VorZakone
What would Kenny G do?
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 33,990
The Biden administration continues acting as the ministry of propaganda for Israel.
So you have evidence to the contrary?
The Biden administration continues acting as the ministry of propaganda for Israel.
So you have evidence to the contrary?
Normally the person/group making the accusation need to proof to back up their claims
So just say that then rather than overcorrecting and suggesting anything coming from the Biden administration is propaganda.Normally the person/group making the accusation needs the proof to back up their claims
a)”UN had no right to decide anything on behalf of others”
Well yes they did. The British mandate ended.. Palestine could have fought against their British mandate, ask their genocidal friend and buddy Adolf Hitler to help them do so, but no.
So the group of nations known as the United Nations had every single right to decide what happened with a territory that already consisted of many Jews and wasn’t even its own state to create a Jewish state and an Arab staye. Not solely a Jewish state.
“ On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted for the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine, calling for the formation of a Jewish state and an Arab state. The result? Jews accepted the deal, but Arabs rejected it.”
“Tell the US canada and any other country in the world if an external power would decide for them to split the country to give it to a minority in exchange for peace (that they already had) if they would not fight”
Once again, false. The majority if the country was absorbed by Jordan.
64 percent to jordan
Remaining 36 percent would be 56.47 percent Jewish, and 43.53 percent Muslim.
So 56.47 percent is roughly 19.5 percent of the 100 percent of Palestine.(if anyone could help me on the exact 56.47 percent of 36 is, I tried to compute it)
so let’s make it clear - roughly 19.5 percent is not half.
Roughly 19.5 percent is not half.
the 64 percent that went to Jordan was ruled under the King of
“Additionally, you know who supported Nazis and the killings of jews? the germans. a taaaad more than the palestinians. Sould they give half germany for the jews? Should spain do the same when they killed jews throughout history? like probably all european countries at some point? should UK as king George VI was a nazi sympathizer that put pressure to avoid jews leaving to germany through the embassy?”
if my family was massacred in a land I wouldn’t want to build my safe haven over the land.
so you admit thay probably all European countries killed Jews at some point.
What does that tell you?
So I’ll address your argument.
there was discussion as to where Israel would best be suited.
Argentina or the land that Israel exists today.
argentina did not support Hitler during World War II.
It was decided that the land near Jerusalem was best for the people that just had 6 million slaughtered.
6 million.
There are roughly 1.7 million Muslims living in Israel today, 13 percent of the parliament is Muslim.
(United States has 1 percent, no idea about U.K.).
Anyway I responded to every single one of your points.
“Hitler lost the war, not palestine and scrutiny doesnt equal to take hard the country FFS. really that warrranted half palestine? then what warranted Italy and Japan that were allies with germany? or germany itself or francoist Spain?”
the Jewish people didn’t want Japan or France or Spain, the many African Jews such as my family also went to Israel. It was the preferred option
Incredible what Israel are getting away with. History will not remember the US, EU and the rest of the western world kindly after this. At least I hope not.
So just say that then rather than overcorrecting and suggesting anything coming from the Biden administration is propaganda.
Quite remarkable that they've managed to get into Khan Yunis so quickly.
Why is it so remarkable? They have carpet bombed with some of the most powerful bombs supported by state of the art technology. The guys they are fighting have no air defences equipped with ak47s and rpgs. Surprised it's taken this long.
Because some were initially suggesting this would be a many months of years long project. They've gone into Gaza and in just over a month and taken over most of it. The tunnels will eventually be flooded after which any remaining fighting will be forced above ground where Hamas elements won't stand a chance.
Yeah because no one was imagining bloodthirsty and blind bombing. All time projections went out of the window went international law didBecause some were initially suggesting this would be a many months of years long project. They've gone into Gaza and in just over a month and taken over most of it. The tunnels will eventually be flooded after which any remaining fighting will be forced above ground where Hamas elements won't stand a chance.
The Biden administration continues acting as the ministry of propaganda for Israel.
This should come with a trigger warning of some kind. The abuses detailed in there are beyond horrific.
This should come with a trigger warning of some kind. The abuses detailed in there are beyond horrific.
It's a strange article. There isn't a single piece of evidence mentioned that has been independently verified by the BBC.Yet here is the problem. All of this could very well be 100% true, but because Israel has lied so much already, none of this can actually be believed at face value.
Several people involved in collecting and identifying the bodies of those killed in the attack told us they had seen multiple signs of sexual assault, including broken pelvises, bruises, cuts and tears, and that the victims ranged from children and teenagers to pensioners.
Police have privately shown journalists a single horrific testimony that they filmed of a woman who was at the Nova festival site during the attack.
