International Politics

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Crazyfool01 said:

its lame is it ... perhaps the mod wants to enjoy a Sat evening freee from people  bickering. like 5 year olds 

 

Bickering? Seriously wtf. Whatever the day it is, it is the main story of Eurovision. We were arguing whether Israel should be in the competition, but I guess that isn't allowed in this glittery pretend everything is ok world.

[Crazyfool01]

ok ill rephrase ... Locked while the Mods look at a report thats come in 

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

 

Bickering? Seriously wtf. Whatever the day it is, it is the main story of Eurovision. We were arguing whether Israel should be in the competition, but I guess that isn't allowed in this glittery pretend everything is ok world.

 

Most of us weren't even arguing, just discussing. Only one person resorted to getting toxic. 

[CaledonianGonzo]

You said that the deaths of thousands of children were good and are now drawing up your knickers and are calling me toxic because I called you a c**t.

[steviewevie]

Eurovision public vote, Israel get 323, UK zero.

Discuss.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

6 hours ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

You said that the deaths of thousands of children were good and are now drawing up your knickers and are calling me toxic because I called you a c**t.

 

Wow, you truly are the White Knight Gaza needs, lol.

 

But no, no I didn't say that.

 

You're one of those people who focus on the semantics of a single adjective and completely miss the point of what I was saying. 

 

I hope everyone here is more intelligent than your portrayal of what I said, because that's one of the dumbest takes I've sever seen on these boards.

 

Even dumber than your Pro Putin bizarre world comment.

 

Honestly, the people running cover for a terrorist organisation and using a terrorist organisation's "official" numbers and believing them is mind-blowing.

 

Now let's here an actual argument instead of weird Instagram/X gotcha-quips.

Edited May 12 by MEGATRONICMEATWAGON

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

5 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Eurovision public vote, Israel get 323, UK zero.

Discuss.

 

I think her ability to perform so well given the anti-Semitism going on outside and sympathisers for a terrorist organisation is pretty amazing.

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

 

I think her ability to perform so well given the anti-Semitism going on outside and sympathisers for a terrorist organisation is pretty amazing.

 

They were protesting about what Israel is doing in Gaza...unless you think that is all being exaggerated by an antisemitic media and an antisemitic UN.

[HotChipWillBreakYourLegs]

Protesting against the genocide is neither sympathy for terrorism nor antisemitism.

[lost]

Thats the way both sides think sadly. One side think a 20 year old girl is responsible for the israeli governments actions the other all palestinians responsible for the actions of Hamas.

[steviewevie]

 

[Neil]

Putin is aware he's not winning the war.

[steviewevie]

3 hours ago, Neil said:

Putin is aware he's not winning the war.

 

I would say that he is winning at the moment....but maybe they're going for a change of leadership before a big push over the summer?

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

On 5/12/2024 at 8:01 AM, steviewevie said:

 

They were protesting about what Israel is doing in Gaza...unless you think that is all being exaggerated by an antisemitic media and an antisemitic UN.

 

22 hours ago, HotChipWillBreakYourLegs said:

Protesting against the genocide is neither sympathy for terrorism nor antisemitism.

 

Is this like when CNN tried to claim that the protests were peaceful even when standing in front of a torched building on fire? Lol. (This is just my attempt at humour to lighten the mood, so you don't think I'm typing this with any anger or aggression).

 

A thousand plus people targeting one Jewish woman and holding her to account for her country defending itself against a terrorist-led militia (that still has hostages - the war would likely reach a ceasefire if they were returned), calling for an intifada or jihad against jews and Israel, chanting "death to Israel" or shouting out "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", are terms used to call for the total destruction of Israel and aims to remove Jewish people's right to self-determination in an area they've called home for millennia. (I'm not saying there haven't been Palestinians there too, but perhaps a two-state resolution should have been accepted the many MANY times it's been offered, going back 80 years).

