Israel declares War - Destruction of Gaza / Growing conflict in Middle East

[Belgium]

Yup

Jewish, lived in Israel, independent journalist that scans Hebrew news daily and looks into everything. Thus: an expert on the subject.

Oh, the guy who rightfully condemned Assad as awful (to say the least) but then magically changed his tune completely after Putin had a nice sponsored dinner with him and getting a girlfriend who works for RT?

That guy? He's an expert in grifting, sure. I'll give you that. Then again it doesn't take much to con someone whose brain operates on an 'if makes US or its allies look good -> bad and false, if makes US opponents look good -> good and true' flowchart. Independent journalist who has openly accepted state sponsored money and goods. Lmao.
No wonder you admitted to basically only watching CNN pre-October 7th. It shows.
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2019/9/15/junket-journalism-in-the-shadow-of-genocide

Supporting Palestine and condemning Israel's brutal genocide does not require abandoning all critical thinking. Obviously there are serious issues with mainstream media, but there is no need to protend that real or perceived independency magically does not suffer from any of those issues. That's arguably just as dumb, if not more so, than blindly consuming anything CNN writes.
It's being aware of the issues in media, but then at the same time knowingly not applying any standard whatsoever to media reporting if it is independent or perceived as such.

 

[americangenius]

 

[DLF]

Probably a misfired firework from the encampment people

 

[me love nutella]

This is a lazy play on words though. "Information to verify statements" = evidence. The report doesn't make that much difference between the two words; instead, it establishes that the goal of the visit is not to use the uncovered information to attribute sexual violence to a warring party (Hamas, IDF, or any of the smaller groups that operate in the region).

With that said, the report makes multiple statements about the credibility of the allegations of sexual violence on Oct 7th, just like it discounts a number of allegations on the same day. It's a moot point to argue about whether SA by Hamas fighters was systematic or not, especially if the argument is "we didn't rape anyone; we just shot them."

We'll agree to disagree. I have been following revisionist history, news and propaganda campaigns on this topic for decades long enough to look much deeper and catch it on the spot.

The whole point of Israel was to make it like a widespread and mass event on October 7. They continually failed at it, and these reports DID NOT verify or corroborate, as it was NOT INVESTIGATIVE. Relayed information from primarily Israeli sources responsible for countless lies and 40 beheaded babies hoax, that's not investigated and corroborated, is not credibility. There is a reason also why they took on the SA campaign and ditched the 40 beheaded babies, as the whole SA and questioning women is not to question if any woman claims SA and just to believe them, with no evidence needed. In fact, not even ONE victim has come forward or has been even identified, so there is even NO Israeli women to believe.

Saying there is "convincing" and "reliable" information, without a deeper and complete full investigation is not credibility or evidence. Remember, there were months long campaigns pushing to manufacture consent to invade Iraq on the premise the White House was throwing around there was CREDIBLE intelligence Iraq is linked to 9/11 and had WMDs. How was the outcome of that?

Also, as shown above since you want to take Pamila Patten's report as the smoking gun and 'credibility':

Anyways, we are going in circles. But, we'll just believe what we want and that's ok.

 

[DLF]

 

[Cashflow]

 

[me love nutella]

Oh, the guy who rightfully condemned Assad as awful (to say the least) but then magically changed his tune completely after Putin had a nice sponsored dinner with him and getting a girlfriend who works for RT?

That guy? He's an expert in grifting, sure. I'll give you that. Then again it doesn't take much to con someone whose brain operates on an 'if makes US or its allies look good -> bad and false, if makes US opponents look good -> good and true' flowchart. Independent journalist who has openly accepted state sponsored money and goods. Lmao.
No wonder you admitted to basically only watching CNN pre-October 7th. It shows.
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2019/9/15/junket-journalism-in-the-shadow-of-genocide

Supporting Palestine and condemning Israel's brutal genocide does not require abandoning all critical thinking. Obviously there are serious issues with mainstream media, but there is no need to protend that real or perceived independency magically does not suffer from any of those issues. That's arguably just as dumb, if not more so, than blindly consuming anything CNN writes.
It's being aware of the issues in media, but then at the same time knowingly not applying any standard whatsoever to media reporting if it is independent or perceived as such.

So you and gry60 are what I consider Liberal Zionists. Do you agree?

There will always be contradictions when it comes to denouncing and dismantling the colonial and imperial apparatus.

I think what some of you miss is who are the heads of the snake, and I see some of you as basically buying into the West vs. Islamist civilization clash, when Islamists are an anti-thesis/antidote that developed to fight off western colonialism and imperialism, and then also used as leverage and funded by the colonial powers for their goals in the region.

