That's disingenous.I think he's overselling it, implying there is nothing organic about this.
It's pretty clear there is an organic protest movement here but also that people are taking advantage of that to stoke the flames higher.
That happens a lot, the question is always how much and to what extent.
It's not like the pro-Israel hardliner side of this doesn't also have money coming in to craft a narrative.
Not that you go to protests because you're too busy searching twitter for things to post here at all hours.It costs nothing to post on social media and go out to a protest.
...
You're just upset because it called for the release of Hamas' hostages.Biden is presenting a call for a ceasefire to the UNSC, but its not a demand.
The end for Netanyahu is near.
...
BLM was calling for equal rights. Many of the groups organizing the anti-Israel protests openly promote the removal of Jews from the region and have praised Hamas' actions on the 7th.That's disingenous.
As far as I can tell these protests are much like the BLM protests.
...
It could be restrained for Kinsella.That's not how I read the article, which I thought was pretty restrained for Kinsella.
No, I'm upset because it was a clear attempt by Biden to present the optics of being for a ceasefire while making sure it included terms that kept the resolution from passing. It was another stall. It was what valcazar refuses to call a 'real' ceasefire in that it intentionally included terms that made it unsupportable by one party.You're just upset because it called for the release of Hamas' hostages.
Once again you and hamas show the world that you don't want peace or increased aid, you just want death and destruction that you can post about.
No, the protests have not called for the removal of Jews.BLM was calling for equal rights. Many of the groups organizing the anti-Israel protests openly promote the removal of Jews from the region and have praised Hamas' actions on the 7th.
Aid?Once again you and hamas show the world that you don't want peace or increased aid, you just want death and destruction that you can post about.
This is what I think as well. Pro-Palestinians are genuinely emotional about what is going on in Gaza. So I imagine it is all organic. If there is money involved perhaps it is for posters, and flyers etc, but I dont think any of it is orchestrated with "actors" or some such who dont care about the cause.That's disingenous.
As far as I can tell these protests are much like the BLM protests.
There is no one central body pushing them, no one group and no obvious sources of cash visible online or at the protests.
Who do you think is 'taking advantage' to 'stoke flames'?
I didn't say there was a central body pushing them.That's disingenous.
As far as I can tell these protests are much like the BLM protests.
There is no one central body pushing them, no one group and no obvious sources of cash visible online or at the protests.
Who do you think is 'taking advantage' to 'stoke flames'?
Sometimes the xitter has exactly the right post.This is what I think as well. Pro-Palestinians are genuinely emotional about what is going on in Gaza. So I imagine it is all organic. If there is money involved perhaps it is for posters, and flyers etc, but I dont think any of it is orchestrated with "actors" or some such who dont care about the cause.
Yet, like BLM, the protests are so massive and so global that yes, there are likely some small attempts by some groups to fund something or other.I didn't say there was a central body pushing them.
There are numerous groups funding things - the BLM protests is a good example.
There were fake Russian BLM accounts and protests organized.
Hell, they often organized both sides of a protest.
This is to be expected here as well.
Also, Kinsells points to the NBC reporting about large donations by billionaires and philanthropic organizations.
This is a real thing. And yes, an organization with money can organize bigger protests.
Even the various "uncommitted" vote campaigns were funded.
Kinsella, as I also said, is overselling this as some kind of conspiracy as opposed to what you would normally expect in an organic movement.
I'm sorry, what the fuck now?It was what valcazar refuses to call a 'real' ceasefire in that it intentionally included terms that made it unsupportable by one party.
No, a 'real' ceasefire offer is one that is made with an honest goal of stopping the fighting, not playing politics by including unsupportable terms.I'm sorry, what the fuck now?
A "real" ceasefire is now one that includes terms unsupportable by one party?
So none of the UN ceasefire proposals have been real, since everyone knows Israel won't accept them?No, a 'real' ceasefire offer is one that is made with an honest goal of stopping the fighting, not playing politics by including unsupportable terms.
You should pick what you think it really is and address it as such.Feel free to suggest better nomenclature.
'Dishonest', 'political ruse', 'trick'..
Such as it being immediate, unilateral, and not requiring anything from Hamas?If your intent is to stop the fighting you don't include clauses you known the other side won't agree to.
Interesting.Israel and Biden both suggested short term breaks from the fighting in exchange for Hamas giving up their only leverage.
Both knew there was no way Hamas would agree but by offering it they could then argue that Hamas refused a ceasefire.
So you opposed the earlier ones as well, I suppose since they didn't fulfill your criteria?A real ceasefire offer includes concessions by both sides with agreements that both sides stop fighting.
That tweet says that they voted against it because Israel wasn't mentioned often enough.As Guyana noted about the latest US UNSC resolution:
Yes, we both know that Israel has had 67 UN resolutions against them and ignored each one previously. But the only reason they can continue to ignore those resolutions is the continued application of the Negroponte Doctrine and US support of their actions, including the $3.8 billion in US weapons they get each year along with bonuses like the $14 billion specifically for the genocide. Concessions for Hamas are largely related to the hostages, unless Israel just wants them to lay down all arms so they can go door to door and do away with all males of age.Such as it being immediate, unilateral, and not requiring anything from Hamas?
