Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Derec]

Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert are now anti-semites now, apparently.

Are you claiming that the two Ehuds support abolishing the State of Israel? Because that's what the ideology of anti-Zionism entails. Not mere criticism of a government or of certain policies.

 

[Patooka]

Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert are now anti-semites now, apparently.

Are you claiming that the two Ehuds support abolishing the State of Israel? Because that's what the ideology of anti-Zionism entails. Not mere criticism of a government or of certain policies.

Nope, all you have to do is be critical of Jewish Settlements in the West Bank and Gaza to be called anti-zionist. The Ehuds, as you call them, definitely qualify. Therefore they are now anti-semites.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert are now anti-semites now, apparently.

Are you claiming that the two Ehuds support abolishing the State of Israel? Because that's what the ideology of anti-Zionism entails. Not mere criticism of a government or of certain policies.

Being anti-Zionist comes in different flavors. It's true that there are neo-Nazis, Nazis, Islamists and anti-semites in the world. And most of them probably would want to destroy Israel. There are other people, non-anti-semites, who might want a different disposition of Zionist Israel. For example, asking a transformation from ethnic nationalism in Israel (zionism) to civic nationalism (non-zionism) is not abolishing Israel but transforming it. Likewise, encouraging a one-state solution could be said to be anti-Zionist but isn't necessarily anti-semitic nor about abolishing Israel.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert are now anti-semites now, apparently.

Are you claiming that the two Ehuds support abolishing the State of Israel? Because that's what the ideology of anti-Zionism entails. Not mere criticism of a government or of certain policies.

Being anti-Zionist comes in different flavors. It's true that there are neo-Nazis, Nazis, Islamists and anti-semites in the world. And most of them probably would want to destroy Israel. There are other people, non-anti-semites, who might want a different disposition of Zionist Israel. For example, asking a transformation from ethnic nationalism in Israel (zionism) to civic nationalism (non-zionism) is not abolishing Israel but transforming it. Likewise, encouraging a one-state solution could be said to be anti-Zionist but isn't necessarily anti-semitic nor about abolishing Israel.

Agree with your post. The theory behind Zionism is that Jews are hated because they are minorities scheming to take over the country that they are in. So, give them a country that they control, then the hatred of them will be lessoned. I would argue that the settlers are anti-Zionist. Because the only way a Israel will remain Jewish long term, is if the Palestinians have their own separate state. There are two solutions: one state and two state. Under one state - no Jewish controlled country again. Settlers are killing the two-state solution idea.

 

[Derec]

For all those who believe that these "pro-Palestine" people are not really pro-Hamas.

Democratic leaders and Jewish groups condemn video of support for Hamas at Oakland debate

The contentious remarks at Oakland’s debate were prompted by a proposed amendment condemning Hamas for the 7 October attacks, which was voted down 6 to 2. As the amendment was being read out, there were loud boos from the public floor, according to the Associated Press.
The video clips circulated on social media showed individual members of the public repeating conspiracy theories disputing that the 7 October attacks were carried out by Hamas.
“The notion that this was a massacre of Jews is fabricated narrative,” one public attendee said of the attacks inside Israel. Other public speakers offered unconditional backing to Hamas. “I support the right of the Palestinian people to resist occupation, including through Hamas, the armed wing of the unified Palestinian resistance,” one woman said.
Several speakers said that to condemn Hamas was racist or a form of white supremacy. “Calling Hamas a terrorist organization is ridiculous, racist and plays into genocidal propaganda,” said another.
A woman was heard in the edited clips saying: “As an Arab, asking with this context to condemn Hamas is very anti-Arab racist.” In a longer version of her comments posted separately, she also states that she is a non-Palestinian Lebanese citizen who has “survived three Israeli invasions … Seventy-five years of Israeli colonization, and now we want to condemn Hamas.”

There is a cancer on the left fringe of the Democratic Party, just as sure as there is a cancer on the right fringe of the Republican Party.

And in war news, Hamas is shooting rockets from declared safe zones that are full of civilians.
IDF says Hamas firing rockets from Gaza safe zones as civilian scramble for shelter
Are we ever going to hear Rashida Tlaib et al condemn these tactics?

 

[laughing dog]

For all those who believe that these "pro-Palestine" people are not really pro-Hamas.