Western/European Christian imperialism/colonialism has done more destruction and upheaval this century, and is the most bloodthirsty, with its tentacles in every corner of the globe, whether directly or indirectly. Imperialism is a rules-based order with many contradictions and not perfect. So, we must take advantage of the contradictions and wield them in our favour.

Edit: I actually am against autocratic rulers, and no way shape or form condone Iran, Russia, China, and even Assad. They are on the other side of the coin, but I understand their place, and as how some may support them due to being seen as main powers than can fight off the bigger and more ruthless savagery and barbarism of the Western/Euro/Zionist enclaves which has ruled the world and brought forth even more upheaval and destruction than any other apparatus in modern history.

 

[Belgium]

So you and gry60 are what I consider Liberal Zionists. Do you agree?

There will always be contradictions when it comes to denouncing and dismantling the colonial and imperial apparatus.

I think what some of you miss is who are the heads of the snake, and I see some of you as basically buying into the West vs. Islamist civilization clash, when Islamists are an anti-thesis/antidote that developed to fight off western colonialism and imperialism, and then also used as leverage and funded by the colonial powers for their goals in the region.

Western/European Christian imperialism/colonialism has done more destruction and upheaval this century, and is the most bloodthirsty, with its tentacles in every corner of the globe, whether directly or indirectly. Imperialism is a rules-based order with many contradictions and not perfect. So, we must take advantage of the contradictions and wield them in our favour.

Edit: I actually am against autocratic rulers, and no way shape or form condone Iran, Russia, China, and even Assad. They are on the other side of the coin, but I understand their place, and as how some may support them due to being seen as main powers than can fight off the bigger and more ruthless savagery and barbarism of the Western/Euro/Zionist enclaves which has ruled the world and brought forth even more upheaval and destruction than any other apparatus in modern history.

How would I be a 'zionist'? I don't defend Israel's actions, much less support them. I don't think anyone with a brain can deny Western imperialism/colonialism has been the most destructive overall. I don't think there's even a debate there. Just look at what my tiny country did in Africa, specifically Congho.

I take issue with Hamas for obvious reasons but as I've said before, obviously there is a reason Hamas became a thing in the first place. When you treat your neighbors as bad as Israel does, terrorism is what you get. I look at October 7th in a similar way as 9/11. Does it justify the consequences? No, they're not even remotely close to the same universe of proportionality. It's also not hard to expect these types of actions to be exploited in a grossly disproportional way depending on the power structure. Hamas would or should have known very well that October 7th was going to goad Israel into an extreme reaction.
From the perspective of Hamas, I think there were 2 reasons to gamble on such an attack. Either to serve as a recruitment tool, or to goad Israel into such disproportionate violence that other nations would hopefully unify and negotiate some sort of better relationship between the two. Given that Hamas holds a lot of power in Palestine, it doesn't seem like recruitment was much of an issue. Israel already treated them more than bad enough to result in Hamas gaining all that power in the first place.

At the end of the day, it's easy to say from a privileged position what someone in the position of Palestinians should or should not do. What we can do however is analyze the impact of decisions that have been made. Currently, to me it looks like Israel is in a position where they slaughtered enough Palestinian citizens to put Hamas and the Palestinians in a far worse position, but they haven't killed quite enough for other countries to really care. Perhaps that will change but it's not looking good.

As far as Western vs. 'Islamist' conflicts go, I think any and all religion in general is a cancer. Religious fundamentalism breeds insanity and conflict, whether it's the insanity of christian fundamentalists, zionists or islamists. There's a whole section of christian nutjobs basically cheering on what's happening in Gaza/Israel because they're praying for some kind of apocalypse.
I also don't really think it's fair to just paint the regional conflicts as Western vs. Islamist, because arguably the worst country in that region (Saudi Arabia) gets a free pass to do whatever they want.
Saudi Arabia are hardly much less of a fundamentalist Islamic nation than Iran, they've just established more power and allies.

 

[snkrfollower]

Can we just make sure we understand what "Zionist" actually means? A Zionist simply agrees with the idea that Israel - a Jewish state - should exist. That's all. If you don't believe that Israel should (or even does) exist, you are "anti-Zionist." If you're like much of the post WWII world and think Israel should exist (and recognize its existence), you're technically a "Zionist." There's not a lot of grey area there. We can have differing ideas of how Israel should be governed, but the place is there. It's not going anywhere. The country is formally recognized by most of the civilized world. There's no going back to a pre-Israel world unless it loses a regional war or is dismantled, which is the ultimate goal of "anti-Zionists."

