[W:40] Hamas Condemns Ilhan Omar for Comparison to Israel

[Mika-El]

Applying the same standards to all sides is just so much better than having to perform the cartwheels/sommersaults/uturns etc etc when you have planted your flag in one camp or another. A lesson you don't appear to have ever learned imo

You evidently have no wish to consider the dreadful treatment of the Palestinians,

To be so transparently biased, as the omission of the above clearly indicates, doesn't come as a shock but it should serve as a guide to how credible, or not, your postings here are or how they should be viewed to e

Your explanation you don't want to engage in cartwheels etc., is stated as an explanation for being intellectually lazy and therefore dishonest, and so? How does it make your points valid?

Your second comment is incorrect and a false assumotion based on your projected political biases. Instead of presuming to tell me what I consider, ask me. I can tell you thins-unlike you when I discuss as you call it "the dreaful t reatment of Palestinians" I do not selectively ignore Hamas' role in that "dreadful treatment" as you do.

In regards to your third comment the fact that I challenge your biases in favour of Hamas are not a shock to me, and no my defence of Israel's right to exist and defend itself against Hamas should not come as a shock to you either. As for telling others how to view my statements or yours how about you simply limit yourself to stating your pro Hamas diatribes and I will challenge them. If you believe anyone else cares or reads what we right and you are in a pissing contest to prove you are more righteous than I am, knock yourself out.

 

[Mika-El]

Israel was occupying, repressing and violatiing the Palestinians of the OPTs for 20+ years before Hamas even existed

The problem has always been and remains that Zionism.

to portray it any differently is, imo, a sign of dishonesty and/or bias

You have made it clear you are close minded and not interested in any opinion but your own. Yes I know.

 

[oneworld2]

In regards to your first statement you do not. The very reason you apply moral equivalency to Hamas as the IDF is because you do not apply the same standards of behaviour.

I use the same definition of terrorism towards both sides IE the use or threat of the use of violence to further a political/ideological aim.

In the case of Hamas their use of terrorism/war crimes is to further their agenda of a national homeland for the Palestinian people, however they wish to view that.

In the case of the state of Israel and their use of state terrorism/war crimes it is to further their agenda of territorial expansion into the OPTs and the subjugation of the resistance to it.

Eitherway both sides are guilty of threatening the use of and actually using violence to further their political objectives. Don't like it? Tough. But at least you cannot claim the same standards are not being applied because the clearly are being applied

Your second statement rationalizes why you use death tolls to state the amount of death is how you determine morality. Its not the test. I in fact deliberately took the time to explain the 4 legal principles that are applied. Its not a subjective declaration from you that as long as the IDF has more military technology than Hamas, what Hamas does is acceptable. Your reasoning is absurd and absolves Hamas for moral culpability for using its citizens as fodder which is the reason they die not the IDF's technology superiority. What makes it even more irrational or illogical is that if the IDF actually used the extent of its strength it would have wiped out the entire Gaza long ago.

Maybe you conveniently chose to forget the IDFs use of the Dahiya Doctrine , which is the obvious rejection of being constricted by any notions of proportionality? If you want to separate this debate on the laws of war etc from everything else so as to address your " 4 points" , that's fine with me too.

The death toll comment was strictly to confirm that state terrorism accounts for more death and destruction than does group terrorism. Factually uncontroversial btw

The HRs groups have investigated the claims that Hamas uses human shields and found that, apart from asking them to do so, there is no evidence that anyone is FORCED into being one. In fact , the same investigators have found more occasions of IDF members FORCING Palestinians to be human shields and/or being FORCED to engage in military operations, which is illegal of course, than any such situation wrt Hamas operatives. Recall too it was an official IDF process until the HRs groups forced the change upon it.

Recall too that the state of Israel has some 500,000 plus human shield illegal settlers living the OPT . You are seriously in no position to talk of Hamas use of HSs when remaining quiet/silent on the above

Where have I said that what Hamas does is acceptable ? The only thing they have done which is clearly acceptable is when they have engaged in military actions against the IDF/Israeli security forces and I have no issue saying that this is legitimate resistance to a foreign occupation

Your third statement is shrill pro Hamas cheer-leading. The IDF has no mandate to crush, dispossess or displace anyone. Its role is to defend the state against attack. Period. The rest is your political bias projected.

