I don't think that is an "of course" situation.
I don't think it is cut and dry.
It certainly isn't proven, despite the arguments that were made after the first stage of the international court.
Pro Hamas in the west - and their adventures
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
I don't think it is cut and dry.
It certainly isn't proven, despite the arguments that were made after the first stage of the international court.
So you've never looked into it, I guess?
Or is it just a "all forms of Zionism are about racial supremacy and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying"?
Its not a real ceasefire.
Israel say they will stop killing Palestinians for a little while so Hamas can return the hostages and then they can get back to the genocide.
Hamas will only agree to a real ceasefire.
At least you are finally admitting you don't care shit about human rights.
You just care about killing Palestinians so you can take their land.
The ICJ has ruled through provisional measures that Israel must not commit genocide and in particular to prevent killing Palestinians in Gaza and allow all aid through.
Instead Israel is killing and starving.
Zionism is a 19th century colonial settler movement.
All colonial movements are based on racial supremacy, that 'civilization' must remove or control the 'savages'.
Why is it that you keep trying to argue this debate is about 'feelings' and 'lying' instead of human rights and history?
Are you still one one of those parts of the ivory tower that thinks they've fought of those debates?
Feel free to counter argue, but I would expect some citations and historical comparisons, valcazar.
I would also hope you can avoid use of non academic language and the appeal to emotion fallacy, otherwise you'll get docked.
Really? You're arguing that a zionist meeting in a synagogue about buying real estate in the Occupied Territories was open to Canadian Palestinians on land that Palestinians aren't allowed to buy, even if its their homeland? Reports say non Jews and Palestinians were barred.
You really do just want Palestinians killed so you can take their land, don't you?
That's all it comes down to here, all you argue for is killing people so that you can go and buy a nice piece of beach front property in Gaza.
A permanent ceasefire, not a six week break where Hamas returns hostages so that Israel can resume the genocide without worrying about killing them.
On Wednesday Hamas argued that it had “shown flexibility” but Israel continued to “evade the obligations of the agreement” being discussed.
“We have affirmed our conditions for a ceasefire: complete [IDF] withdrawal from the sector, the return of displaced persons to the areas they left, especially in the north, and the provision of sufficient aid, relief, and reconstruction,” Hamas senior leader Osama Hamdan told a news conference in Beirut on Tuesday.
Ramadan, a month of fasting and piety for Muslims, is a “period in which you have calm and you’re able to do the essential humanitarian work,” a senior administration official told reporters in a weekend briefing.
About a quarter of Gaza’s population is on the brink of famine, according to the United Nations. The Biden administration has escalated its criticism of Israel’s refusal to open more border crossings to allow aid into Gaza, particularly to address needs in the north.
OK.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you have decided that all the different branches of zionism are tainted by the origin and therefore there are no meaningful differences.
It's all just racism and "civilization must remove or control the savages".
As you will.
I'm not arguing that the Israel/Palestine situation is about "feelings" and "lying".
I'm saying much of what you and others have presented is.
The actual debate about the real issues isn't something I have any intention of entering into here on this board, because it would be pointless to do so here.
That's why outside of occasionally asking why people were presenting or misrepresenting public documents or actual data in the way they were.
That's still of interest to me, but actually discussing the real issues with you lot would be a waste of time.
I'm curious, valcazar.
You like to appear unbiased but your posts clearly support Israel.
Do you think Israel is committing genocide?
Do you think they are justified in committing genocide?
Do you think Israel should be allowed to continue the occupation and colonization of Palestine?
What do you see as the endgame of Israel, as the people who in control?
(Its not worth asking about the endgame of Palestinians or Hamas, they have no control over their situation)
This is the first time I've ever heard of anyone argue there are different 'branches' of zionism.
Please detail these different branches, their different ideologies and how they address the colonial roots of the movement.
Please show the form of zionism that doesn't claim Palestine as Israel.
Yet you've entered into the debate a few times.
You spent a few days discussing the ICJ ruling before you backed off calling my arguments that the Provisional Measures are the rulings and important part. You didn't admit you were wrong or change your statements, you just stopped arguing that point. In that thread it was you that was misrepresenting public documents.
Same with the Biden threads where you've argued that its 'practical' to support genocide so that rump doesn't regain power while also misrepresenting polls about dem support of a ceasefire. That's entering into this discussion.
What you have been hesitant to do is to back up what is clearly your support of Israel with arguments.
The public documents, and large number of reports, show that Israel is apartheid, the occupation is illegal and Israel continues to refuse to abide by multiple UN resolutions, international law and to respect basic human rights. If you think that is misrepresenting public documents, feel free to make your case.
So you are against all ceasefires unless they are permanent, because anything else isn't a real ceasefire?
So no negotiations - ceasefire only on these terms?
Is this an offer of a truce during Ramadan?
(Not a ceasefire since it wouldn't be binding at any level?)
I have never claimed to be unbiased.
I've always been very clear I am deeply ideological.
I just told you I have no intention of getting into this debate here because it would be pointless.