Democratic leaders and Jewish groups condemn itvideo of support for Hamas at Oakland debate

The contentious remarks at Oakland’s debate were prompted by a proposed amendment condemning Hamas for the 7 October attacks, which was voted down 6 to 2. As the amendment was being read out, there were loud boos from the public floor, according to the Associated Press.
The video clips circulated on social media showed individual members of the public repeating conspiracy theories disputing that the 7 October attacks were carried out by Hamas.
“The notion that this was a massacre of Jews is fabricated narrative,” one public attendee said of the attacks inside Israel. Other public speakers offered unconditional backing to Hamas. “I support the right of the Palestinian people to resist occupation, including through Hamas, the armed wing of the unified Palestinian resistance,” one woman said.
Several speakers said that to condemn Hamas was racist or a form of white supremacy. “Calling Hamas a terrorist organization is ridiculous, racist and plays into genocidal propaganda,” said another.
A woman was heard in the edited clips saying: “As an Arab, asking with this context to condemn Hamas is very anti-Arab racist.” In a longer version of her comments posted separately, she also states that she is a non-Palestinian Lebanese citizen who has “survived three Israeli invasions … Seventy-five years of Israeli colonization, and now we want to condemn Hamas.”

You generalize from a few people at an Oakland city council meeting to all “pro Palestinian” peopkd ( whatever that means). ?

There is a cancer on the left fringe of the Democratic Party, just as sure as there is a cancer on the right fringe of the Republican Party.

How does that follow from an article about Democrsts condemning statements made by the public at a city council meeting?

And in war news, Hamas is shooting rockets from declared safe zones that are full of civilians.
IDF says Hamas firing rockets from Gaza safe zones as civilian scramble for shelter
Are we ever going to hear Rashida Tlaib et al condemn these tactics?

And we should uncritically acceot the IDF’s word because…..?

 

[Derec]

You generalize from a few people at an Oakland city council meeting to all “pro Palestinian” peopkd

I do not, but stories of people opposed to Israel defending or promoting Hamas happen over and over again. I already showed the protest signs from the NYC protest against Israel that praised "the Resistance" (i.e. Hamas). The director of CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations) also defended the 10/7 massacre.
CAIR director says he was 'happy' to witness Oct. 7 attacks, Israel 'does not have right to self-defense'
CAIR and its leadership should be investigated for possible prosecution under the material support statute.

( whatever that means). ?

I really don't know what "peopkd" means, unless it's a typo.

How does that follow from an article about Democrsts condemning statements made by the public at a city council meeting

What do you mean exactly? Are you saying that if (mainstream) Democrsts[sic] condemn certain statements, that the statements could not have been made by people on the fringe of the Democratic Party? What party do you think these people belong to? They are certainly not Republicans.

And we should uncritically acceot the IDF’s word because…..?

Do you have any reason to doubt this particular claim? Note that not even Hamas itself, nor friendly outlets like Al Jazeera, have denied it.

 

[laughing dog]

You generalize from a few people at an Oakland city council meeting to all “pro Palestinian” peopkd

I do not, ….

You most certainly did in that post.

but stories of people opposed to Israel defending or promoting Hamas happen over and over again. I already showed the protest signs from the NYC protest against Israel that praised "the Resistance" (i.e. Hamas). The director of CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations) also defended the 10/7 massacre.
CAIR director says he was 'happy' to witness Oct. 7 attacks, Israel 'does not have right to self-defense'
CAIR and its leadership should be investigated for possible prosecution under the material support statute.

( whatever that means). ?

I really don't know what "peopkd" means, unless it's a typo.

How does that follow from an article about Democrsts condemning statements made by the public at a city council meeting

What do you mean exactly? Are you saying that if (mainstream) Democrsts[sic] condemn certain statements, that the statements could not have been made by people on the fringe of the Democratic Party? What party do you think these people belong to? They are certainly not Republicans.

None of the speakers were identified by party affiliation. None. What keaf you to assume they are Democrats?

And we should uncritically acceot the IDF’s word because…..?

Do you have any reason to doubt this particular claim? Note that not even Hamas itself, nor friendly outlets like Al Jazeera, have denied it.

It is evasive to answer a question with a question. I am happy to explain it if you don’t understand.

Truth is this furst casualty of war. Both sides in a war have incentives to shade the truth/ lie to their advantage.

 

[Derec]

You most certainly did in that post.

I most certainly did not. Reading comprehension fail, as usual. Also post formatting fail.

None of the speakers were identified by party affiliation. None. What keaf you to assume they are Democrats?

Keaf?
All the members of the Oakland City Council are Democrats. It is an extremely Democratic area.

Truth is this furst casualty of war. Both sides in a war have incentives to shade the truth/ lie to their advantage.

1. The other side (Hamas and friendly media like Al Jazeera) are not disputing it.
2. It is consistent with Hamas' usual tactics of firing rockets from civilian areas.

Btw, I am a bit concerned. Your writing is much poorer than usual. Are you all right?