So let's not conflate Zionism with "pro-Jew," "pro-Likud," "pro-Netanyahu" or "pro-Israeli war policy." It's just "Israel is a country and should remain one." The term gets thrown around like a pejorative, but it's not, unless you really don't want Israel to be a thing. And the ones throwing it around in I/P debates most definitely don't want Israel to be a thing.

 

[DLF]

Has Biden come out and given a talk about the protests?

Netanyahu has. Maybe that’s good enough?

 

[onthenephs]

Can we just make sure we understand what "Zionist" actually means? A Zionist simply agrees with the idea that Israel - a Jewish state - should exist. That's all. If you don't believe that Israel should (or even does) exist, you are "anti-Zionist." If you're like much of the post WWII world and think Israel should exist (and recognize its existence), you're technically a "Zionist." There's not a lot of grey area there. We can have differing ideas of how Israel should be governed, but the place is there. It's not going anywhere. The country is formally recognized by most of the civilized world. There's no going back to a pre-Israel world unless it loses a regional war or is dismantled, which is the ultimate goal of "anti-Zionists."

So let's not conflate Zionism with "pro-Jew," "pro-Likud," "pro-Netanyahu" or "pro-Israeli war policy." It's just "Israel is a country and should remain one." The term gets thrown around like a pejorative, but it's not, unless you really don't want Israel to be a thing. And the ones throwing it around in I/P debates most definitely don't want Israel to be a thing.

So basically it’s fine to settle lands and continue to take territory to make a country. But hey I’m anti colonialism!.

Got it.

 

[DLF]

 

[ahat]

So basically it’s fine to settle lands and continue to take territory to make a country. But hey I’m anti colonialism!.

Got it.

That post wasn't even really worth a response. Read between the lines. Not worth engaging with those types.

 

[DLF]

 

[DLF]

That post wasn't even really worth a response. Read between the lines. Not worth engaging with those types.

“religion is a cancer” types are funny to me for multitude of reason. Especially considering this ISNT ABOUT RELIGION

That’s like saying: “democracy is a cancer…bc there are Americans who kill people”

“Freedom of press is cancer…bc the NYT guy ran a red light the other day”

 

[Belgium]

Can we just make sure we understand what "Zionist" actually means? A Zionist simply agrees with the idea that Israel - a Jewish state - should exist. That's all. If you don't believe that Israel should (or even does) exist, you are "anti-Zionist." If you're like much of the post WWII world and think Israel should exist (and recognize its existence), you're technically a "Zionist." There's not a lot of grey area there. We can have differing ideas of how Israel should be governed, but the place is there. It's not going anywhere. The country is formally recognized by most of the civilized world. There's no going back to a pre-Israel world unless it loses a regional war or is dismantled, which is the ultimate goal of "anti-Zionists."

So let's not conflate Zionism with "pro-Jew," "pro-Likud," "pro-Netanyahu" or "pro-Israeli war policy." It's just "Israel is a country and should remain one." The term gets thrown around like a pejorative, but it's not, unless you really don't want Israel to be a thing. And the ones throwing it around in I/P debates most definitely don't want Israel to be a thing.

Sure that's the technical definition of zionism but that's not how the word is used in practice for the most part. It's generally used in a pejorative way implying some level of support for Israeli government policy.
I recognize Israel's statehood but I strongly disagree with Israel's establishment in the first place. It was basically colonization and the only outcome it was ever going to produce was a perpetual conflict.

Also, you mention the importance of clarifying the meanings of words like zionist that are largely used outside of their technical definition but at one point you state "most of the civilized world."
I can't see much context to make the use of "civilized world" less bad. To say that particular phrasing has historically been used in a pejorative way is putting it mildly.

 

[DLF]

Lol

 

[DLF]

D=R

 

[DLF]

Good bye thread

I love israel

Israel is a wonderful non racist state

 

[DLF]

Biden is honorable

 

[gry60]

Also, as shown above since you want to take Pamila Patten's report as the smoking gun and 'credibility':

What I said below:

The report doesn't make that much difference between the two words; instead, it establishes that the goal of the visit is not to use the uncovered information to attribute sexual violence to a warring party (Hamas, IDF, or any of the smaller groups that operate in the region)

You keep insinuating that I am using the report as the smoking gun that proves the Israeli allegations that Hamas systematically ordered sexual assaults to take place. I am not, and you're not reading what I am typing.
Patten did not go to Israel to conduct an investigation on who sexually assaulted victims; she went there to determine whether it happened, and the evidence she uncovered is enough to declare that sexual assault happened on Oct 7th, and is happening with Israeli hostages.

