KINSELLA: Who's writing the cheques for anti-Israel protests?
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
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'?
Not that you go to protests because you're too busy searching twitter for things to post here at all hours.
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.
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.
There should be a movement pushing for a negotiated permanent peace but too many people still think violence is the solution.
It could be restrained for Kinsella.
I don't usually read his stuff - decided quite a while ago he wasn't worth it because "restrained" isn't a word I would use for him.
But read this and while I don't think he is out to lunch, I don't think his case is as strong as he thinks it is.
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.
On monday France will present another UNSC resolution calling for a ceasefire, we will find out if Biden is really for or against a ceasefire.
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?
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.
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.
Sometimes the xitter has exactly the right post.
Like this one.
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.
But overall, its a global and massive, grassroots movement. Its big enough that the US is trying to shut down TikTok over it.
Its not like there is money backing this.
I'm sorry, what the fuck now?
A "real" ceasefire is now one that includes terms 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.
Feel free to suggest better nomenclature.
'Dishonest', 'political ruse', 'trick'..
If your intent is to stop the fighting you don't include clauses you known the other side won't agree to.
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.
It wasn't a 'real' offer of a ceasefire, it was a political ploy.
A real ceasefire offer includes concessions by both sides with agreements that both sides stop fighting.
As Guyana noted about the latest US UNSC resolution:
So none of the UN ceasefire proposals have been real, since everyone knows Israel won't accept them?
You should pick what you think it really is and address it as such.
"This ceasefire proposal was just a political PR stunt, delivered cynically with the expectation it would be vetoed."
I'm just going to warn you now that people in this thread and others will just turn around and use the exact same language about the cease fires that have been proposed calling for a unilateral cease fire by Israel.
But you criticizing the proposed cease fire as inadequate, doomed to fail, or even a political stunt isn't something I have a problem with.
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.
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.
So you opposed the earlier ones as well, I suppose since they didn't fulfill your criteria?
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.
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. 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. Biden is single handedly allowing the genocide to continue, at this point he is now as complicit as Netanyahu for blocking resolutions, refusing to condemn war crimes and then sending over billions in bombs that have destroyed Gaza. A ceasefire says there are limits. Without US support Netanyahu's government falls and the genocide will end.
Sigh.
This is not a war between two equal parties. 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.
The global call for a ceasefire is a call to end the genocide.
The cynical statement is to declare that its because people hate Israel because they are antisemitic. The cynical call is to revert to claims that being anti zionist makes you antisemitic.
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.
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?
That's disingenous.
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.
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.
And this is where it is time to no longer take you seriously because you are back in magical pony land.
Of course it isn't.
But you are saying one thing when it is convenient for your position and another when it isn't.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Its really about how far Netanyahu can push Biden, while both know that rump is his preferred choice.
If Biden stops supporting Netanyahu then we'd see how far into pariah state Israel is willing to go.
As for Iran, ending sanctions and redoing the JCPOA would go a long way towards settling tensions in the middle east.
Agreed.
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.
The US UNSC resolution was not a 'real' ceasefire resolution, in this case it only asked for movement towards ceasefire and didn't demand it happen. That resolution was for political show, not action. So China and Russia vetoed. Today's resolution by France looks to pass, that is a real call for a ceasefire.
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?
2021 and 2014, if I recall correctly.
Funny that she blames Israel for the genocide and not Hamas, isn't it?
Israel is doing all the killing now, they are the occupying power and they are the party committing genocide.
Palestinians launched 5 rockets yesterday from Gaza but there has been no Israeli deaths outside of Gaza in 5 months.
Why would you be surprised that she was offended that Israel wasn't called out?
You can blame Hamas for Oct 7 but that was 5 months ago and 30-40,000 dead Palestinians ago.
The issue now is the genocide.
Al Jazeera is reporting that todays UNSC ceasefire resolution will be allowed to pass.
The first good news in 5 months.