 

Another historical point for the people who liked the comment in the other thread about me thinking the problems only started since Oct 7th - the term "From the river to the sea" is a contortion from the very first Arab-Israeli war in 1948 when one of the chants of the Arabs was "to want to push all the Jews into the sea".

 

The "protests" are covered in antisemitism, from Malmo to London to LA. Think about it. Any time you hear "From the river to the sea", it dates back to 1948 wanting to push all Jews into the sea. If that's not antisemitic, I don't know what is.

 

To put it in an analogy, if a white supremacist at a rally shouted out something like "Send them to the ovens!" as a contortion of what the Nazis did, would that also be antisemitic? Of course it would be and it should be labelled as such. 

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

 

 

Is this like when CNN tried to claim that the protests were peaceful even when standing in front of a torched building on fire? Lol. (This is just my attempt at humour to lighten the mood, so you don't think I'm typing this with any anger or aggression).

 

A thousand plus people targeting one Jewish woman and holding her to account for her country defending itself against a terrorist-led militia (that still has hostages - the war would likely reach a ceasefire if they were returned), calling for an intifada or jihad against jews and Israel, chanting "death to Israel" or shouting out "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", are terms used to call for the total destruction of Israel and aims to remove Jewish people's right to self-determination in an area they've called home for millennia. (I'm not saying there haven't been Palestinians there too, but perhaps a two-state resolution should have been accepted the many MANY times it's been offered, going back 80 years).

 

Another historical point for the people who liked the comment in the other thread about me thinking the problems only started since Oct 7th - the term "From the river to the sea" is a contortion from the very first Arab-Israeli war in 1948 when one of the chants of the Arabs was "to want to push all the Jews into the sea".

 

The "protests" are covered in antisemitism, from Malmo to London to LA. Think about it. Any time you hear "From the river to the sea", it dates back to 1948 wanting to push all Jews into the sea. If that's not antisemitic, I don't know what is.

 

To put it in an analogy, if a white supremacist at a rally shouted out something like "Send them to the ovens!" as a contortion of what the Nazis did, would that also be antisemitic? Of course it would be and it should be labelled as such. 

 

all this has some truth to it...but ultimately the Israeli response is totally disproportionate and has brought death and destruction to thousands of people who are not responsible....and whilst there will be some antisemitism in these protests, mostly it is because they see innocents getting killed and hospitals getting destroyed and an enfolding humanitarian disaster on their tv screens, and the country doing this is being supported by the west. None of this is simple, but just to accuse people upset and protesting at what they see as racist is wrong.

[1986]

5 hours ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

 

 

Is this like when CNN tried to claim that the protests were peaceful even when standing in front of a torched building on fire? Lol. (This is just my attempt at humour to lighten the mood, so you don't think I'm typing this with any anger or aggression).

 

A thousand plus people targeting one Jewish woman and holding her to account for her country defending itself against a terrorist-led militia (that still has hostages - the war would likely reach a ceasefire if they were returned), calling for an intifada or jihad against jews and Israel, chanting "death to Israel" or shouting out "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", are terms used to call for the total destruction of Israel and aims to remove Jewish people's right to self-determination in an area they've called home for millennia. (I'm not saying there haven't been Palestinians there too, but perhaps a two-state resolution should have been accepted the many MANY times it's been offered, going back 80 years).

 

Another historical point for the people who liked the comment in the other thread about me thinking the problems only started since Oct 7th - the term "From the river to the sea" is a contortion from the very first Arab-Israeli war in 1948 when one of the chants of the Arabs was "to want to push all the Jews into the sea".

 

The "protests" are covered in antisemitism, from Malmo to London to LA. Think about it. Any time you hear "From the river to the sea", it dates back to 1948 wanting to push all Jews into the sea. If that's not antisemitic, I don't know what is.

 

To put it in an analogy, if a white supremacist at a rally shouted out something like "Send them to the ovens!" as a contortion of what the Nazis did, would that also be antisemitic? Of course it would be and it should be labelled as such. 

