|
This is exactly 'corbyn is antisemitic because people are antisemitic in retweets of his tweets.'
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 11:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:and claiming that Jews are Khazars and hence have no historical ties to the Middle East. quote:but said multiple times over the past year that Jews have no ties to the Middle East. And certainly there have been many attempts on the Zionist side to minimalize Palestinian historical complaints, which I also condemn. Aside from Mizrahis the idea that Ashkenzai and Sephardis still had real cultural ties to the holy land is itself absurd. Israel is by and large a settler state, and not an indigenous entity. Grape fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Jul 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 14:36
|
|
|
What's so special about Mizrahim? If anything, Mizrahi Jews are descendant from the earliest expatriate communities, there's evidence of a constant jewish presence in iraq, iran and syria dating as early as the babylonian exodus. emanresu tnuocca fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Jul 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
Law of Return (to sender). Do they think this helps their standing with American Jews. Hint: It doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
Lots of great comments on those like this  https://twitter.com/JayCoop901/status/1013761489478602752
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Law of Return (to sender).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I’m assuming there must be some kind of actual list of people that they are banning for political reasons? Oh yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:BDS ultimately is a blip either way, but has to be opposed for moral reasons. No.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:What's so special about Mizrahim? The statement is "connections to the Middle East", not specifically the Palestinian Mandate land.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:BDS ultimately is a blip either way, but has to be opposed for moral reasons. There was demonstrable progress in the 90s towards peace, progress that the BDS movement (and similar anti-peace movements like Likud) strongly disavow and oppose. It's a movement that desires a full on, hot, active conflict. You know what a 'hot' conflict is, right? You're suggesting that wanting boycotts, divestment and sanctions means desiring a 'hot' conflict. Tell me what methods of peaceful pressure you think aren't equivalent to 'desiring hot, active conflict'? Tell me why you think it matters if people use entirely peaceful means while 'desiring hot, active conflict'?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
Hong XiuQuan posted:You know what a 'hot' conflict is, right? You're suggesting that wanting boycotts, divestment and sanctions means desiring a 'hot' conflict.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
Hong XiuQuan posted:You know what a 'hot' conflict is, right? You're suggesting that wanting boycotts, divestment and sanctions means desiring a 'hot' conflict. standing in front of an Israeli bulldozer (as long as you don't damage the machine or the poor gentle soul of the guy inside when you get run over) demonstrating (as long as you don't actually demonstrate and don't force some poor gentle IDF conscript to shoot you in the back as you run away) crawling into a hole and dying quietly (you're generally in the clear on this one, as long as you don't commit terrorism by making an Israeli feel bad)
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
"Hole"? Or Hamas Terror Tunnel??
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It's by far not the most popular position among the citizens of Israel, the country in which these policy decisions are made. You're completely incorrect with respect to American Jewish opinion. Pick any poll you want, they all come to the exact opposite conclusion of yours. They don't support Trump and his actions, and it was a stupid gift with no genuine upside for Israel or its security. I'm not aware of attempts to poll American Zionists, but I'm familiar with their beliefs, and they are a wide spectrum of beliefs with a huge centrist faction, not lock step support for the Israeli right as they are often mistakenly portrayed as. They do not fight tooth and nail against any outside pressure, there's a very vocal minority that fought with Obama on this that did not have mainstream support in either group. There's a majority that fights BDS, not all external pressure. captainblastum posted:You're making specific and serious accusations about the BDS movement, and you should back that up with actual evidence, not comment sections. I was not making a claim about the entire BDS movement. I was saying that volkerball did not back up the claim that Zionists try to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel, when in fact that is an untrue strawman, and seeks to cudgel legitimate criticism of anti-Semitic elements who self-proclaim support for BDS. Citing articles/editorials from Mondoweiss (making wildly anti-Semitic claims about Jewish power) and EI (claiming that "Zio" is acceptable terminology), the two most prominent BDS sites as far as I know is indeed actual evidence. Citing Jewish Voice for Peace, the most prominent BDS group that I'm aware of, rescinding their ban on a clear anti-Semite like Alison Weir is indeed actual evidence. I cited multiple specific examples and did not make broad claims about an entire group, while he did the opposite on both respects. Miftan posted:You still haven't shown that it's the official position though. I did not claim that it was. quote:Also, 9 times out of 10 it IS zionists crying antisemitism wolf when Israel is criticized. You are paying attention to loudmouths