instance, you are able to post what you have, and I can add to conversation some evidence of how Israel is treated unfairly by some world organizations (which then creates more negative popular sentiment in a sort of feedback loop). And this is important contextually because world sentiment abroad actually still does get driven in part by real old fashion anti-Semitism to this day and you can see this in certain international organizations.

Example 1: The UN Human Rights Council spends more time looking at Israel than any other country. Say what you will about Israel, hopefully we can agree they are not the worst human rights offenders in the world and are nowhere close to North Korea, Eritrea, Sri Lanka, the Central African Republic, Iraq, and Nigeria (Boko Haram). These latter entities are only just now starting to get attention from the UNHRC, but still Israel gets way more time and denounciation:

So here is my question, though. How much of it is anti-Semitism (which I hate using this term for all this because the Palestinians are also Semites) versus how much of it is the UN focusing hard on Israel because Israel is a creation of the international community/UN? I could argue that one reason the UN would take so much interest in what happens there is because that body holds a lot of responsibility for what happens in that territory.

[Wes Mantooth]

A LOT of videos floating around today that are from Pro-Palestine protests in NYC yesterday.  

I have to be honest, if they're trying to get people to be sympathetic to their cause or to raise awareness some of them doing an absolute terrible job of it.  They're doing more harm than good, and if I were an actual Palestinian, living in Palestine then I'd be incensed that these people are representing me.

I thought about posting some of them here but I figured that wouldn't be totally fair or relevant to the thread.  I don't know who makes up all these groups and of course there's obvious examples of assholes across the debate.  But some of these vids are pretty shocking.

Examples of what I've seen:  Going up to diners who sitting outside eating, and spitting on them.  10 on 1 beatings.  Chasing people down with cars.  Hitting people with flags.  Pulling people out of the cars.  and on, and on, and on....

I'm sure many will disagree but these are many of the same issues I had with the BLM movement.  Even if there's loads of people there with the best intentions, who aren't causing problems, people like this can really derail your entire message.  It's no wonder some Americans become unsympathetic when they're met with these acts.  I think these organizations or the people who are apart of them really need to call this shit out and put a stop to it.  They're only hurting the cause.