Furthermore, the methodology that was used to disprove some of the allegations of rape made by Israelis is the same methodology that was used to assess the rape allegations from former refugees. Both conclusions were based on the coherence (or lack thereof) of the stories. You can't accept the results you like and discount the ones you don't; you either take everything the methodology gives you, or you reject all the results from it.

And I do maintain that this is a weird hill to die on if the goal is to minimize the attack of Oct 7th. At the end of the day, a "foreign" government ordered their "military" to enter hostile territory to kill and kidnap as many folks as they could.

So you and gry60 are what I consider Liberal Zionists. Do you agree?

Way to misread people.

I just think that after 75 years of conflict, Israel has established its right to exist; however, the shape of this state has yet to be finalized, and it will depend on the political and diplomatic strength of the Palestinian leadership. Unfortunately, the idea that all Palestinians will return to the 1947 territories is no longer achievable, but that doesn't mean that ALL is lost. Israelis have positioned themselves to benefit from any violent action against their own statehood project at the expense of Palestinian land. By hanging onto Hamas and other armed resistance groups, Palestinians are delaying the process that will allow them to finalize the creation of this state, and they are denying themselves the ability to kick Israelis out from the remaining territories that they can keep control of in much more permanent ways.

I see some of you as basically buying into the West vs. Islamist civilization clash, when Islamists are an anti-thesis/antidote that developed to fight off western colonialism and imperialism,

That is a very narrow view, in time and place, of militant Islamism in particular and religious extremism in general. You don't need to buy into a civilization clash to recognize the expansionist capabilities of militant Islamism.
Have you ever heard of Usman Dan Fodio and Modibo Adama? What if I told you that their religious campaign to establish political entities the Adamawa emirate drove many people out of the places they used to live in long before the British created Nigeria? Today, the same region is experiencing a renewal of this type of proselytizing thanks to Boko Haram.

 

[snkrfollower]

Sure that's the technical definition of zionism but that's not how the word is used in practice for the most part. It's generally used in a pejorative way implying some level of support for Israeli government policy.
I recognize Israel's statehood but I strongly disagree with Israel's establishment in the first place. It was basically colonization and the only outcome it was ever going to produce was a perpetual conflict.

Also, you mention the importance of clarifying the meanings of words like zionist that are largely used outside of their technical definition but at one point you state "most of the civilized world."
I can't see much context to make the use of "civilized world" less bad. To say that particular phrasing has historically been used in a pejorative way is putting it mildly.

Fair enough, I just don't want folks who think "A" being thought of as thinking "B" because of word choice. As such, I honestly simply didn't realize "civilized world" was an outdated/improper term - just something I've always heard and hadn't ever considered. Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[degenerate423]

 

[snkrfollower]

So basically it’s fine to settle lands and continue to take territory to make a country. But hey I’m anti colonialism!.

Got it.

I'm not sure I get where you're coming from here on the anti-colonial front.... I was just pointing out the use of a term meaning one thing but being appropriated for use to mean something else. I'm not even about to get into where lines should be drawn, who gets to control what patch of land, etc. I have no power in that, nor does anyone else here on NT. So it is what it is and I'll let them all work on/fight over borders.

That post wasn't even really worth a response. Read between the lines. Not worth engaging with those types.

What lines are being read between? I sincerely wasn't trying to be provocative or anything with that post or anything. And what "type" am I??? I'm genuinely perplexed as to why I'm apparently a **** for pointing out what the term means.

Like honestly, I think the pro-Palestinian side hurts their effort when they use the term "Zionists" as a negative unless they absolutely do not recognize the existence of Israel as a sovereign state (which granted, most of them don't). But when you're trying to get **** changed optics/perception is like 90% of the effort. When you damage the perception of your argument with those who you have a decent chance of bringing to your side you set yourself back incalculably.

At the end of the day, I'm just a pragmatist and a realist, and one with literally no dog in this fight. I truly want to see Arabs, Jews and Christians living along side each other as equals on that land. and I would love to see that happen before I die. Either side bombing the **** outta the other or the other side carrying out terror attacks on civilians isn't going to get that done. Talking about eliminating one side or the other either from the land or from existence isn't gonna get that done, either. I believe that getting secular, non-extremist governments in place on all sides who can move away from inflammatory rhetoric and talk to each other as equals and work with their people to bring peace and understanding will get it done.

 

[DLF]

A must listen