like Alan Dershowitz, and ignoring reasonable centrists who constitute the overwhelming majority. As with what I said, this would be a fair point about frequency, but not about incidence rate. This claim that I'm disingenuous is laughable. I am 100% sincere in everything I post. If you want to debate arguments or facts, fine, but that claim is a cowardly way to ignore arguments. if I was disingenuous, I wouldn't be furious that I got home late last night to find out that I was probated. I'm here because I give a poo poo about this. Cat Mattress posted:You're basically saying that BDS should spend all their resources on monitoring the behavior of people who support them, and somehow forbid the unruly from supporting them, instead of doing what they're supposed to be doing. Not at all what I was saying, but it does show that BDS (or other inflammatory tactics like Nazi comparisons) is actively harmful to the movement to end the occupation, as it derails the debate to be about the tactics instead of the occupation. Anything other than a laser focus on occupation and ending the blockade is useless and counterproductive. Grape posted:Aside from Mizrahis the idea that Ashkenzai and Sephardis still had real cultural ties to the holy land is itself absurd. The entire Jewish religion is obsessively fixated on the land of Israel, the unfairness of their exile by the Romans, and the imperative for them to return. This is the 100 central, core, non-negotiable tenet. So they sure as gently caress think they have ties, and clearly are willing to pay whatever possible cost to stay there. I'm a believer in universal open borders, so this isn't my position, but if you think in the case of Palestinian refugees and their descendants, that being driven from their homes is an unfair act that must be restituted 70 years later, I can't think of a very good argument why we should arbitrarily cap the number of years that refugees can exercise their rights to return. So we're either there, or we stick with the two state solution because it's the only practical thing that could realistically work even if it's unfair in a lot of ways. And under the same reasoning, every state is a loving settler state, who cares. Jews and Palestinians have strong ties to the land, claims otherwise are racist trash. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Jul 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
You are such a disengenuous shithead. The idea that any jewish person has the same claim to the land that a Palestinian would is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
Hong XiuQuan posted:You know what a 'hot' conflict is, right? You're suggesting that wanting boycotts, divestment and sanctions means desiring a 'hot' conflict. I'm referring specifically to Barghouti's BDS movement, not boycotts against Israel in the generic sense. Their position is that there can be no peace without the right of return. There is no circumstance that Israel would ever consider that maximalist, irredentist demand in practice. Actual, genuine peace, means that both sides have to make painful sacrifices. The deal is Israel has to end the occupation, Palestinians have to give up refugee claims, and they share Jerusalem, or there will never be a deal. This has been the international consensus for decades, and anyone on any side who thinks otherwise is delusional. Under a literal reading of the BDS movement - if tomorrow, Israel was fully onboard with the Kerry framework - no more occupation, no more Gaza blockade - that would not be good enough. "Resistance" would have to continue indefinitely until every single demand is met. BDS necessitates permanent conflict. kidkissinger posted:You are such a disengenuous shithead. I didn't say anything about anyone having any claims to land, you giant xenophobe. In fact, I think the whole loving idea of citizenship or anyone having any ties to land is ludicrous, my argument is focused on the most practical, tactical solution to end the conflict and minimize bloodshed. If you don't think Jews have a right to live in Israel, then why would they bother to even listen to you? Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Jul 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 05:53
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:but if you think in the case of Palestinian refugees and their descendants, that being driven from their homes is an unfair act that must be restituted 70 years later, I can't think of a very good argument why we should arbitrarily cap the number of years that refugees can exercise their rights to return. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That does it, that's it right there. You're a complete and total bought and paid for bullshit propaganda outlet of some kind. This is BY FAR the stupidest thing you've ever posted and you really should be tossed out of the thread for being revealed as 100% pure disingenuous bad faith. This motherfucker is literally comparing 2000 years to 80. Ban him. The mask straight up fell off, why should we even pretend if he isn't. Good LORD. quote:Jews and Palestinians have strong ties to the land, claims otherwise are racist trash. Most Israelis have less ties to the region than White goddamn South Africans in theirs lolll. Grape fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Jul 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I'm a believer in universal open borders, so this isn't my position, but if you think in the case of Palestinian refugees and their descendants, that being driven from their homes is an unfair act that must be restituted 70 years later, I can't think of a very good argument why we should arbitrarily cap the number of years that refugees can exercise their rights to return. So we're either there, or we stick with the two state solution because it's the only practical thing that