 

No anger or aggression here either, and I'll try and address one point at a time. Starting by saying that no one is claiming that antisemitism isn't rife in the world or that it doesn't exist. And no one is defending the murder of 1500 civilians enjoying a music festival. But you can't just write off a genocide or tar people who are protesting an actual  ongoing ethnic cleansing as being covered in antisemitism. It's just not true.

 

On the protests, I've been to 2 of them in London and they have been overwhelmingly peaceful, at their peak they reached half a million people and less than 1% of them caused any trouble. I can't speak for worldwide but from what I've read these college campus occupations have been escalated by the police, not the students. Worth noting as well there is a strong Jewish representation at a lot of demonstrations as well, including the ones I've been to, because they don't agree in genocide in their name. Are they antisemetic?

 

I'm sure there are some wackos who targeted one particular woman for singing an (albeit potentially targeted and tone deaf) song but you've also over simplified the actual issue most people have with Israel's inclusion in Eurovision, which (apart from them not being European) is simple - Israel has been taking part in a genocide of Palestinians since October 8th (and general apartheid and war crimes and murders for 70 years before that). If Russia aren't allowed to play anymore, Israel should have been banned a long time ago.

 

On the ceasefire issue, that's not actually true, Hamas have offered the hostages back on a few occasions now (some sources saying as early as 2 days after their attack), but Israel, to the fury of the families has said no. Also worth noting the IDF have actually killed Israeli hostages by "accident," presumably mistaking them for Palestinian citizens which as we know has been fair game as far as they're concerned. Israel has also turned down other offers for ceasefire brokered by countries such as Egypt. Their overall goal is clear.

 

A genuinely equal two-state solution has never been offered, and why would it? Israel has all the power and weapons and takes the homes of Palestinian people when it feels like it. Including now in the West Bank, where Hamas doesn't operate but for some reason has still seen hundreds of deaths of Palestinians and yet more land grabs. This quote from the NYT sums up Netanyahu's stance on the subject.

 

 

You're absolutely right, this pre dates Oct 7th by a long time. I assume the '48 war you're referring to is the Nakba, which wasn't much of a war so much as a hostile take over. A quick Google sums up what happened during that particular conflict.

 

Moving on to the phrase that you equate to a white supremacist chant, again without labouring it, a quick search found The Guardian's explanation of it which is;

“Between the river and the sea” is a fragment from a slogan used since the 1960s by a variety of people with a host of purposes. And it is open to an array of interpretations, from the genocidal to the democratic.

The full saying goes: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” – a reference to the land between the Jordan River, which borders eastern Israel, and the Mediterranean Sea to the west.

(Screengrab of that wouldn't work on that for some reason)

Sounds much more complicated than just ending of Jewish people, because it is. Language develops over time and if you listen to interviews of the people actually saying the chant today, and not the likes of Suella Braverman, it's purpose is what it says - from the river Jordan to the Med, Palestine will be free to self govern and live in dignity. The clear reason for this chant today is Palestinians do not live in any measurable freedom and haven't for many years, they have lived under constant apartheid and blockade where the IDF control their food and medicine supplies and can shoot anyone on site when they feel like it (and often do). Of course this phrase can be misused by the wrong types, but again it's less than productive to conveniently throw antisemetic at everyone who uses it for genuine activist reasons. 

 

There is plenty of examples of real antisemitism in the world we should be tackling, calling out Israel for their constant war crimes is not one of them.

 

 

[Neil]

1 hour ago, 1986 said:

an actual  ongoing ethnic cleansing

if that was the Israeli's aim, I'm sure they could do a lot better than they've been doing so far.

 

I'm not sure that sort of hyperbole gets anyone nearer the truth of anything.

[1986]

7 minutes ago, Neil said:

if that was the Israeli's aim, I'm sure they could do a lot better than they've been doing so far.