No, the statement is factually and historically correct. If the state of Israel was about protecting the lives of its citizens it wouldn't have encouraged and/or bankrolled half a milliuon of them to moe, illegally, into hostile territory to act as human shields for an illegal land annexation programme. The IDF has and is charged with protecting people illegally living in someone elses country. Your arguments are hopelessly weak/strong on bias imo and are based on a selective application of standards and a denail of the realities of the conflict

lly correctIn regards to your last statement telling me you are well up to defending Hamas and pissing on Israel for defending itself against Hamas means nothing to me. I can debate it as well. Your difference of opinion is expected on a forum. Making comments you are "well up for it" sounds like you feel I make you insecure and you need to brag about your potency to me. Not interested.

I am debating your words not their potency. The words you state speak for themselves whether they are credible or not.

I am well up for this, have been for years but you shouldn't flatter yourself that it is due to your introduction, get over yourself and just accept the challenge

 

[Mika-El]

The above is the Israeli propaganda version of events that has zilch credibility and was shown to be a ruse by some of the leading lights of Israeli leadership of the time when the war was over. Evilroddy has already taken the time, in another thread iirc, to give you some of the breakdown/evidence that clearly shows that the opposite of what you say is the truth.

To start with I believe you are attempting to suggest that the 1967 War was started by Israel and since I do not agree with that I am wrong. Your referencing "leading lights of Israeli leadership of gthe time when the was was over" as the basis of your claim is meaningless or I suppose it means you engage in psychodelics. Either way if you wish to start a thread quoting these actual leading lights and providing a basis for your arguments knock yourself out.

Next and here is some friendly advise, you do yourself no favour at all quoting "Evilroddy" as your source of authority for anything. Lol. If you can't find a text to quote from why bother? Why would you refer to him? Lol. What he has done on past posts is to provide his own subjective biases based on information that was then repudiated with neutral sources as being false. That is why I and others put him on ignore. Once people present falsehoods and don't retract them, many of use that oh so wonderful ignore button.

The fact you would now try hide behind him to try avoid presenting your own information is pretty damn lazy not to mentioned hilarious.

Tell you what though to save you any more colon twisting don't bother. I am not interested in your opinions on the 1967 war any more than I am as to your biases in favour of Hamas.

 

[oneworld2]

You have made it clear you are close minded and not interested in any opinion but your own. Yes I know.

" Close minded " people ignore the facts so as to hold on to their closed minded preferences. It is factually correct that the occupation and repression of the Palestinians since the 1967 attack and subsequent occupation and illegal annexation attempts precedes by more than 2 decades . That you cannot actually respond to this shows who is being closed minded and who is not.

I am interested in the opinions of people who know this subject well, even if they differ from mine, but you just come across as just another spreader of discredited Israeli hasbara and thus the conversation will reflect that.

 

[Mika-El]

I use the same definition of terrorism towards both sides IE the use or threat of the use of violence to further a political/ideological aim.

In the case of the state of Israel and their use of state terrorism/war crimes it is to further their agenda of territorial expansion into the OPTs and the subjugation of the resistance to it.

The death toll comment was strictly to confirm that state terrorism accounts for more death and destruction than does group terrorism. Factually uncontroversial btw

The HRs groups have investigated the claims that Hamas uses human shields and found that, apart from asking them to do so, there is no evidence that anyone is FORCED into being one.

No, the statement is factually and historically correct. If the state of Israel was about protecting the lives of its citizens it wouldn't have encouraged and/or bankrolled half a milliuon of them to moe, illegally, into hostile territory to act as human shields for an illegal land annexation programme. The IDF has and is charged with protecting people illegally living in someone elses country. Your arguments are hopelessly weak/strong on bias imo and are based on a selective application of standards and a denail of the realities of the conflict


I am well up for this, h

In regards your first statement your second clearly contradicts it. Read the two. You have created your own limited definiton of what state terrorism is based on your own personal subjective opinion so as to morally equate what Hamas does to what the IDF does.

Your comment about the death toll again morally equates what Hamas and the IDF does necessarilly claiming since state terrorism of Israel is worse than group terrorism of Hamas,. The whole point of your argument is to justify Hamas terrorism claiming Israel engages in terrorism but Israel's terrorism is worse. Try read what you write before you knee jerk deny it and repeat it again.nxt stat

Your next comment is illogical. The fact that people used as human shields say they agree to being used as human shields doesn't determine if using them as human shields is morally acceptable. Even more to the point, by making that argument you confirm these citizens chose to be military targets and die meaning necessarily they consent to die. Do you give any thought to what you write? That in fact by law gives Israel the right to kill them. Oh but you knew that.