could realistically work even if it's unfair in a lot of ways. And under the same reasoning, every state is a loving settler state, who cares. Jews and Palestinians have strong ties to the land, claims otherwise are racist trash. Who cares? No one has any problem with both Jews and Palestinians both living in a single unified state - except for racists who believe that it's impossible or simply undesirable for Palestinians and Jews to coexist as equals. The only reason it's not "practical" or "realistic" is because those racists currently run the Israeli government - and given that they're currently engaged in a program of mass disenfranchisement and ethnic cleansing, we probably shouldn't leave it to them to decide what qualifies as reasonable! Kim Jong Il posted:I'm referring specifically to Barghouti's BDS movement, not boycotts against Israel in the generic sense. Their position is that there can be no peace without the right of return. There is no circumstance that Israel would ever consider that maximalist, irredentist demand in practice. Actual, genuine peace, means that both sides have to make painful sacrifices. The deal is Israel has to end the occupation, Palestinians have to give up refugee claims, and they share Jerusalem, or there will never be a deal. This has been the international consensus for decades, and anyone on any side who thinks otherwise is delusional. Letting Israel keep the land inside the Green Line is the sacrifice. Remember, all of Israel was stolen from the Palestinians, not just the stuff outside the 1967 or 1948 lines. It's like storming your neighbor's house with a gun and forcing them to take refuge in their shed, generously offering to let them keep the shed if they hand the deed to the house over to you, and then complaining that their refusal means they're not willing to make sacrifices to come to a reasonable deal. Except even that analogy doesn't work, because it doesn't account for the settlements...maybe if the thief plants a bunch of RVs in the backyard and rents them out to all takers, but promises to remove most of the RVs as part of the deal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
Reasonable centrists, l o l.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 06:29
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:You're completely incorrect with respect to American Jewish opinion. Pick any poll you want, they all come to the exact opposite conclusion of yours. They don't support Trump and his actions, and it was a stupid gift with no genuine upside for Israel or its security. I'm not aware of attempts to poll American Zionists, but I'm familiar with their beliefs, and they are a wide spectrum of beliefs with a huge centrist faction, not lock step support for the Israeli right as they are often mistakenly portrayed as. They do not fight tooth and nail against any outside pressure, there's a very vocal minority that fought with Obama on this that did not have mainstream support in either group. There's a majority that fights BDS, not all external pressure. Stop posting itt thanks
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 08:12
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I'm referring specifically to Barghouti's BDS movement, not boycotts against Israel in the generic sense. Their position is that there can be no peace without the right of return. There is no circumstance that Israel would ever consider that maximalist, irredentist demand in practice. Actual, genuine peace, means that both sides have to make painful sacrifices. The deal is Israel has to end the occupation, Palestinians have to give up refugee claims, and they share Jerusalem, or there will never be a deal. This has been the international consensus for decades, and anyone on any side who thinks otherwise is delusional. Palestinians have already made many, many painful sacrifices. But let's put that aside. Let's assume you genuinely believe what you've just written. Let's deal with it: 1) International consensus has been, since at the very least 1948, that it is a fundamental principle of international law that refugees and their families have a right to return to their homes. This is an inalienable right. 2) There's been a relative consensus that the practical situation that Israel has illegally created through ethnic cleansing, war and settlement, means that it is unlikely that a negotiated deal will include a return for all Palestinian refugees. The suggestions around this include recognising the right but dissuading refugees to act on it through compensation agreements/negotiating with partner states to offer citizenship packages etc. No serious discussion suggests the Palestinians have lost their inalienable rights because time has passed. 3) There's no need to negotiate if one side has to give up all their chips before arriving at the table. What you are suggesting - that Palestinians have to give up their inalienable rights that they as individuals hold under international law before they even get to negotiate is very beyond the pale. 4) You cannot tell me that 'Israel won't accept something therefore the Palestinians should accept what the Israelis tell them'. It demonstrates what is likely a lack of sincerity on your part when you parrot 'painful sacrifices' and 'genuine peace'. Kim Jong Il posted:Under a literal reading of the BDS movement - if tomorrow, Israel was fully onboard with the Kerry framework - no more occupation, no more Gaza blockade - that would not be good enough. "Resistance" would have to continue indefinitely until every single demand is met. BDS necessitates permanent conflict. This is, frankly, stupid. It is absolutely right that BDS continues until a representative peace deal is created. Absolutely right. You probably think you're being clever by talking about the Kerry 'framework'. You either don't know what it is or you're being fabulously dishonest. It's a framework for negotiation. It's basically Madrid-Oslo all over again. 