 

I'm not sure that sort of hyperbole gets anyone nearer the truth of anything.

Dunno what more evidence you need to be convinced it is their aim. Killing of tens of thousands of civilians, half of which are children, multiple mass graves, targeting hospitals, schools and places of worship, switching off water, not allowing in external food or aid, targeted bombing of aid workers including British citizens. They're investing in a future where Palestinian ability to carry on and reproduce is severely restrained.

 

But to come at your suggestion from the other direction, if their aim was purely to target Hamas, with the full advancement and accuracy of American and British weaponry at their disposal, do they need to be carpet bombing civilian areas or are they choosing to do so? If Hamas are in underground bunkers like they said early on I'm not sure how useful white phosphorus on ground level is at stopping them. 

[Neil]

1 minute ago, 1986 said:

Dunno what more evidence you need to be convinced it is their aim.

they've got more weapons than they've used, if the plan was to kill the maximum number possible they're missing lots of opportunities.

[Neil]

6 minutes ago, 1986 said:

, do they need to be carpet bombing civilian areas or are they choosing to do so

they are choosing to do so.-  the response to the Hamas attacks was entirely predictable, based on 60 years of conflict.

[1986]

5 minutes ago, Neil said:

they've got more weapons than they've used, if the plan was to kill the maximum number possible they're missing lots of opportunities.

Don't think they're ever going to run out but it doesn't mean they're not going to carry on. Not like there's a time limit.

 

2 minutes ago, Neil said:

they are choosing to do so.-  the response to the Hamas attacks was entirely predictable, based on 60 years of conflict.

Predictable maybe but the extent and the complete middle finger to international law they constantly throw up is still shocking and disgusting.

[Neil]

1 minute ago, 1986 said:

the complete middle finger to international law they constantly throw up is still shocking and disgusting.

yes, and likewise with those who wish to destroy Israel. the only solution  to the Palestine problem will come from an acceptance of where things are, neither side can get what they'd like from that, apart from peace.

[steviewevie]

if you want to be generous you could argue that they have been targeting Hamas but didn't care if that meant a lot of civilians were injured or killed or became homeless whist doing so. Both sides don't see the other as human, which makes the actual chances of a workable two state solution look impossible. If it's going to happen needs to be enforced by others.

[1986]

4 minutes ago, Neil said:

yes, and likewise with those who wish to destroy Israel. the only solution  to the Palestine problem will come from an acceptance of where things are, neither side can get what they'd like from that, apart from peace.

Of course but Hamas is never going to come within a country mile of destroying anyone, their most effective attack happened on October 7th and that's as bad as it'll ever get for Israel (obviously that's bad enough).

 

The people who want to destroy Palestine are doing so with a free pass from us, the Americans and a bunch of others, with Western press shaping the story exactly how they want.

 

And Palestinian civilians have no choice but to accept how things are already. It's Israel's that keep taking more. 

[lazyred]

2 hours ago, 1986 said:

And no one is defending the murder of 1500 civilians enjoying a music festival.

Sadly some self styled progressives celebrated on Oct 7th and continue to justify what happened.

 

2 hours ago, 1986 said:

Israel has been taking part in a genocide of Palestinians since October 8th (and general apartheid and war crimes and murders for 70 years before that)

The ICJ decision in the case brought by South Africa did not find that Israel had committed genocide. As far as I can tell the apartheid accusation is from a Human Rights Watch report that is specific to the West Bank not the Israeli State. Apartheid is a loaded word. I do not believe conditions for Palestinians are the same as for Black South Africans. The actions of each side provokes the other to escalate things. We need a process that lower tensions not increases them but the Palestinians have their part to play in building confidence.

 

2 hours ago, 1986 said:

A genuinely equal two-state solution has never been offered

Just untrue. There have been repeated deals offered and rejected. There have also been repeated wars against Israel.

Edited May 13 by lazyred