This has been a serious issue, with Israel being very clear it is never going to accept that as a ceasefire position.
Now, there are those that think that Israel specifically ignoring a UN resolution would reflect badly on them - but countries ignore UN resolutions all the time (and Israel has a long history of it).
Some people think the UN putting forward a resolution that actually gets results would be better.
Of course, the US resolution didn't have much chance of succeeding either, so you could say it doesn't really matter who proposes what at the UN if "it will accomplish something" is your measuring stick.
Sigh.Interesting.
So you think all the previous calls for cease fires were cynical ploys by people who hate Israel since they knew Israel wouldn't agree and then they could argue Israel refused a ceasefire?
Sounds diabolical.
I supported the temporary truce and was angry when Netanyahu declared he would resume the genocide.So you opposed the earlier ones as well, I suppose since they didn't fulfill your criteria?
You think the fact that Israel was mentioned only once in 2000 words doesn't imply that concessions were one sided?That tweet says that they voted against it because Israel wasn't mentioned often enough.
It doesn't say a thing about concessions by both sides.
Symbolic action is still action, I agree.Yes, we both know that Israel has had 67 UN resolutions against them and ignored each one previously. But the only reason they can continue to ignore those resolutions is the continued application of the Negroponte Doctrine and US support of their actions, including the $3.8 billion in US weapons they get each year along with bonuses like the $14 billion specifically for the genocide. Concessions for Hamas are largely related to the hostages, unless Israel just wants them to lay down all arms so they can go door to door and do away with all males of age.
So what good is a ceasefire? It signifies that there is a limit to acts that the US and world can support.
But earlier you argued anything watered down was bad.The NDP motion that just passed is a good example, it was watered down significantly but provides two lines that if applied drastically change Canada's relationship to Israel, support for all ICC and ICJ charges.
And this is where it is time to no longer take you seriously because you are back in magical pony land.Biden is single handedly allowing the genocide to continue
Of course it isn't.Sigh.
This is not a war between two equal parties.
I don't disagree.This is a slaughter by a US backed nuclear state against 2 million refugees living in a concentration camp.
If Hamas declared a ceasefire now would anything change? Would Israel stop attacking, allow all aid through and retreat from Gaza?
Israel is the military occupying power, the choice to end the genocide lies with them.
Which is a good thing but is also just sentiment unless you can get both sides to agree to the ceasefire, as you yourself pointed out.The global call for a ceasefire is a call to end the genocide.
Actually, I would say that "hating Israel" is pretty anti-semitic.The cynical statement is to declare that its because people hate Israel because they are antisemitic.
When did Hamas declare a unilateral ceasefire, even a temporary one?I supported the temporary truce and was angry when Netanyahu declared he would resume the genocide.
There have been no other full ceasefires that I can recall, in the past only Hamas declared unilateral ceasefires.
I did.You think the fact that Israel was mentioned only once in 2000 words doesn't imply that concessions were one sided?
Did you listen to the speech?
Its really about how far Netanyahu can push Biden, while both know that rump is his preferred choice.Symbolic action is still action, I agree.
Just don't pretend it means Israel immediately stops.
Are the US and Israel willing to destroy their strategic partnership over this?
It's possible, which would mean the US would probably have to reach out for a rapprochement with Iran.
Agreed.But earlier you argued anything watered down was bad.
Glad to see you are being more pragmatic.
That the support for the ICJ and ICC got through is a good thing long term, in my view.
No, don't use straw men. I stated that adding clauses that you know the other side won't agree to means its not a real or honest offer of ceasefire.I don't disagree.
Israel has vastly more power in the situation.
But you are on the record saying that any ceasefire proposed that one side doesn't like isn't real and is just a cynical move.
That doesn't change if the two sides have different power levels.
Maybe you shouldn't be so black and white with what you think a ceasefire is and how it is used or useful.
Isn't that an admission that you don't think Palestinians are part of Israel? Fully half the people living under Israeli rule are Palestinian, so is it antisemitic to hate a country that is 50/50 Jewish and Palestinian?Actually, I would say that "hating Israel" is pretty anti-semitic.
Hating the government of Israel isn't.
Hating all ethno-states might let you get away with hating Israel, but then you have to also hate a lot of countries on the planet.
2021 and 2014, if I recall correctly.When did Hamas declare a unilateral ceasefire, even a temporary one?
As in, "We will stop all activity from this date to that date, regardless of what you do"?
Outside of very short informal pauses, I can't remember either side doing that.
Funny that she blames Israel for the genocide and not Hamas, isn't it?I did.
She literally says she is blocking it because it doesn't blame Israel.
The diplomatic language - that Israel is condemned - is clearly more important to her than agreeing to a ceasefire.
She would rather people continue to be killed than accept the UN isn't going to scold Israel enough.
At least, that's how the edited version you tweeted comes across.
What is the source of this poll? Guaranteed that knowing the source would automatically invalidate it.No, the protests have not called for the removal of Jews.
They have called for the end of the occupation, the end of apartheid and the end of genocide.
All of which you seem to think is antisemitic.
If you're posting results from that survey, how do explain this?
View attachment 308115