But I will indulge you some.
On a purely legal standpoint, I think it will be found Israel is not committing genocide because the bar for that is incredibly high.
I am quite convinced there are people in the current Israeli government who want to commit genocide and I am quite convinced that Israel has committed war crimes, whether or not they will ever suffer any consequences for them.
They would be absolutely unjustified in committing genocide, obviously.
They aren't justified in the war crimes, either.
The fact that people in the Israel at War thread didn't just call for ignoring war crimes but actually actively promoted war crimes as a good thing to do is appalling.
Hamas and Israel already held a truce, a shorter version of the same plan.
During which Hamas released some hostages, Israel released some prisoners whom they largely rearrested after the end of the truce.
After which the genocide resumed.
Was that a ceasefire or a truce?
Is it different from this one?
I, like 80% of dems in the US and most Canadians, back a ceasefire and the end of the attacks on both sides.
Do you really think Hamas should stop resisting, hand back all the hostages and then get ready for more genocide?
Why do you think they would agree to that?
Ceasefire.
Stop killing civilians.
Investigate both sides and arrest all charged with war crimes.
Allow all aid in.
Those are pretty much the demands of the ICJ (other than direct ceasefire), do you think they are outrageous and that Palestinians should accept less?
Thanks for mostly answering, but the one question you don't appear to want to answer is whether you think Israel is or is not presently committing genocide.
You should maybe look into that then.
Indeed I have.
I didn't admit I was wrong because I wasn't.
You were and still are.
I dropped it because there was no point in continuing a discussion endlessly for no reason.
Indeed it is.
You misrepresented the results of the primaries and I offered a correction.
I stuck around to point out that your theory of political change isn't going to do what you think it is going to do and that your understanding of what voting actually represents in practice as opposed to what it represents in the civic mythology are different. Indeed, that difference is why your theory of political change via voting won't work the way you think it is going to.
Because I don't support Israel's military action post- October 7.
In fact I have serious issues with the concept of any ethnostate in the 21st century, even while acknowledging the long-standing appeal of the concept of a nation.
(Indeed, you can't argue for a free Palestine without arguing somewhat in favor of the idea of "a nation deserves a state".)
So no, I am not going to get into an extended argument on Israel, Palestine, and the very concept of the disposition of that land in the post-colonial breakup following the two World Wars.
Have I once argued with you about any of those things?
I don't remember if the last one was called a ceasefire or not.
I was asking what your position was on this since you used the term "real".
Presumably the last ceasefire/truce, or whatever, wasn't real to you.
But this is diverging for no benefit.
If what you mean is "no ceasefire until a permanent ceasefire" then just use "permanent" ceasefire not "real" ceasefire.
I don't expect them to agree to that.
Ceasefires have many uses and some of them are strategic.
There was a great deal of call for a ceasefire at some points and many pointed out that it would be to Russia's strategic advantage at that time and so recommended Ukraine not agree to one.
That is all you are doing here, since you view the proposed one as to Israel's strategic advantage from what I gather.
My question was just about your use of the word "real".
I think Palestenians should accept whatever they think is in their best interests.
They won't have a chance to, though, since it is Hamas specifically, and not Palestenians in general, who are going to decide when they accept a cease fire.
You were wrong about the ICJ ruling and the import and message of the Provisional Measures.
You repeatedly quoted the body of the ruling without noting that the Provisional Measures are the decisions voted on by the judges and to which Israel must abide. It was only after you looked at the full court ruling and stopped copying one paragraph from the body that you moved on. Quite often you've called me out for misrepresenting post fairly but this is a fair call on my end.
I admit that my post on 'uncommitted' voters may have been unclear but the message remains the same. Biden's reelection may fail because of his support of genocide and the 'uncommitted' block is a real concern.
Glad to hear you don't support the Israeli actions.
For years I've argued that the best path to peace is to end apartheid and give all Palestinians living under Israeli rule full citizenship and the vote. Ethno states are poor idea and that land too divided for a two state solution to work. After the genocide I'm not sure, recovering from 75 years of occupation and now genocide will be much harder than South Africa or Rwanda's recoveries.
Glad to hear you don't think I'm misrepresenting public documents here.
I don't see the value in assigning the term 'real' as a qualifier to a ceasefire, that's your term only.
You could try to differentiate between a truce and a ceasefire, but even that's unclear.
Israel wants to use a specific truce time period in exchange for Hamas giving up their only negotiating chip, the hostages. The reason I don't support this is that its a clear attempt to repeat the previous Israeli truce which did not in any form stop the genocide or give Palestinians full respite or aid. A ceasefire for 6 weeks makes it harder to resume but there needs to be a clear statement that the genocide won't resume.
Check the thread, I believe that you brought up the word 'real'.
I just want the genocide and violence to end and for a chance for the rule of law or sanctions to start permanent change to the situation there.
The last poll I saw still had Hamas at 75-80% support.
Gaza has lived through 17 years of blockade and apartheid, I don't think that was in their interests.
