What's new

Israel-Hamas War


I don't consider "pro-Palestinian" to be equivalent to supporting Hamas.
Then you aren't listening to what they are chanting. It isn't "pro-Palestinian" unless you see Jews as the moral enemies of Palestinians and the only way to be "pro-Palestinian" is to chant for all Jews to be murdered.
 
Well that's an interesting answer.

Personally, I think this invasion of Gaza is a bad idea on multiple levels, but for all my connections to Israel, I don't live there (yet). I don't have the answer to the question of what Israel should've done, either, but I do know it's not "Israel should do nothing" or "Israel should respond to this by immediately granting Palestinians a state on their own terms."
 
Personally, I think this invasion of Gaza is a bad idea on multiple levels, but for all my connections to Israel, I don't live there (yet). I don't have the answer to the question of what Israel should've done, either, but I do know it's not "Israel should do nothing" or "Israel should respond to this by immediately granting Palestinians a state on their own terms."
unfortunately the only state the palestinians would accept on their own terms is the whole of the land Israel now occupies
 
Of course they are. They didn't build very expensive fortifications to then allow Gaza to fly over the wall or sail around it.
That's not what a blockade is, unless you think we are blockading Mexico.

Then you aren't listening to what they are chanting. It isn't "pro-Palestinian" unless you see Jews as the moral enemies of Palestinians and the only way to be "pro-Palestinian" is to chant for all Jews to be murdered.
"They" are not all chanting anything. Your usual tactic of taking a small subset and blaming the entire group with it is unimpressive.
 
That is not the view of the majority of Palestinians.

I posted this earlier in the thread but it's worth posting again.

Untitled.png
 
https://apnews.com/article/congress-house-censure-resolution-tlaib-8085189047a4c40f2d44ada4604aa076

House votes to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib over her Israel-Hamas rhetoric in a stunning rebuke

Hmm. Not sure what to think about this. What has she been saying?




"With other Democrats standing by her side, Tlaib defended her stance, saying she “will not be silenced and I will not let you distort my words.” She added that her criticism of the Jewish state has always been directed toward its government and its leadership under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Many Democrats and some Republicans who opposed censuring Tlaib cited free speech and warned of the precedent it would set.

“It is important to separate people and government,” she said. “The idea that criticizing the government of Israel is antisemitic sets a very dangerous precedent. And it’s been used to silence diverse voices speaking up for human rights across our nation.”

That criticism reached new heights after the Oct. 7 attack by the terrorist group Hamas left hundreds of Israelis dead and scores injured. Tlaib, who has family in the West Bank, came under heavy reproval after she failed to immediately condemn Hamas after the attack.

All Democrats initially stood by Tlaib and helped defeat the first censure resolution against her last week. But since then, many of her colleagues, including prominent Jewish members, have become more conflicted about her rhetoric about the war, especially because of a slogan she has used frequently that is widely seen as calling for the eradication of Israel.

Ultimately, more than 20 of them joined Republicans on Tuesday night to censure her after an effort to shelve the measure failed earlier in the day.

The latest censure push resulted in a dramatic vote on the House floor amid political tensions over the ongoing, deadly Israel-Hamas war. While the majority of both parties have historically stood firmly on the side of Israel, divisions have emerged in the Democratic Party about the American response.

Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Ill., the lone Democrat to vote with Republicans on Tuesday to advance the censure resolution, said he believed it was important to debate the slogan “from the river to the sea.”

“It is nothing else but the call for the destruction of Israel and murder of Jews,” the Jewish Democrat said. “I will always defend the right to free speech. Tlaib has the right to say whatever she wants.”

He added, “But it cannot go unanswered.”

Censure had long been viewed as a punishment of last resort, just one step below expulsion and to be triggered only for the most egregious wrongdoing. But censure resolutions are quickly becoming routine in the chamber, often wielded in strikingly partisan ways.

Many Democrats and some Republicans who opposed censuring Tlaib cited free speech and warned of the precedent it would set.

“This resolution not only degrades our Constitution, but it cheapens the meaning of discipline in this body for people who actually commit wrongful actions like bribery, fraud, violent assault and so on,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., who defended Tlaib against the resolution on the floor late Tuesday.
 


"But even now, four weeks after one of the most shocking attacks on civilians in Israel’s history, Netanyahu is still failing to articulate any kind of long-term plan for Gaza and the 2.3 million people in it. To many critics, it was part of a pattern that had gone on too long to be excusable.

Under Netanyahu’s leadership, the Israeli government had spoken of hitting back swiftly at Hamas leadership after Oct. 7. But it took weeks for Israel to begin its ground offensive in Gaza, allowing global anger over the civilian death toll from Israeli airstrikes and anguish over hostages to take root.

Netanyahu and his allies have spoken vaguely about cutting off Gaza from Israel, winning some international support in the process. “Israel cannot reassume control and responsibility for Gaza,” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last week. “And it’s important to note that Israel has made clear it has no intention or desire to do that.”

But on Monday, Netanyahu appeared to take a step in another direction.