This one says they have a body of evidence (unspecified) but hadn't done any interviews.Police say they have "multiple" eye-witness accounts of sexual assault, but wouldn't give any more clarification on how many. When we spoke to them, they hadn't yet interviewed any surviving victims.
The BBC has not been able to independently verify this account, and Israeli media reports have questioned some testimony from volunteers working in the traumatic aftermath of the Hamas attacks.
To our question about how he could be sure - without seeing it - that the screams he heard indicated sexual assault rather than other kinds of violence, he said he believed while listening at the time that it could only have been rape.
Investigators admit that in those first chaotic days after the attacks, with some areas still active combat zones, opportunities to carefully document the crime scenes, or take forensic evidence, were limited or missed.
And also the timing of things they release. Almost two months on.Yet here is the problem. All of this could very well be 100% true, but because Israel has lied so much already, none of this can actually be believed at face value.
true in so many ways
These are words used to try to end an argument, not illuminate it.
We've argued about whether it is a genocide or not, I'm not going to repeat it.
But 'colonial' is the application of a word designed to describe a thing, to something that's different in important ways, and it is done to paint away the nuances, differences and context at the time - IMO - in order to weaken the legitimacy of Israel's founding.
No, the part underlined is not happening. As with all wars, there is terrible suffering among the civilians caught in the fighting and thousands of people have been killed or are being killed. But, Israel is clearly not trying to destroy the people of Gaza.
I think the claim they are making is that Hamas released the female hostages who had been (reasonably) well treated in captivity and they don't want to release the remaining female hostages because they were not well treated.
I've posted the quotes about 10 times in this thread so won't do it again, but you can read any foundational Zionist thinker and their endorsement of Zionism as a colonial project. Comparisons to the British in Kenya and the European settlers of the US, appeals to Cecil Rhodes.
Precisely because Jabotinsky, Weizman, Herzl (and the project's supporter, Churchill!) were Europeans of the late 19th/early 20th century, they could be direct about the comparison in a way that liberal Zionists find uncomfortable now.
It's a strange article. There isn't a single piece of evidence mentioned that has been independently verified by the BBC.
This one says they have a body of evidence (unspecified) but hadn't done any interviews.
That's from the article itself - there's also been a few retractions to date about rape:
and here:
Amid war and urgent need to ID bodies, evidence of Hamas’s October 7 rapes slips away
Despite definitive witness testimony, global skepticism persists about the terrorists’ sexual crimes. ToI investigates how a mass-casualty event in a war zone made forensic determination impossible
https://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-...vidence-of-hamass-october-7-rapes-slips-away/
and there’s also Israel already smearing a UN led investigation into rape as antisemitic:
So, I’d exercise some professional judgement on that BBC article.
Your doing VAR for colonialism. We live in very strange times.This makes the argument better than I can:
"Colonialism is commonly defined as the policy and practice of an imperial power acquiring political control over another country, settling it with its sons, and exploiting it economically. By any objective standard, Zionism fails to fit this definition. Zionism was a movement of desperate, idealistic Jews from Eastern and Central Europe bent on immigrating to a country that had once been populated and ruled by Jews, not “another” country, and regaining sovereignty over it. The settlers were not the sons of an imperial power, and the settlement enterprise was never designed to politically or strategically serve an imperial mother country or economically exploit it on behalf of any empire."
Now did the early zionists think there were colonising a land? Yes, in the narrow sense of establishing new settlements for a jewish homeland. But it wasn't a "colonisation" in above, bigger, sense - the sense people are using to try to imply the foundation of Israel was somehow illegitimate.
It's a strange article. There isn't a single piece of evidence mentioned that has been independently verified by the BBC.
This one says they have a body of evidence (unspecified) but hadn't done any interviews.
That's from the article itself - there's also been a few retractions to date about rape:
and here:
Amid war and urgent need to ID bodies, evidence of Hamas’s October 7 rapes slips away
Despite definitive witness testimony, global skepticism persists about the terrorists’ sexual crimes. ToI investigates how a mass-casualty event in a war zone made forensic determination impossible
https://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-...vidence-of-hamass-october-7-rapes-slips-away/
and there’s also Israel already smearing a UN led investigation into rape as antisemitic:
So, I’d exercise some professional judgement on that BBC article.
Your doing VAR for colonialism. We live in very strange times.
That’s the introduction to the article. There’s nothing that’s been independently verified by the BBC as per the snippets I posted.Reading the BBC article made me sick. It's almost hard to believe human beings could commit such crimes. I'm afraid your skepticism is likely unfounded - the BBC state clearly at the very beginning of the article -
"The BBC has seen and heard evidence of rape, sexual violence and mutilation of women during the 7 October Hamas attacks"
Despite the awful civilian toll endured by the Palestinian people in Gaza there is only one side to blame in all of this - Hamas.
