Never said it wasn't home to many people. Just pointed out that Palestinians have as much claim as anyone else. Also stated I feel sorry for the Palestinians being caught in the middle of an ideological battle and living in a quasi-apartheid state. Didn't say anything negative about Jews or Israel itself (don't want to called an antisemite for stating the obvious) and only stated some facts to counter some really bad religious based narratives.
I appreciate bringing facts into discussion, but it would help if you got facts straight. Canaanites is an umbrella term for indigenous peoples of what is now Palestine, and Israelites were one of those. Still, your claim that Canaanites are indigenous to Palestine is correct, but it proves Israel's point. Babylon is from a different place altogether. And the point that Israelites are indigenous to Palestine is not religious based.
Last edited by Pointman; 10-11-2023 at 11:49 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Pointman For This Useful Post:
“What is Israel to make of an enemy that launches an attack like this, and does not have an immediate Step Two? The more details that come out about what happened this weekend, the more it seems that the simple answer could be correct. In that way Hamas’s operation resembles 9/11 even more than the sneak attack that began the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In the days after 9/11, Americans waited in fear for a Step Two that never came. It took years to realize that al-Qaeda didn’t have a sophisticated strategy at all, which is one reason its central terror networks have been obliterated.
Indeed, it is becoming clear that Hamas achieved what is sometimes called catastrophic success: a short-term victory so staggering that its leaders did not predict it and could not handle it even as it was happening, and whose massive long-term consequences are likely dire for Hamas.
Step One was to infiltrate Israel and commit crimes against humanity. Step Two—well, it’s not clear what Step Two is, and even Step One is looking half-baked. Terrorists gonna terrorize. On one hand, this would be, oddly, good news for Israel in the short term. An enemy incapable of discipline and coordinated strategic thought is a weaker enemy. On the other hand, an enemy without moral boundaries, who will kill unarmed old people, but not before commandeering their cellphones to stream their murder for their grandchildren, is not a promising partner in any kind of peace process.“
Last edited by Manhattanboy; 10-12-2023 at 12:09 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Manhattanboy For This Useful Post:
It's because of the way Q put it. He opened the post with a sentence about recent murder, but the rest of the post actually talks about winter events. If you read Q's post again, he talks about both events and then says "what was Smotrich's reaction"? This assumed his reaction to both events, presumably expressed after both of them were done. It was not the case though. Q made it look like Smotrich's comments were after killing of 13 years old, while in reality they were after first incident and have nothing to do with killing of 13-years old kid.
So I initially read what Smotrich said about recent events in town. Then I looked at the date of Al Jazeera article and realized that Q is referring to Smotrich's comments that happen last winter. So I had to redo my entire post, although the point of propaganda still stands. The narrative about the events is drastically different in those articles.
No, that’s how you read it, not how it was written. Why blame Q?
How does your point of propaganda still stand at all? It’s a lie. The first article was written 8 days before the second, so of course they’re going to be completely different as the stuff mentioned in the second hadn’t happened yet. And the two articles from those media outlets written on the same day about it are very similar in both content and tone. They report the same events.
“Propaganda” isn’t whatever mistake you make. You can’t misread someone’s post and accidentally choose an article from months later and call it “propaganda” or accuse them of manipulating you because you got it wrong, just as you can’t choose an article from a week after the situation had evolved and attribute the differences between the articles to “propaganda.”
As you just said: “I appreciate bringing facts into discussion, but it would help if you got facts straight.”
Instead of falsely accusing posters of purposefully manipulating you and spreading propaganda, stick with getting the facts straight and what you can actually show evidence for. Because those kinds of allegations without evidence are no better than the propaganda you pretended to see.
“What is Israel to make of an enemy that launches an attack like this, and does not have an immediate Step Two? The more details that come out about what happened this weekend, the more it seems that the simple answer could be correct. In that way Hamas’s operation resembles 9/11 even more than the sneak attack that began the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In the days after 9/11, Americans waited in fear for a Step Two that never came. It took years to realize that al-Qaeda didn’t have a sophisticated strategy at all, which is one reason its central terror networks have been obliterated.
Indeed, it is becoming clear that Hamas achieved what is sometimes called catastrophic success: a short-term victory so staggering that its leaders did not predict it and could not handle it even as it was happening, and whose massive long-term consequences are likely dire for Hamas.“
No, that’s how you read it, not how it was written. Why blame Q?