“I think Israel will, for an indefinite period, will have the overall security responsibility because we’ve seen what happens when we don’t have it,” he told ABC News. “When we don’t have that security responsibility, what we have is the eruption of Hamas terror on a scale that we couldn’t imagine.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Hmm. Not sure what to think about this. What has she been saying?




"With other Democrats standing by her side, Tlaib defended her stance, saying she “will not be silenced and I will not let you distort my words.” She added that her criticism of the Jewish state has always been directed toward its government and its leadership under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Many Democrats and some Republicans who opposed censuring Tlaib cited free speech and warned of the precedent it would set.

“It is important to separate people and government,” she said. “The idea that criticizing the government of Israel is antisemitic sets a very dangerous precedent. And it’s been used to silence diverse voices speaking up for human rights across our nation.”

That criticism reached new heights after the Oct. 7 attack by the terrorist group Hamas left hundreds of Israelis dead and scores injured. Tlaib, who has family in the West Bank, came under heavy reproval after she failed to immediately condemn Hamas after the attack.

All Democrats initially stood by Tlaib and helped defeat the first censure resolution against her last week. But since then, many of her colleagues, including prominent Jewish members, have become more conflicted about her rhetoric about the war, especially because of a slogan she has used frequently that is widely seen as calling for the eradication of Israel.

Ultimately, more than 20 of them joined Republicans on Tuesday night to censure her after an effort to shelve the measure failed earlier in the day.

The latest censure push resulted in a dramatic vote on the House floor amid political tensions over the ongoing, deadly Israel-Hamas war. While the majority of both parties have historically stood firmly on the side of Israel, divisions have emerged in the Democratic Party about the American response.

Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Ill., the lone Democrat to vote with Republicans on Tuesday to advance the censure resolution, said he believed it was important to debate the slogan “from the river to the sea.”

“It is nothing else but the call for the destruction of Israel and murder of Jews,” the Jewish Democrat said. “I will always defend the right to free speech. Tlaib has the right to say whatever she wants.”

He added, “But it cannot go unanswered.”

Censure had long been viewed as a punishment of last resort, just one step below expulsion and to be triggered only for the most egregious wrongdoing. But censure resolutions are quickly becoming routine in the chamber, often wielded in strikingly partisan ways.

Many Democrats and some Republicans who opposed censuring Tlaib cited free speech and warned of the precedent it would set.

“This resolution not only degrades our Constitution, but it cheapens the meaning of discipline in this body for people who actually commit wrongful actions like bribery, fraud, violent assault and so on,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., who defended Tlaib against the resolution on the floor late Tuesday.
It’s her use, and her (personal opinion here) appalling effort to somehow justify her repeated use of the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free”. She had the nerve to claim it just means freedom for all, equality for all, etc. it does not. It is a call for the complete elimination of the modern state of Israel. If she wants to hop on that bandwagon of antisemitism, ok, then she should just admit it, and knock off the bs effort to claim it’s an innocent chant. Quite a few Democrats voted to censure her. Don’t blame them at all.

 
What does it mean to be "censured"
 
What does it mean to be "censured"
A formal disapproval/rebuke that is, in reality, completely meaningless. There are people who believe things like this matter because you've "gotta do something," or, in the words of David Putty "gotta support the team." How much does painting your chest in the nosebleeds support the team? It's the same thing. But it can be invoked to make people think things, i.e. "why are you listening to ______, an individual who had to be censured by congress?" It becomes a tool to use if it’s wielded against your enemies and something to ignore if it's pointed to one of your own. As meaningful as a double-dog dare -- it has as much imaginary meaning as you want to believe it does. It's a show that the media and everyone will parade around, as we distract ourselves from our lives to watch a completely meaningless media and political drama unfold as if it somehow has impact on real events anywhere in the world. "This is going on your permanent record!" Or my personal fav, “5 TikTok dances you can do to support Ukraine!”

Tl;dr it’s the Facebook profile filter for Congress.
 
A formal disapproval/rebuke that is, in reality, completely meaningless. There are people who believe things like this matter because you've "gotta do something," or, in the words of David Putty "gotta support the team." How much does painting your chest in the nosebleeds support the team? It's the same thing. But it can be invoked to make people think things, i.e. "why are you listening to ______, an individual who had to be censured by congress?" It becomes a tool to use if it’s wielded against your enemies and something to ignore if it's pointed to one of your own. As meaningful as a double-dog dare -- it has as much imaginary meaning as you want to believe it does. It's a show that the media and everyone will parade around, as we distract ourselves from our lives to watch a completely meaningless media and political drama unfold as if it somehow has impact on real events anywhere in the world. "This is going on your permanent record!" Or my personal fav, “5 TikTok dances you can do to support Ukraine!”

Tl;dr it’s the Facebook profile filter for Congress.
Good explanation.
 


"But even now, four weeks after one of the most shocking attacks on civilians in Israel’s history, Netanyahu is still failing to articulate any kind of long-term plan for Gaza and the 2.3 million people in it. To many critics, it was part of a pattern that had gone on too long to be excusable.