0 reason BDS would stop for that. It's nothing. Here's what peace requires, at a bare minimum: 1) Full Palestinian sovereignty over their air, sea, land, borders and natural resources; 2) Shared control or partition of Jerusalem; 3) Removal of all illegal settlers or allowing them to accept Palestinian nationality; 4) A fair and just resolution to the refugee question; 5) Reparations for Palestinians in Palestinian and for refugees for seven decades of war crimes, crimes against humanity etc. Optional to peace but which would generate regional goodwill: 1) Regional partnerships to accommodate the naturalisation of Palestinian refugees who choose to not return, reparations for Jewish refugees from Arab nations; 2) A significant aid programme to reverse the crippling blows Israel has dealt to Palestinian civil infrastructure; 3) A genuine peace and reconciliation effort between the two peoples. Tell me what you disagree with KJI and we'll see just how much you know about international consensus and how much you are interested in 'genuine peace' versus repeated Likud platform policies from the 1990s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 10:30
|
|
|
What I really appreciate about the whole 'BDS is out to annihilate israel' talking point is that it assumes that everyone that has ever voiced any sort of support to BDS is basically as tenacious as the terminator. 90% of BDS supporters will be content the moment a fair resolution is achieved, the nano-second palestinians are no longer forced to live under the IDF's boot, the moment they have fair democratic representation and move around freely in their own territory, in that very nano-second 90% of BDS supporters will check-out and will consider the movement to have achieved its purpose. the 10% outliers who'll continue insisting on the 'extremist interpretation' that KJI fears are ultimately just a vocal minority, BDS is popular because of the IDF dictatorship, not because of the Nakba, pretending otherwise is a silly game of pretending semantics matter more than actual material conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 10:51
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I'm referring specifically to Barghouti's BDS movement, not boycotts against Israel in the generic sense. Their position is that there can be no peace without the right of return. There is no circumstance that Israel would ever consider that maximalist, irredentist demand in practice. Actual, genuine peace, means that both sides have to make painful sacrifices. The deal is Israel has to end the occupation, Palestinians have to give up refugee claims, and they share Jerusalem, or there will never be a deal. This has been the international consensus for decades, and anyone on any side who thinks otherwise is delusional. I like how you madly swerve between "ideally we'd all have open borders, but all Jews have the inalienable right to land in Israel either way" and "allowing the right of return for Palestinians is literal genocide, I cannot believe I have to explain this to you" from post to post. I'm not sure how you reconcile these two positions. And do you know how compromise works, hoss? Both sides bring all their demands and desires to the table, and then square them as much as possible. If BDS had the goal of "Palestinians get to keep whatever Bantustans have yet to be annexed and Israel doesn't have to make reparations for bombed infrastructure and dead children, but in return, Palestinians are allowed to have fishing rods and don't get gunned down at the border," or whatever terms Israel finds acceptable, they'd be lucky to get half of that at the hypothetical negotiation table.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 14:21
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Under a literal reading of the BDS movement - if tomorrow, Israel was fully onboard with the Kerry framework - no more occupation, no more Gaza blockade - that would not be good enough. "Resistance" would have to continue indefinitely until every single demand is met. BDS necessitates permanent conflict. Likud's very existence also necessitates permanent conflict, since they assert Jewish rights over Judea and Samaria. Your shtick of "hey, I'm against all this stuff, but BDS bad" sort of falls apart there. If BDS needs to end, then Likud itself needs to end, or become an extremely marginal entity, first. And economic pressure seems to be a fine way of attaining that end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
Why is sharing anything with the Palestinians, any land at all, Jerusalem or otherwise, a sacrifice for the Israelis? Why would lifting the inhumane blockade of Gaza be a sacrifice for the Israelis? Hmm, perhaps the Israeli people consider these inexcusable violations of basic human rights that the Israelis have imposed upon the Palestinians by the might of arms, righteous and justifiable. Something that could be negotiated with, in return for Palestinian surrender.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:You're completely incorrect with respect to American Jewish opinion. Pick any poll you want, they all come to the exact opposite conclusion of yours. They don't support Trump and his actions, and it was a stupid gift with no genuine upside for Israel or its security. I'm not aware of attempts to poll American Zionists, but I'm familiar with their beliefs, and they are a wide spectrum of beliefs with a huge centrist faction, not lock step support for the Israeli right as they are often mistakenly portrayed as. They do not fight tooth and nail against any outside pressure, there's a very vocal minority that fought with Obama on this that did not have mainstream support in either group. There's a majority that fights BDS, not all external pressure. The poll you linked doesn't ask about their opinions on the occupation or BDS. The best you can get from it is that the majority of American Jews think settlements make Israel less safe. The vast majority of Israeli Jews believe the settlements make them safer or have no effect. I've read every source you've posted the last few days and not a single one even comes close to supporting the claim you cited it to support. Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
