Very even-handed.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Possibly. There is the other scenario where they reduce Gaza to tents, kill as many Hamas as they can manage then simply leave and completely blockade what's left. The option then for Gazans is to flee or receive aid via Egypt or die. It's a disturbing scenario but tactically sound if America and Iran will wear it. They might.
It's not islamophobic to ask what @The Corinthian meant when he called a dead Doctor a "martyr" and if it was a religious reference or a secular one. I'm happy to defend that. He still hasn't answered. Islam as a political ideology is not above criticism. Hamas is not above criticism (to say the least.)
I think you need to look up the definition of an echo chamber, literally every single page of this huge thread has been an argument 
That's not how you positioned it. Look at the wording of the post you made that people had an issue with. It's not difficult to see why people called you up on it.
Yep it's been very interesting to witness the complete 180 stance western politicians and media have taken on this invasion vs the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
It's not an assumption , do some research for once.
Last edited:
I mean, there was a slight difference. If Russia's invasion of Ukraine had been sparked by Ukraine organising a mass murder of Russian civilians, I think actually the whole war would be viewed differently. Because you know, that's a pretty big f*cking difference.
Wait, I'm supposed to say it's because Ukrainians are white? Or Christian? Both?
Yes a religious martyr dies for his religion. That's what it means. And if someone dies in a war where their side are an Islamic fundamentalist death cult, calling them a martyr has that very very obvious connotation. Again the poster can explain if he means something different but chooses not to. He blows his dog whistle and runs away.
But the poster was talking about a Doctor so why did you straight away assume he's talking about a religious martyr?
Rather than making these vague ambiguous arguments, why not reply with something tangible and sensible?
Here's some more info on blood libel for you, seeing as you love parroting this term:
Blood libel - Wikipedia
While people are busy arguing over what happened in Al-Shifa, the IOF have moved to bombing the last remaining hospital in northern Gaza.
Pretty much every poster that quoted you after your claim explained my usage of the term. It's not my fault you have limited comprehension.
It's actually not that simple.
To be fair, the idea or concept of blood libel had moved beyond its original Christian meaning, which can be traced to the Bible and the idea that the Jews had the opportunity to save Jesus, but condemned him to death.
Accusations of Jews murdering Christians abounded in the Middle Ages and led to many pogroms. And today the concept of Jews deliberately killing other peoples for their own gratification or benefit is but an evolved concept of the original accusation.
Those later wars also had little to do with liberating Palestinians either, the objectives were more to do with reclaiming lost land in previous wars. Neighbouring Arab countries gave up on Palestine and accepted Israel by that point. Plus Israel fired the first shots in 1967. So not exactly sure the point he's trying to make.
After destroying the Al-Shifa hospital and killing who knows how many innocent people, and telling the sick and those seeking refuge in the hospital to get out and walk somewhere else...the absolute cnuts of the Israeli Govt and the Israeli Terrorist forces are now attacking another hospital.
Thanks for the context - it wasn't a term I was familiar with. I do think it's being carelessly thrown around by @glazed along with a few other buzzwords he seems to have clung to. In any case, the Israelis have started referencing it when the UN Sec Gen mentioned the conflict in a speech a few weeks ago.
This again -
How many Palestinians do you think the Israelis killed before Oct 7th going back, say 10 years?
Russia claim to have legitimate reasons for defending themselves and invading Ukraine as well mate. And you'll not find me condoning anything Hamas have done especially what they did last month, but for me it doesn't justify what Israel are doing in Gaza.
It's simple for me, we have two nuclear powers and two of the worlds best equipped militaries bombing the shit out of a civilian population. It's not hard to see the similiarties and actually the biggest difference is that Israel have been killing civilians and children at a far higher rate than Russia have managed to in Ukraine. Over 12,000 deaths already many children in just over a month.
I'd say it has more to do with Israel being a western ally and Russia not being one.
If opinions about the current Israel-Hamas conflict are determined by the mass murder of Israeli civilians, then it stands to reason that previous Israel-Hamas conflicts that did not originate from mass murder of civilians would have been viewed very differently.
This is, in fact, not the case.
Polling:
Therefore we can discard that part of the hypothesis, and really the entire claim.
I asked what he meant. I did not assume that though I think it is an obvious possible interpretation from a western perspective. He's at liberty to say what he means.
What's your point? I know what a blood libel is. Do you?
No they explained what it could mean. Only you know what you did mean. You still have not said.
Last edited:
Because Egypt closes the Straits of Tiran to Israel - which Israel had already said would be an act of war. Then Iraqi and Egyptian troops started deploying in Jordan. It wasn't some out of the blue random aggression. It was a pre-emptive strike on countries they were officially at war with since 1948. In Syria's case they still are.
I never said it was. But it is true (as are other factors) that the current situation would not exist as it is if the 6 day war hadn't happened. And that puts some responsibility on Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
Can everyone stop using the term blood libel please? It's use does not promote reasoned debate, rather the opposite.