Under Netanyahu’s leadership, the Israeli government had spoken of hitting back swiftly at Hamas leadership after Oct. 7. But it took weeks for Israel to begin its ground offensive in Gaza, allowing global anger over the civilian death toll from Israeli airstrikes and anguish over hostages to take root.

Netanyahu and his allies have spoken vaguely about cutting off Gaza from Israel, winning some international support in the process. “Israel cannot reassume control and responsibility for Gaza,” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last week. “And it’s important to note that Israel has made clear it has no intention or desire to do that.”

But on Monday, Netanyahu appeared to take a step in another direction.

“I think Israel will, for an indefinite period, will have the overall security responsibility because we’ve seen what happens when we don’t have it,” he told ABC News. “When we don’t have that security responsibility, what we have is the eruption of Hamas terror on a scale that we couldn’t imagine.”
I like how your quoted article claims Netanyahu has failed to articulate any kind of long term plan, then three paragraphs later quotes Netanyahu articulating Israel’s long term plan.

Israel is doing the hard work to solve the problem. Gaza has no government. They have a terrorist organization who is stealing all the money they can to fight a forever war which makes the leadership wealthy by siphoning off the top. The leadership of Hamas has openly said they owe nothing to the people of Gaza because they are refugees and so are the responsibility of the UN to care for.

The problem is not Israeli occupation because Gaza hasn’t been Israeli occupied for two decades. It isn’t a lack of international aid because aid is stolen.

Israel is stepping in to remove all of Hamas. All of it needs to be gone. Next Israel is going to be in the role of providing governmental structure for the people of Gaza. Lastly, Israel is providing a pathway for international aid to go to the people of Gaza without passing through the hands of terrorists. They are putting their own lives on the line to help the people of Gaza build a future and Israel will be hated for it. Israel will be called occupiers and an apartheid state, and the Israelis will be constantly targeted.

Israel has the power to go the route chosen by Arab rulers before them, and wipe out the Palestinians in the rebellious territory, but Israel is instead doing the harder thing by seeing the problem as separate from the people.
 
I like how your quoted article claims Netanyahu has failed to articulate any kind of long term plan, then three paragraphs later quotes Netanyahu articulating Israel’s long term plan.

Israel is doing the hard work to solve the problem. Gaza has no government. They have a terrorist organization who is stealing all the money they can to fight a forever war which makes the leadership wealthy by siphoning off the top. The leadership of Hamas has openly said they owe nothing to the people of Gaza because they are refugees and so are the responsibility of the UN to care for.

The problem is not Israeli occupation because Gaza hasn’t been Israeli occupied for two decades. It isn’t a lack of international aid because aid is stolen.

Israel is stepping in to remove all of Hamas. All of it needs to be gone. Next Israel is going to be in the role of providing governmental structure for the people of Gaza. Lastly, Israel is providing a pathway for international aid to go to the people of Gaza without passing through the hands of terrorists. They are putting their own lives on the line to help the people of Gaza build a future and Israel will be hated for it. Israel will be called occupiers and an apartheid state, and the Israelis will be constantly targeted.

Israel has the power to go the route chosen by Arab rulers before them, and wipe out the Palestinians in the rebellious territory, but Israel is instead doing the harder thing by seeing the problem as separate from the people.

And all this will occur with a ton of continued US funding. And we'll make up for some of it in weapons sales. And it will be a ******** until the next attack on Israel, possibly nuclear. Maybe we should gift Israel part of Alaska so they can get started on Israel North. Don't mistake this post for me not supporting Israel, but they are surrounded by insane islamist martyr-types who force their women to anonymously peer out at the world through a slit and will always need an enemy to die against. The chances of it ever going right are slim to none. Too bad the people of Israel have to be on the frontline for the chaos.
 
And all this will occur with a ton of continued US funding. And we'll make up for some of it in weapons sales. And it will be a ******** until the next attack on Israel, possibly nuclear. Maybe we should gift Israel part of Alaska so they can get started on Israel North. Don't mistake this post for me not supporting Israel, but they are surrounded by insane islamist martyr-types who force their women to anonymously peer out at the world through a slit and will always need an enemy to die against. The chances of it ever going right are slim to none. Too bad the people of Israel have to be on the frontline for the chaos.
I like this idea. Totally unrealistic but i think its a good idea.
 
they are surrounded by insane islamist martyr-types who force their women to anonymously peer out at the world through a slit and will always need an enemy to die against.
I can’t tell if you are trying to be funny or if you really believe that. No, Israel is not surrounded by the Taliban. Generally speaking, Palestinian women do not wear niqabs or burquas, but instead they wear hijabs similar to what Ilhan Omar wears.

Here is a video of interviews with people, men and women, in the Palestinian areas.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q-EAh7SfPg


Your casting of Palestinian men as “insane islamist martyr-types” who “always need an enemy to die against” is also a gross stereotype that I strongly disagree with.
 


Back
Top