Your next statement is full unsubstantiated subjective references as to how you think you can simplify the complex land titles on the West Bank. You are well aware Israeli citizens on the West Bank are not used as shields. You made that up to try again draw moral equivalence to how Hamas uses its civilians as shields. So in so doing, you don't condemn the use of shields by Hamas, you justify them not juast as being consensual, but done no differently than Israel uses civilians. Well if we went by your argument then you would agree that since its acceptable for Hamas to use consensual shields, so can Israel.

Do you give any thought to your knee jerk responses? Its never acceptable to use civilians in war or terror campaigns and no Israel does not use its civilians as shields. In fact it has arrested and put in jail West Bank Israeli extremists who have been involved in terror including the lunatic who killed Yitzhak Rabin.

The IDF does not and has never created settlement policies the elected officials do. All it does is keep Palestinians and Israelis apart from one another so neither hurts the other and where-ever possible intercepts any kind of terrorist, Jewish, Muslim or otherwise.

You clearly have never been to the Westnal and are relying on EvilRoddy to tell you what is going on lol. Unlike you I was there. Spit on by both sides equally, Spit is spit.

The issues are extremely complex and clearly your simplistic attempt to scapegoat the IDF as the source of evil shows you are not as you say in your last comment "up to anything" other than some bias sound bites.

 

[Mika-El]

" Close minded " people ignore the facts so as to hold on to their closed minded preferences. It is factually correct that the occupation and repression of the Palestinians since the 1967 attack and subsequent occupation and illegal annexation attempts precedes by more than 2 decades . That you cannot actually respond to this shows who is being closed minded and who is not.

I am interested in the opinions of people who know this subject well, even if they differ from mine, but you just come across as just another spreader of discredited Israeli hasbara and thus the conversation will reflect that.

Again what you claim is "factually correct" is in fact your subjective opinion as to certain historic events. I do not have to respond to your subjective opinions. The actual facts are public domain as to what happened from 1949 to today's date and no I will not debate you on your selective take on what happened. You already made clear you will select portions of history that suit your bias and ignore the rest. Given that, it would be pointless to respond.

Your statement " I am interested in the opinions of people who know this subject well even if they differ from mine," which is clearly supposed to tell me you are open minded on discussing the conflict between Hamas and Israel.

Then in the very same sentence you continue and state, "but you just co me across as just another spreader of discredited Israeli hasbara and thus the conversation will reflect that."

In so stating that, you make it clear with me, you don't have any interest in what I have to say and are close minded as to anything I have to say. Yes thanks you made that very clear long ago. Its why I repeatedly told you I am not interested in your opinions.

You have responded quoting EvilRoddy as your source of authority for understanding the conflict and you present subjective opinions with no citations as facts.

So yes, I am not interested in your opinions. They are meaningless to me for the above reasons. Next, of course you don't agree with me and will name call. I defend the state of Israel's right to exist and condemn Hamasas a terrorist organization and for using its people as shields.

You on the other hand tried to justify its use of civilian shields saying they were consensual.

Thanks but no thanks. Not interested. In fact, on to the Ignore button you shall go right under EvilRoddy. Lol. If I even thought you were interested in discussing anything I would have responded far differently.

Buh bye now. Save the Hamas defence for someone else who cares. I am sure EvilRoddy does.

 

[Chagos]

Accusations of others spreading Hasbara propaganda by those using Palliwood as their text book, just has to have irony meters exploding all around.

 

[oneworld2]

To start with I believe you are attempting to suggest that the 1967 War was started by Israel and since I do not agree with that I am wrong. Your referencing "leading lights of Israeli leadership of gthe time when the was was over" as the basis of your claim is meaningless or I suppose it means you engage in psychodelics. Either way if you wish to start a thread quoting these actual leading lights and providing a basis for your arguments knock yourself out.

Yes, Israel started the 1967 war and yes, if you disagree with that, you are wrong. The facts confirm who started it and I have already seen how you are willing to deny reality so as to hold on to long held beliefs. And, I have spoken of thisbefore in numerous threads here already and have provided the relevant quotes to back that particular assertion ( and others) so there's no need to go through it again just to appease you. You can look up the quotes from Matti Peled, Yitzhak Rabin , Menachem Begin and here's a link to them, just don't expect to consume another thread with already discredited ( by Israeli leaders ) Israeli propaganda or make another thread yourself

Why a false understanding of the ‘Six Day War’ still matters

A review of The Six Day War and Israeli Self-Defense: Questioning the Legal Basis for Preventive War, by John Quigley. Cambridge University Press (2013) 284 pages; $14.89 Kindle ed.

mondoweiss.net

Next and here is some friendly advise, you do yourself no favour at all quoting "Evilroddy" as your source of authority for anything. Lol. If you can't find a text to quote from why bother? Why would you refer to him? Lol. What he has done on past posts is to provide his own subjective biases based on information that was then repudiated with neutral sources as being false. That is why I and others put him on ignore. Once people present falsehoods and don't retract them, many of use that oh so wonderful ignore button.