How does your point of propaganda still stand at all? It’s a lie. The first article was written 8 days before the second, so of course they’re going to be completely different as the stuff mentioned in the second hadn’t happened yet. And the two articles from those media outlets written on the same day about it are very similar in both content and tone. They report the same events.
“Propaganda” isn’t whatever mistake you make. You can’t misread someone’s post and accidentally choose an article from months later and call it “propaganda” or accuse them of manipulating you because you got it wrong, just as you can’t choose an article from a week after the situation had evolved and attribute the differences between the articles to “propaganda.”
As you just said: “I appreciate bringing facts into discussion, but it would help if you got facts straight.”
Instead of falsely accusing posters of purposefully manipulating you and spreading propaganda, stick with getting the facts straight and what you can actually show evidence for. Because those kinds of allegations without evidence are no better than the propaganda you pretended to see.
Why you say "without evidence"? I don't think going into details of each other posts will help the thread much, but if you read again - I quoted below for your convenience - it's easy to see that it's presented as Smotrich's reaction to both events, with murder of the kid being the latest of them. I could agree that it is not big deal though and I would have never comment on it, if you didn't try to call me out for my initial post. Which, by the way, talked about propaganda from both sides and narratives being very different, without implying that Israel's version is correct.
Quote:
Just yesterday israeli settlers killed a 13 year old kid. A few months ago armed settlers, with the help of the IDF attacked Huwara, killing a 37 year old palestinian man. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/...stinian-pogrom
What was Smotrich's reaction? Huwara should be wiped out.
“What is Israel to make of an enemy that launches an attack like this, and does not have an immediate Step Two? The more details that come out about what happened this weekend, the more it seems that the simple answer could be correct. In that way Hamas’s operation resembles 9/11 even more than the sneak attack that began the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In the days after 9/11, Americans waited in fear for a Step Two that never came. It took years to realize that al-Qaeda didn’t have a sophisticated strategy at all, which is one reason its central terror networks have been obliterated.
Indeed, it is becoming clear that Hamas achieved what is sometimes called catastrophic success: a short-term victory so staggering that its leaders did not predict it and could not handle it even as it was happening, and whose massive long-term consequences are likely dire for Hamas.
Step One was to infiltrate Israel and commit crimes against humanity. Step Two—well, it’s not clear what Step Two is, and even Step One is looking half-baked. Terrorists gonna terrorize. On one hand, this would be, oddly, good news for Israel in the short term. An enemy incapable of discipline and coordinated strategic thought is a weaker enemy. On the other hand, an enemy without moral boundaries, who will kill unarmed old people, but not before commandeering their cellphones to stream their murder for their grandchildren, is not a promising partner in any kind of peace process.“
Their Step Two is to declare humanitarian catastrophe and ask for more aid, so they could steal more.
Why you say "without evidence"? I don't think going into details of each other posts will help the thread much, but if you read again - I quoted below for your convenience - it's easy to see that it's presented as Smotrich's reaction to both events, with murder of the kid being the latest of them. I could agree that it is not big deal though and I would have never comment on it, if you didn't try to call me out for my initial post. Which, by the way, talked about propaganda from both sides and narratives being very different, without implying that Israel's version is correct.
You’ve gone into details other people have provided repeatedly, so I’m not sure why it’s suddenly different now? Q’s post wasn’t presented as such, you read it as such, which is understandable, but making the leap that Q was being purposefully manipulative is absurd. To what gain? What would that manipulation have achieved?
Your original post touched on propaganda that drives hate, how was the week-later Times of Israel article doing that, if you were also referring to that one? Which is “Israel’s” version, given the fact that the original Times article is equally critical and Al Jazeera has no stake?
The reason I commented on it was because there are a lot of claims of propaganda, misinformation, “manipulation,” etc. in this thread, and while rushing to point the finger at Q, you made claims without any evidence and instead of just admitting you got it wrong you doubled down and purposefully mislead. I think it’d be better if people slowed down a bit, didn’t rush to call everything “propaganda” or “manipulation” when it’s just as likely they misunderstood or made a mistake, and actually listened, yeah? Agree?
You’ve gone into details other people have provided repeatedly, so I’m not sure why it’s suddenly different now? Q’s post wasn’t presented as such, you read it as such, which is understandable, but making the leap that Q was being purposefully manipulative is absurd. To what gain? What would that manipulation have achieved?
Your original post touched on propaganda that drives hate, how was the week-later Times of Israel article doing that, if you were also referring to that one? Which is “Israel’s” version, given the fact that the original Times article is equally critical and Al Jazeera has no stake?
