Israel at war

[Klatuu]

Yes the NYT stands by its story after embarrassing themselves via their poor journalistic practices. Yes the many tenured professors of journalism must all be antisemites. Support for Israel in this war is rooted in racism.

Well said.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Support for Israel in this war is rooted in racism

Only racists care about race

 

[Kautilya]

Only racists care about race

Yes. Like the ones who support and demand an ethno state like Israel.

 

[Klatuu]

Ah the NYT article that has been soundly criticized and laughed at. The editorial process behind the article was criticized, with concerns raised including the use of inexperienced reporters, an over reliance on witness testimony, weak corroboration, and a lack of supporting forensic evidence.

On 29 April 2024, more than 50 tenured journalism professors signed a letter calling on the New York Times to "immediately commission a group of journalism experts to conduct a thorough and full independent review of the reporting, editing and publishing processes for ["Screams Without Words"] and release a report of the findings."

In short it was a bullshit Israeli propaganda piece. Nothing more.

One of the “reporters” was fired by the NYT shortly after. She wasn’t a reporter at all. Had no training. But loved to like social messages calling for the genocide of Palestinians.

The NYT newsroom itself roiled against the story and its lack of standards. The NYT canceled a podcast by the reporters after doubts about the accuracy and professionalism of the investigation emerged.

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/06/1236130609/new-york-times-hamas-attacks-israel-palestine

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Yes. Like the ones who support and demand an ethno state like Israel.

The two-state solution is dead. Palestinians rejected 3 different peace proposals.
They were offered the carrot or the stick, and they chose the stick.
And now they're feeling it

 

[Kautilya]

The two-state solution is dead. Palestinians rejected 3 different peace proposals.
They were offered the carrot or the stick, and they chose the stick.
And now they're feeling it

Yes the only possible solution is a one state solution because Israel has illegally taken 95% of the lands. Palestinians rejected peace proposals because none of those peace proposals involve Israel giving BACK land especially in the West Bank. Not in Gaza. Lets not point to 2005. I am talking about the illegal settlements in the West Bank that makes up the majority of land area of Palestine. Israel takes land, and then expects the Palestinians to accept the NEW status quo. So none of their peace proposals are sincere or workable. This conflict will continue and the terrorism will continue until Israel either gives back land or gives Palestinians equal rights. The Palestinians are not going anywhere, neither are the Israelis.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Yes the only possible solution is a one state solution because Israel has illegally taken 95% of the lands. Palestinians rejected peace proposals because none of those peace proposals involve Israel giving BACK land especially in the West Bank. Not in Gaza. Lets not point to 2005. I am talking about the illegal settlements in the West Bank that makes up the majority of land area of Palestine. Israel takes land, and then expects the Palestinians to accept the NEW status quo. So none of their peace proposals are sincere or workable. This conflict will continue and the terrorism will continue until Israel either gives back land or gives Palestinians equal rights. The Palestinians are not going anywhere, neither are the Israelis

You couldnt be more wrong. Arafat in 2000 didnt even want to negotiate with Barak.
Even Clinton went on record saying he offered PLO over 95% of West Bank, and they still turned it down.

Also, in the video Clinton confirms Hamas hides amongst civilians and uses them as shields.
A fact which you have repeatedly denied (along with your other half baked theory that Hamas would never rape civilians)

A video from May 13, 2016, in Ewing Township in New Jersey, U.S has been doing rounds on social media where former US President Bill Clinton can he heard saying 'Hamas is really smart. When they decide to rocket Israel, they insinuate themselves in the hospitals, in the schools, in the highly populous areas.' 'I killed myself to give the Palestinians a state. I had a deal they turned down that would have given them all of Gaza... between 96 and 97% of the West Bank, compensating land in Israel, you name it.'

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Read this and learn something

Arafat didn't negotiate - he just kept saying no

Ever since the start of the second Palestinian intifada, a row has raged over who was responsible for the breakdown of the peace process. Now, for the first time, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak has weighed in, accusing Yasser Arafat of being a liar who talked peace while secretly...

www.theguardian.com

 

[Dutch Oven]

This conflict will continue and the terrorism will continue until Israel either gives back land or gives Palestinians equal rights.

Or enough people who think as poorly as you have died in in the conflict. That point might come sooner than you think.

There is no one state solution with a group who advocates your elimination from the region. What a ridiculous outlook it is to expect to be brought into the current century by those you say have no right to be there.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

There is no one state solution with a group who advocates your elimination from the region

This ^^

 

[Kautilya]

You couldnt be more wrong. Arafat in 2000 didnt even want to negotiate with Barak.
Even Clinton went on record saying he offered PLO over 95% of West Bank, and they still turned it down.

Also, in the video Clinton confirms Hamas hides amongst civilians and uses them as shields.
A fact which you have repeatedly denied (along with your other half baked theory that Hamas would never rape civilians)

The solution is either a one state solution or a 2 state solution going back to 1967 borders and removal of ALL settlements. Negotiating acceptance of land theft isnt going to be accepted and the Palestinians are not wrong in refusing such "deals".