The fact you would now try hide behind him to try avoid presenting your own information is pretty damn lazy not to mentioned hilarious.

Tell you what though to save you any more colon twisting don't bother. I am not interested in your opinions on the 1967 war any more than I am as to your biases in favour of Hamas.

I am not using Evilroddy as a source. I have watched him put up all of the relevant material to totally discredit the Israeli propaganda story of 1967 only this last week or so. I myself have supplied these quotes and a mass of other evidence to undermine the claim of a defensive war that was and has shown to be an obvious war to acquire territory. People like you will never change in the face of the evidence because you aren't interested in the truth, only in spreading Israeli propaganda

The mistake you make is thinking that because you have been here 5 minutes everydody has to resubmit their evidence to your dictates otherwise you feel they have nothing lols Get over yourself and read what has already been put up wrt the lies surrounding the events of 1967.

Israel started it in 1967 in a bid to take down Nasser and to acquire territory it had considered its own but that it had failed to conquer in 1948. That's what the facts say and that's what the people I referred you too ( and others ) have said.

 

[oneworld2]

Accusations of others spreading Hasbara propaganda by those using Palliwood as their text book, just has to have irony meters exploding all around.

I would ask you to provide evidence for your latest childish assertion but I know you generally haven't any anyway. Your posts are hot air and disinformation for the most part

 

[Chagos]

Mondoweiss

 

[oneworld2]

Mondoweiss

The quotes are accurate and widely known, maybe with the exception of people here so your laughing counts for nothing once again

 

[oneworld2]

Again what you claim is "factually correct" is in fact your subjective opinion as to certain historic events. I do not have to respond to your subjective opinions. The actual facts are public domain as to what happened from 1949 to today's date and no I will not debate you on your selective take on what happened. You already made clear you will select portions of history that suit your bias and ignore the rest. Given that, it would be pointless to respond.

Your statement " I am interested in the opinions of people who know this subject well even if they differ from mine," which is clearly supposed to tell me you are open minded on discussing the conflict between Hamas and Israel.

Then in the very same sentence you continue and state, "but you just co me across as just another spreader of discredited Israeli hasbara and thus the conversation will reflect that."

In so stating that, you make it clear with me, you don't have any interest in what I have to say and are close minded as to anything I have to say. Yes thanks you made that very clear long ago. Its why I repeatedly told you I am not interested in your opinions.

You have responded quoting EvilRoddy as your source of authority for understanding the conflict and you present subjective opinions with no citations as facts.

So yes, I am not interested in your opinions. They are meaningless to me for the above reasons. Next, of course you don't agree with me and will name call. I defend the state of Israel's right to exist and condemn Hamasas a terrorist organization and for using its people as shields.

You on the other hand tried to justify its use of civilian shields saying they were consensual.

Thanks but no thanks. Not interested. In fact, on to the Ignore button you shall go right under EvilRoddy. Lol. If I even thought you were interested in discussing anything I would have responded far differently.

Buh bye now. Save the Hamas defence for someone else who cares. I am sure EvilRoddy does.

 

[Chagos]

Mondoweiss, the poster child for anti-Israelism

 

[oneworld2]

Mondoweiss, the poster child for anti-Israelism

Focusing on the source without having the wherewithall to actually address the validity of the quotes contained in the cited article is about your level and shows why you cannot be taken seriously here .

If you haven't the knowledge to actually speak about the subject, ( and it's clear you haven't) it comes as no surprise that you can only criticize the source. It's like what every person unable to sustain their argument always does.

I'm happy that you have added nothing to the debate again with another useless post

 

[Chagos]

Questioning sources on their impartiality (read lack of bias) is a common trait in debate and totally valid.

Of course anyone accusing others of citing Hasbara while himself reading straight from the Palliwood textbook may well be disturbed by such.

Quigley himself is an honorable publisher but what he states remains opinion. Mondoweiss citing him in supposed support of its own bias does him an additional disservice.

OW2 attempting to peddle all of it as proof of own biased view of history is, however, totally irrelevant.

While clothing all of that in his habitual need to accompany everything with personal accusations, insults and other forms of ad-homs just serves for further self-disqualification.