That’s the introduction to the article. There’s nothing that’s been independently verified by the BBC as per the snippets I posted.
Also, you think Israel collectively punishing the civilian population of Gaza is justified?
Note: this isn’t to suggest it didn’t happen either, but if a ‘genocide of rape’ occurred, it would be good for this to have some non-Israeli verification.
Do you not like basing your opinions on provable, verified facts? Do you not think the same standard is immensely important in a situation such as this?I was just waiting for the Owen Jones of this thread to pop in with something like that. What a surprise.
I mean they're targeting refugee camps, hospitals, mosques, UN schools, shelters, journalists, humanitarian aid workers, medical staff, children and women...and a whole other host of buildings and people. What do you think?No it isn't justified if Israel is deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, is there evidence of Israel doing this? I kind of thought they'd be targeting Hamas and not giving a shit about civilians in the cross fire. Not that it makes it much better...
I mean they're targeting refugee camps, hospitals, mosques, UN schools, shelters, journalists, humanitarian aid workers, medical staff, children and women...and a whole other host of buildings and people. What do you think?
It's worth noting - out of those targets, only Al Shifa hospital was considered a 'Hamas control centre' which was debunked fairly soon after.
This makes the argument better than I can:
"Colonialism is commonly defined as the policy and practice of an imperial power acquiring political control over another country, settling it with its sons, and exploiting it economically. By any objective standard, Zionism fails to fit this definition. Zionism was a movement of desperate, idealistic Jews from Eastern and Central Europe bent on immigrating to a country that had once been populated and ruled by Jews, not “another” country, and regaining sovereignty over it. The settlers were not the sons of an imperial power, and the settlement enterprise was never designed to politically or strategically serve an imperial mother country or economically exploit it on behalf of any empire."
Now did the early zionists think there were colonising a land? Yes, in the narrow sense of establishing new settlements for a jewish homeland. But it wasn't a "colonisation" in above, bigger, sense - the sense people are using to try to imply the foundation of Israel was somehow illegitimate.
Had 0 rights. Many Jews is not the majority. And definitely you don't give 55% of the land to precisely to the minority.
Why it was absorbed by Jordan? because of the UN resolution that cause the war. Again, Jewish population that was born in palestine by the end of the XIX century was 3% while a 2% was jew immigrant. After the WWI that there were starting to talk of a Israel state there was a massive immigration in the 20s. By 1948, 30% were jews but most likely only around the total 10% were born in the country. So you are giving 55% of a country to a 30% of the population that most of them are born in europe. Just because
c)
So yes. It was the preferred option for jews. But if their preferred option would be Germany, Spain or any other country the UN would not gift them half of that countries. Not even 1%. Argentina? do you even think that that was a possibility with an emergent power as Argentina was? give me a break
But anyway, it was what jews wanted. What about what the arabs wanted? What about the ancestral arabs that were living there and they were killed and pushed in the Nakba, killing and raping them? by the same people that just suffered the holocaust till 3 years prior? What does that tell you?
On the " so you admit thay probably all European countries killed Jews at some point.
What does that tell you?"
What to you mean "admit" like you got me in saying something that I would not like to admit? Jews had been prosecuted and gettoed during the whole history for many countries probably all around the mediterranian area and europes. But so all many others and they are not gifted land, specially for the UN
Now, all these historical reasons are irrelevant. Israel exist and has to continue to exist as I see it. We have to look into the future and Israel is the evil part here. They are causing ethnic cleansing for decades. Apartheid to their own population, not only in palestine. Festering a situation that perpetuates the likes of Hamas. And now they are perpetrating one of the biggest slaugther of civilians in the XXI and the biggest of a democracy in a short span of time. Meanwhile we have the WB that if the UN has aaaaaalll the right in Israel's opinion to decide on Palestine/Israel distribution in 1947, seems that UN doesn't have aaaaall the right when they decided that Israel can't build illegal settlements
Yeah because no one was imagining bloodthirsty and blind bombing. All time projections went out of the window went international law did
They're not doing it for a laugh. They're doing it because they consider Palestinians less than them, and they're doing it with impunity because of the likes of the US.I find it hard to believe Israel is targeting these places for a laugh. They must be targeting Hamas, or attempting to. What's the latest on the hospital? I'm guessing US intelligence was not great?
No it isn't justified if Israel is deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, is there evidence of Israel doing this? I kind of thought they'd be targeting Hamas and not giving a shit about civilians in the cross fire. Not that it makes it much better...
Despite the awful civilian toll endured by the Palestinian people in Gaza there is only one side to blame in all of this - Hamas.
They're not doing it for a laugh. They're doing it because they consider Palestinians less than them, and they're doing it with impunity because of the likes of the US.