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

The solution is either a one state solution or a 2 state solution going back to 1967 borders and removal of ALL settlements. Negotiating acceptance of land theft isnt going to be accepted and the Palestinians are not wrong in refusing such "deals"

You have to compromise in peace deals. Arafat refused to compromise.

Also I noticed you're conveniently not responding to Clinton's claim Hamas hides in hospitals, schools and highly populous areas .
Those were his exact words. Will you now admit you were wrong??

 

[Klatuu]

Or enough people who think as poorly as you have died in in the conflict. That point might come sooner than you think.

There is no one state solution with a group who advocates your elimination from the region. What a ridiculous outlook it is to expect to be brought into the current century by those you say have no right to be there.

Delusional. Poorly educated.

 

[Dutch Oven]

The solution is [edit] a 2 state solution going back to 1967 borders

So, give occupied land back to Jordan and Syria? What has that got to do with establishing a Palestinian state?

 

[Kautilya]

You have to compromise in peace deals. Arafat refused to compromise.

Also I noticed you're conveniently not responding to Clinton's claim Hamas hides in hospitals, schools and highly populous areas .
Those were his exact words. Will you now admit you were wrong??

The 1967 borders are the compromise. The no compromise position would be that the state of Israel shouldn't even exist. Which it shouldn't. It was formed illegitimately. But not even Hamas is asking for that.

And what makes you think Clinton's claims are trustworthy?. Did you forget that the US govt is bought and paid for?

And even if it were true did you forget Hamas are Palestinians who live in Gaza? And did you forget that per international law it is still a genocidal war crime to bomb hospitals or schools even if Hamas members hide there?

 

[Dutch Oven]

Delusional. Poorly educated.

You are unquestionably one of the goofiest posters we've had here in a while, and that's saying something! You are as truly "out there" and alien as your handle suggests! If this is all just a big gag, your level of commitment makes it hard to distinguish from legit lunacy. Maybe, in some perverse way, this might make it your "tour de force" portrayal of an unsound mind (like Jack Nicholson in The Shining). I guess you'll have to take your bows privately, as I don't expect you to break the 4th wall at this point.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

And what makes you think Clinton's claims are trustworthy?. Did you forget that the US govt is bought and paid for?

I think most rational people will believe Clinton over Kautilya from Terb

And even if it were true did you forget Hamas are Palestinians who live in Gaza? And did you forget that per international law it is still a genocidal war crime to bomb hospitals or schools even if Hamas members hide there?

See, you're wrong again.
If an enemy fires as a little as one bullet from a school or hospital, those locations then become fair game.
Somebody posted the exact lettering of the Geneva Accord a few months ago, but I'm too lazy to search for it

 

[Kautilya]

I think most rational people will believe Clinton over Kautilya from Terb


See, you're wrong again.
If an enemy fires as a little as one bullet from a school or hospital, those locations then become fair game.
Somebody posted the exact lettering of the Geneva Accord a few months ago, but I'm too lazy to search for it

Don't take my word for it. Go read the AIPAC website and hear it from the horse's mouth.

Nope you are wrong. A proportionality analysis has to be done. If the military advantage gained by killing civilians along with say a few Hamas foot soldiers does not exceed civilian lives lost then it is a war crime.

DinkleMouse explained it. If Hitler was admitted in a hospital along with 1000 patients it wouldn't be a war crime to kill Hitler along with the 1000 patients because the military advantage gained is the END of WW2 with millions of lives saved.

What military advantage exists in killing a few Hamas foot soldiers when the leadership does not even live in Gaza? Nothing. Infact every attack creates more Hamas. Hence the advantage gained is in the negative. Hence war crime per international law. I am not even going to go into genocide for now. It is a war crime to start with.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Don't take my word for it. Go read the AIPAC website and hear it from the horse's mouth.

I'll take Clinton's word over AIPAC

A proportionality analysis has to be done. If the military advantage gained by killing civilians along with say a few Hamas foot soldiers does not exceed civilian lives lost then it is a war crime.

DinkleMouse explained it. If Hitler was admitted in a hospital along with 1000 patients it wouldn't be a war crime to kill Hitler along with the 1000 patients because the military advantage gained is the END of WW2 with millions of lives saved.

What military advantage exists in killing a few Hamas foot soldiers when the leadership does not even live in Gaza? Nothing. Infact every attack creates more Hamas. Hence the advantage gained is in the negative. Hence war crime per international law. I am not even going to go into genocide for now. It is a war crime to start with

This is simply not true

 

[canada-man]

The solution is either a one state solution or a 2 state solution going back to 1967 borders and removal of ALL settlements. Negotiating acceptance of land theft isnt going to be accepted and the Palestinians are not wrong in refusing such "deals".

The West Bank was part of Jordan and the Gaza strip part of Egypt before 1967
I agree give back those lands to Jordan and Egypt.