 

[Derec]

Hamas leader Fathi Hamad talking not only about conquering Israel, but expanding their rule further by establishing an Islamic Caliphate.


Note how he is attacking both Jews and Christians. Kinda explains why pro-Palestinian protesters are protesting against public Christmas trees.
Several arrested during pro-Palestinian demonstration near Rockefeller Center tree lighting
Newsom Cancels Public Christmas Tree–Lighting amid Planned Pro-Palestinian Protests

 

[laughing dog]

You most certainly did in that post.

I most certainly did not..,

You made a general claim and gave asevidence the Guardian article.

]
All the members of the Oakland City Council are Democrats. It is an extremely Democratic area.

The speakers were members of the public.

1. The other side (Hamas and friendly media like Al Jazeera) are not disputing it.
2. It is consistent with Hamas' usual tactics of firing rockets from civilian areas.

Btw, I am a bit concerned. Your writing is much poorer than usual. Are you all right?

Thank you. I’m ok - phone keys are too close together.

 

[Derec]

You made a general claim and gave asevidence the Guardian article.

I did not say it applies to everyone, but that there are a lot of pro-Hamas people among those calling themselves "pro-Palestinian". And I provided several examples. The Oakland Council. The NYC protest signs and banners. CAIR director's statements.

Thank you. I’m ok - phone keys are too close together.

That's why I avoid posting from my phone except for the most simplest of replies.

 

[repoman]

Begrudging respect to the Zionist interviewed. It would be cool to have a ethnostate, like he might get soon

 

[Derec]

A Columbia University group organized an event where the Hamas massacre on 10/7 was celebrated. This is yet another example of support for Hamas inside "pro-Palestine" activism.

 

[laughing dog]

A Columbia University group organized an event where the Hamas massacre on 10/7 was celebrated. This is yet another example of support for Hamas inside "pro-Palestine" activism.

Where do you get "celebration" from a "teach in"?

 

[Derec]

"centrality of revolutionary violence to anti-imperialism"

Are you really that blind, Hound? You are not a whelp any more, your eyes should be wide open.

 

[Arctish]

It's like how discussing the significance of the Battle of the Bulge is celebrating the Holocaust. And having a teach-in where people discuss the events that led up to the Battle is 'Woke' or something.

 

[laughing dog]

"centrality of revolutionary violence to anti-imperialism"

Are you really that blind, Hound? You are not a whelp any more, your eyes should be wide open.

I get it - you believe you are reading between the lines. But the space between those lines are open to other reasonable interpretations.

From I can tell from the content of the poster, it appears to me to imply that the terrorism is necessary to fight "imperialism" (whatever that has to do with Gaza, I don't know). It does appear as if the teach in will involve justifying or excusing Hamas's terrorism, but that does not make it a "celebration".

 

[Arctish]

"centrality of revolutionary violence to anti-imperialism"

Are you really that blind, Hound? You are not a whelp any more, your eyes should be wide open.

I get it - you believe you are reading between the lines. But the space between those lines are open to other reasonable interpretations.

From I can tell from the content of the poster, it appears to me to imply that the terrorism is necessary to fight "imperialism" (whatever that has to do with Gaza, I don't know). It does appear as if the teach in will involve justifying or excusing Hamas's terrorism, but that does not make it a "celebration".

The people hosting the event might believe that terrorism is necessary, or they might believe that rioting, toppling statues, burning down government buildings, and barricading neighborhoods to prevent entry by the police would suffice but terrorism is predictable when less violent forms of protest don't bring about the desired results.

The British didn't allow self-governance on the Indian subcontinent because Gandhi asked nicely. They ceded control because the violence was more than they could handle and the cost of maintaining the Raj was more than the benefit to them. They imprisoned and ignored Gandhi for decades before they finally entered into good-faith negotiations with him and his faction. Then, in order to save face, they deceitfully declared that they had wanted to exit peacefully but had to wait for a willing partner in peace to show up.

I see the same pattern in how Israel has been ignoring Abbas and imprisoning the leaders of peaceful demonstrations. I expect that someday, Israel will 'discover' a Palestinian leader who wants peace and will act like that's a new development.

 

[Derec]

It's like how discussing the significance of the Battle of the Bulge is celebrating the Holocaust.

No, that analogy doesn't work at all. These creeps are on the side of the Hamas, so if somebody defends a Nazi massacre as justified because of "centrality of revolutionary violence to anti-imperialism", then it'd be analogous.

And having a teach-in where people discuss the events that led up to the Battle is 'Woke' or something.

A "teach in" where they defend Hamas actions as justified, you mean?

And to think that those are the people who want to be social workers ...