The reason I commented on it was because there are a lot of claims of propaganda, misinformation, “manipulation,” etc. in this thread, and while rushing to point the finger at Q, you made claims without any evidence and instead of just admitting you got it wrong you doubled down and purposefully mislead. I think it’d be better if people slowed down a bit, didn’t rush to call everything “propaganda” or “manipulation” when it’s just as likely they misunderstood or made a mistake, and actually listened, yeah? Agree?
People don't visit this thread to read arguments about this particular post, so I'll reply one more time and then focus on actual war between Hamas and Israel.
The original post by Q was put in such way, that it led me to believe that Smotrich's reaction to the recent killing of 13 years old kid was to demolish the town. So I looked up what Smotrich said on the matter, and it was nothing at all like what Al Jazeera reported. So I wrote a post with a link to Times of Israel interpretation of Smotrich's words and commented about that propaganda is so strong, that even reports in what was said - let alone what was done - are entirely different.
Then I looked at dates of those articles and realized, that the quote about demolishing the town was referring to Smotrich's reaction to killing of 37 years old instead, and the reason why reports are so different is because those were reports of different events. So I edited my post, provided the link to Smotrich's clarification on the matter, and also the fact that killing of two Jewish brothers was what triggered the events. I also explained this into the "reasons for editing" and was done with it. I didn't originally blame anyone for spreading propaganda.
However, then you saw me heavily editing my post and called me out for not taking time to figure out what actually was written. This led me to actually follow your advice and revisit the original post. After reading the original post several times, including slowly, it is obvious that this post missed the whole killing of Jewish brothers altogether and also appear to make Smotrich look worse by attributing his remarks to the killing of the kid, rather than the adult. So I replied to your accusations by saying, that the reason for the original link to be posted was that I was misled by what looks like a deliberate attempt at misrepresenting, rather than because of me being too hasty.
No, back to the topic. Nobody comes to this topic to read our current argument.
Last edited by Pointman; 10-12-2023 at 01:13 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Pointman For This Useful Post:
People don't visit this thread to read arguments about this particular post, so I'll reply one more time and then focus on actual war between Hamas and Israel.
The original post by Q was put in such way, that it led me to believe that Smotrich's reaction to the recent killing of 13 years old kid was to demolish the town. So I looked up what Smotrich said on the matter, and it was nothing at all like what Al Jazeera reported. So I wrote a post with a link to Times of Israel interpretation of Smotrich's words and commented about that propaganda is so strong, that even reports in what was said - let alone what was done - are entirely different.
Then I looked at dates of those articles and realized, that the quote about demolishing the town was referring to Smotrich's reaction to killing of 37 years old instead, and the reason why reports are so different is because those were reports of different events. So I edited my post, provided the link to Smotrich's clarification on the matter, and also the fact that killing of two Jewish brothers was what triggered the events. I also explained this into the "reasons for editing" and was done with it. I didn't originally blame anyone for spreading propaganda.
However, then you saw me heavily editing my post and called me out for not taking time to figure out what actually was written. This led me to actually follow your advice and revisit the original post. After reading the original post several times, including slowly, it is obvious that this post missed the whole killing of Jewish brothers altogether and also appear to make Smotrich look worse by attributing his remarks to the killing of the kid, rather than the adult. So I replied to your accusations by saying, that the reason for the original link to be posted was that I was misled by what looks like a deliberate attempt at misrepresenting l, rather than because of me being to hasty.
No, back to the topic. Nobody comes to this topic to read our current argument.
I wouldn't say that, gives me a chance to practice my conflict res skills
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Why is it worse to wipe out a whole town as a response to IDF killing a 13 year old vs IDF killing a 37 year old?
Is the shooting of two Israelis justification for wiping out a whole town? If not, why does it matter if it’s included in the context of those comments?
You do understand that Gaza is not an independent country right? Hamas was elected because they used to build schools and hospitals. They were seen as the opposite of the PA, who were and still are highly corrupt and ineffective. Here's an article in the LA times from 2006 discussing that. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...ty2-story.html
They were elected in not solely because arabs like death or whatever you believe.
None of the zionist crew around here has even discussed any kind of solution other than "obliterate the Palestinians. They voted for hamas, so they must all die."
Seriously, do you guys think that genocide is the answer?
That's actually a quality article that offers some insights into recent Gaza history. So, it's 2005. Israel has just left Gaza. Elections are scheduled. Hamas is building schools, hospitals and generally looks like they are trying to build a decent country. Yet, they are already declared terrorists by USA and some other countries. They are legally banned from Jordan. There are accusations of stealing aid. Nonetheless, they build schools and hospitals. Still, their stated goal is to destroy Israel - the country, that provides water, electricity and fuel for those hospitals.