Not denying it's origins but its use seems akin to Godwin's Law. Although the very dubious claims by that Swedish paper in 2008 are pretty damn close given the origin's of the term.
Not denying it's origins but its use seems akin to Godwin's Law. Although the very dubious claims by that Swedish paper in 2008 are pretty damn close given the origin's of the term.
Last edited:
You're absolutely unhinged.
I understand you have no argument and the only recourse you have left is to claim people are secret antisemites, who are all just desperate to publicly trash Jewish people.
Don't fecking reply to me again.
I'm not going to dignify the idiocy of your post with a response. If you're still not getting it when pretty much every poster that replied to you confirmed what I meant, then there's no helping someone with your mindset.
I've explained why the post is antisemitic. I've explained why it's employing the tropes of a blood libel. To say I have no argument is a straightforward untruth. To say I'm mentally ill for pointing out what your post is doing just shows you up for having no response except to cry. I'll reply as much as I like when I see that kind of post.
Everything you've put is absolute nonsense.
You linked to Wikipedia which doesn't show what you said or was "research", it shows a huge denial, accusations of blood libel, then a decade later a quiet admittal, as I said.
Just embarrassing
Why should we not point out a blood libel? The logic of your suggestion is that it's OK to post anti-semitic content but not OK to point it out.
How convenient. Blow your dog whistle and run away then. If you get cornered pretend you meant something else. I know that game.
Last edited:
And how does a practice around 1990 which did not target Palestinians and for which the person responsible was sacked connect to al-Shifa hospital in 2023? Please do elaborate if you can overcome your embarrassment, since you conflated the events.
There was no conflation, it was showing the context of why someone was making that accusation. God sake, this is so ridiculous.
Because without the pretext or historical event of that very thing happening, the accusations would be seen as a ridiculous fantasy. Showing that a nation has done these things before, gives the charge context.
The fact the original poster of the tweet, linked to the 2009 story of Israel admitting they did those practices was for that purpose. It wasn't to conflate the two, only a disingenuous person would think that.
What's even better is you're falling into the classic trap of:
A) it didn't happen
B) well it might have happened
C) ok it happened but it's not a big deal, it wasn't just Palestinians
Just barmy
@glazed - you realise that you brought up religion regarding DOCTOR and his ENTIRE FAMILY being murdered by Israel. You then misunderstood the word 'martyr', doubled down and then made a greater fool of yourself. You're now convinced that 90% of the thread is just people hating Jews, which is outrageous. In your mind, is it not possible for somebody to not hate Jews but also hate the Israeli government for the genocide they're committing and have been committing for the past 15+ years?
Wow.The cross conflation of Israel = Jews and vice versa is in of itself and antisemitic trope so, that's embarrassing.
The two things have zero to do with each other. You might as well pick out a UK hospital scandal like Lucy Letby and thirty years later say it's proof that the British army are killing babies in whatever war they happen to be involved in in the year 2053. The original allegation suggested that the Israelis were doing this to Palestinians. The reality was they were doing it to Israelis too. Eventually the person responsible was fired.
The point is that the 2023 accusations are a ridiculous fantasy. Apart from anything else you can't dig up dead and buried bodies and extract usable body parts from them. That's not how bodies work. But the obvious implication of your post is that the Israelis were digging up people at the al-Shifa hospital for body parts. That's a blood libel and therefore anti-semitic. Squirm all you like. Call it unhinged, barmy, embarrassing, whatever you want. But that's what it is.
I simply asked the poster what he meant by martyr, since religious martyr is a reasonable and normal meaning in the context of a war with religious fundamentalists. He has not replied so will not explain why the Doctor is a martyr rather than merely a victim.
I don't know where you get the 90% figure from, but yes some of the posts here are anti-semitic, as I've pointed out. Attributing hyperbole to distort an argument you wish to dismiss is a poor response. Calling me a fool instead of addressing what I say is a bit of a red flag for a certain kind of poster who just knows they are right but can't explain why.
Last edited:
Just on this, can't believe I have to say it;
There is a difference between taking organs of your dead soldiers without asking for permission which while unethical, I could see this as a legislative issue but taking the organs of the "enemy" as an occupying force is barbaric.
I'm just explaining why general western populations would be reacting to the two things differently.
If we're allowed to say this current escalation represents a starting point of the current 'war' between Hamas/Israel, then this was clearly explainable as: Israel were attacked at an unprecedented scale, Israel gets some sympathy, Israel is going to react. That was, for me, a perfectly sensible viewpoint back in mid-October. There's a very strong argument that Israel was, pre October 6th, the aggressor in the relationship - it was - but the way the world is reacting to the escalation is that initially Israel was the victim.
That sympathy dried up and is now pretty much gone. As it should be, because of how absurd the Israeli campaign has been.
To me that's completely different from the Russia / Ukraine conflict. They'd only be similar if Israel had kicked off this whole escalation with no inciting event. I can entirely see why they're viewed differently.
Note the thread guidelines which now state posters shouldn't call one another several things (or even infer it without explicitly stating it). If someone sees something off, they should instead report it.