Why are people still responding to him after he literally (actual meaning this time) equated the 1948 refugees with the Jewish diaspora from the Roman exodus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
he's a loving moron and easy target to take your aggression out on by proxy because nobody in this thread will ever be in the position to affect the material conditions that constitute the substance of the conflict. I'm more interested in asking why he continues to post when literally everyone is just replying with a variation of 'shut the gently caress up you goopy papier-mache brain motherfucker' or 'a really well-thought out post sincerely addressing his dumbass soft as baby poo poo logic'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
because he's the only person willing to go bat for the literal fascist regime that happens to be the subject of the debate and discussion of this thread. without which, this would just be a twitter repost thread that I, and I would imagine most posters as well, would have zero interest in reading. since you can just read the bbc or w/e instead. i do wonder how the man deals with the fact that he is the only one willing to make the arguments he does. it's gotta have some effect on one's mind, being told that your opinions are horrifying by everyone you ever talk to about them
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Speaking from personal experience it's way harder to sell the palestinian side of the story so I really doubt this is the only group he interacts with about the conflict.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
I'm finnish, and I've never heard anyone except nazis argue the israeli side of things so I guess I live in a weird country. like, when the latest massacres were going on I was on a train and had people just passing by my table declaring israel an apartheid regime
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
as i was talking about it with other passangers, obviously
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
I live in the american south so the range of opinion you will normally hear is "israel has the right to defend itself" to "if israel stops killing the terrorists the terrorists will win."
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
goondolences
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
lollontee posted:talking... with other passangers I've met Finns, this is a lie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
well, i do suffer from a multitude oif mental disorders
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:I live in the american south so the range of opinion you will normally hear is "israel has the right to defend itself" to "if israel stops killing the terrorists the terrorists will win." Useless personal anecdote: I was on a business trip to Dallas two months ago and me and this other Israeli guy met our rep there who was super enthusiastic to work with an israeli company and twenty minutes into our dinner he went "Netanyahu is the president the US needs!". Of course I had to pretend it was a reasonable statement as it was supposed to be taken as some gracious compliment to the level-headed anti-pc attitude that the industrious people of plucky little israel possess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
The general consensus about israel/the conflict in the usa is mostly indifference that manifests in hayseeds like that who literally don't know the first thing about the history of the region expressing an incredibly 'safe' opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
Richard Burden MP, Chair of the Britain-Palestine All Party Parliamentary Group, secured an Urgent Question on the demolition and forcible transfer of Khan al Ahmar in Parliament. As the Minister also said, he—along with over 100 Members of this House and peers, and about 300 international public figures—has repeatedly urged the Government of Israel not to go ahead with the demolitions. Now that they have ignored those calls, the question is whether the commission of this war crime will have any consequence. If not, why will Mr Netanyahu believe other than that war crimes can continue with impunity? What practical action do the UK Government propose to take to hold those responsible for this war crime to account, and is it not time finally to outlaw commercial dealings by UK firms with illegal settlements in the West Bank? https://vimeo.com/278346475 Transcript in Hansard: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-04/debates/B11012E4-6183-4928-8DE6-A1192AB77665/DemolitionOfKhanAl-Ahmar Baroness Goldie (Conservative) in the Lords - also today: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/a1a468ec-b3a2-4293-92e8-54bf8760b18a?in=15:39:34 Jaeluni Asjil fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jul 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:Richard Burden MP, Chair of the Britain-Palestine All Party Parliamentary Group, secured an Urgent Question on the demolition and forcible transfer of Khan al Ahmar in Parliament. I have no idea if this is correct, but Israel might boycott all dealings with UK firms if the UK boycotts the settlements specifically. It would be like a "if I'm going down, so are you" bluff that the UK hasn't been willing to call, yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 02:19
|
|