Why didn't they just drop that goal? Jordan, Egypt and UAE at various times tried to destroy Israel. They realized that's not the way to go about it and made peace. Saudi Arabia was just about follow the suit. Just drop the idea of destroying Israel and build your country.
However, after Hamas won the elections, UN/USA/EU coalition demanded this:
recognition of Israel, the disavowal of violent actions, and acceptance of previous agreements between Israel and the PA
Had Hamas agreed to those, there would be no blockade now. Yet, they didn't. Not recognizing the country, that you depend on for vital supplies is not just stupid, but also shows no interest in the well-being of your own population.
Why is it worse to wipe out a whole town as a response to IDF killing a 13 year old vs IDF killing a 37 year old?
Is the shooting of two Israelis justification for wiping out a whole town? If not, why does it matter if it’s included in the context of those comments?
Israelis didn't wipe the whole town. One minister just said that, meaning removing building, not killing people. I get it was a bad remark, and he said so himself, but how it measures against Hamas authorities demanding to demolish whole country.
Fun fact: Palestinians Authorities, that is West Bank guys, not Hamas/Gaza guys, actually support the blockade and even imposed their own sanctions on top of it. Because even West Bank Palestinians apparently hate Gaza Palestinians.
Linked with the conflict following his party's loss in the 2006 election, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas approved the Egyptian border restrictions by the new regime, purportedly aimed at protecting Egypt from danger. In 2014 and subsequent years, Abbas supported Egypt's crackdown on smuggling tunnels and welcomed the flooding of the tunnels by Egypt in coordination with the PA.[19][41][42]
In 2010, Abbas declared that he opposed lifting the Israeli naval blockade of the Gaza Strip because this would bolster Hamas. Egypt also supported this position.[43]
In 2016, Abbas objected to the entrance of Qatari fuel to the Gaza electricity plant via Israel, because his PA would be unable to collect taxes on the fuel.[44]
In 2016 most Palestinian parties welcomed Turkish initiatives to end the strict Israeli siege on the Gaza Strip by building a seaport for the movement of people and goods. This step was condemned by Fatah and the PA, a senior Fatah leader saying that his movement would not allow this to happen, while the Fatah Executive Committee said this was an Israeli trick to separate Gaza from the West Bank. In turn a Hamas official condemned the PA's position; "This position proves that the PA is part of the Israeli-led siege which has been imposed on Gaza for ten years".[45]
In 2017, the PA government imposed its own sanctions against Gaza, including, among other things, cutting off salaries to thousands of PA employees, as well as financial assistance to hundreds of families in the Gaza Strip. The PA initially said it would stop paying for the electricity and fuel that Israel supplies to the Gaza Strip, but after a year partially backtracked
Which brings another legal question. Gaza is technically part of Palestine state. The head of the state is Abbas, who is de facto head of West Bank. Originally he was elected and then he cancelled consequent elections. Nonetheless, he is de jure head of the whole Palestine State, that is both West Bank and Gaza. So, head of the state said numerous times, that he supports the blockade of his own breakaway enclave. How such siege can be illegal then? And if it is, should not it be blamed on Palestinian authorities?
As per some unofficial comments in Israeli media, the all-out blockade of Gaza, that was imposed in response to Hamas taking hostages, is actually a measure to release hostages. By cutting water, fuel and electricity, as well as giving no where to go, Israel effectively takes 2 millions hostages, that he can exchange for those 100s takes by Hamas.
Peirs Morgan tries to be a complete walker that he is but his guest does such a good job being calm and collected.
His guest makes good points.
Both sides of this fight are wankers. They are both of the sides can take their religious righteousness and stick them sonfar up the ass it sees sunshine from their mouths opening.
As per some unofficial comments in Israeli media, the all-out blockade of Gaza, that was imposed in response to Hamas taking hostages, is actually a measure to release hostages. By cutting water, fuel and electricity, as well as giving no where to go, Israel effectively takes 2 millions hostages, that he can exchange for those 100s takes by Hamas.
So the blockaid for multiple decades was in response to this one specific attack?
I won't get all ranty again but Isreal gave them no reason or the Arab world as a whole to be upset. They never started a single conflict since 1948.
What's the old saying? Chickens coming home to roost..
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 10-12-2023 at 04:03 AM.
