The clown show known as the Biden impeachment hearings

[Frankfooter]

Good. The "AIPAC secretly controls the US budget" was something I would think you would want to avoid.
As I said when the bill came out - it was contain a lot of fucking horrible shit because it was must pass or the government would shut down.

They don't control the budget but they do manage to keep billions flowing for bombs to support the genocide.

No.
I was expecting you to accidentally prove that your accusation that AIPAC controls the US budget was false, which you did.

I did show that AIPAC brags, as does Netanyahu, about getting support for Israel passed through congress.

And that's your problem, Frank.
Like many of the chronically online, you are more concerned that people preformatively have the reaction you demand and then assume all kinds of things about people if they don't post the things you want in the way you want.

You can declare that its performative to actually state that destroying all universities and assassinating profs if you like.
Just like you can declare that to yourself that its pragmatic to support genocide because there is an election happening soon. Justify your actions how you see fit, but they are still your actions. And declaring that its performative to state genocide is bad is an action.

You took the time to think and reply to this and a series of posts on this subject, despite claiming you didn't want to wade in. You've repeatedly focused on Hamas' actions, justifying why you think its pragmatic to support genocide and how you think it shows people aren't as smart as you, or don't understand politics as well as you, to call out Biden and refuse to support him because of his support of genocide.

Your problem is that you think you're being neutral or you think you appear neutral when you clearly aren't.

While you did call out shack for false claims about the ICJ provisional measures you also have not taken issue with any other supporter of Israel.

We have a UNSC demand for a ceasefire, two ICJ demands through provisional measures and a UN report labelling Israeli actions as genocide.
There are multiple reports from the WHO, UNICEF, MSF and others on famine in Gaza. But you focused another discussion on Hamas and whether they should agree to a ceasefire.

UNICEF says there are 500,000 people in Gaza getting close to this state and Biden chose to send another 1,800 two thousand pound bombs to Gaza.
'Pragmatic'?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1773747866751680786

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1771520046591877182

 

[Valcazar]

You took the time to think and reply to this and a series of posts on this subject, despite claiming you didn't want to wade in.

Which I have mostly still stayed out of.
I have been interested only in your logic and your political arguments and what I see as inconsistency there.
Most specifically, in your understanding of the American political system and the predictable effects of the actions you have encouraged.
(And also the parts where you just misread or misrepresented things.)

That's it, Frank.
I'm not engaged in a discussion with you on what Israel is doing.
Or what Hamas is doing, as you may have noticed.

You seem to think I am, though.

Your problem is that you think you're being neutral or you think you appear neutral when you clearly aren't.

I remember.
You explained quite confidently how completely obvious it was that I was absolutely pro-Israel in every way.

While you did call out shack for false claims about the ICJ provisional measures you also have not taken issue with any other supporter of Israel.

Shack was, like you, either midreading or misrepresenting the text.
I also, if you recall, called out Butler on his gleeful embrace of war crimes as a positive good.

 

[Frankfooter]

Which I have mostly still stayed out of.
I have been interested only in your logic and your political arguments and what I see as inconsistency there.
Most specifically, in your understanding of the American political system and the predictable effects of the actions you have encouraged.
(And also the parts where you just misread or misrepresented things.)

That's it, Frank.
I'm not engaged in a discussion with you on what Israel is doing.
Or what Hamas is doing, as you may have noticed.

You seem to think I am, though.

You are taking a side by choosing to frame questions only about Hamas. You may think you are being unbiased but then I expect so does mandrill and shack. Stating that you think support of genocide is 'pragmatic' is taking a side, saying that anyone who doesn't agree with your views on supporting Biden doesn't understand the American political system is taking a side. You are presenting both implicit and explicit bias here, which you clearly don't see.

If you truly believe that you have no questions about the logic of shack, leimonis or mandrill and their rationale for supporting Israel that's an example of implicit bias. Maybe its the question of Biden losing support and possibly the election over his choice to become Genocide Joe that started these discussions, but the way you frame those questions also shows bias.

I remember.
You explained quite confidently how completely obvious it was that I was absolutely pro-Israel in every way.

'In every way'? That's a straw man, I argue that you show bias in who and why you respond even if you stay away from direct answers.

Shack was, like you, either midreading or misrepresenting the text.
I also, if you recall, called out Butler on his gleeful embrace of war crimes as a positive good.

If you remember, you didn't show I was misrepresenting the text.

 

[Valcazar]

You are taking a side by choosing to frame questions only about Hamas.

I still don't know why you keep interpreting questions about you as being about Hamas.

saying that anyone who doesn't agree with your views on supporting Biden doesn't understand the American political system is taking a side

That is absolutely taking a side (or rather, arguing a side) on the issue of what the actual practical effects of the voting system in the US is.
Of course it is.

'In every way'? That's a straw man/

No it isn't.
You flat out said I was obviously completely pro-Israel.

If you remember, you didn't show I was misrepresenting the text.

You were misrepresenting the polls.
You were misinterpreting the text.

 

[Frankfooter]

I still don't know why you keep interpreting questions about you as being about Hamas.

I almost never post about Hamas, so when all of your questions seem geared towards my attitude towards Hamas flags go up.
All those who commit war crimes should be taken to trial, Hamas or Israeli.

That is absolutely taking a side (or rather, arguing a side) on the issue of what the actual practical effects of the voting system in the US is.
Of course it is.

Correction, on what you deem is 'practical'.
Your views are your own and your attitude mocks 'Never Again'.

You were misrepresenting the polls.
You were misinterpreting the text.

Prove I misrepresented the ICJ rulings or polls.
I think I was accurate.

 

[Valcazar]

I almost never post about Hamas, so when all of your questions seem geared towards my attitude towards Hamas flags go up.

They aren't questions about your attitude towards Hamas.
They are follow ups on things you said about what Hamas should do.

Your views are your own and your attitude mocks 'Never Again'.

Back to this being all about your feelings, I see.

Prove I misrepresented the ICJ rulings or polls.
I think I was accurate.

We aren't going down that rabbit hole again.
If you want to , you can review the thread.

 

[Frankfooter]

They aren't questions about your attitude towards Hamas.
They are follow ups on things you said about what Hamas should do.

Same thing. You're trying to find logical weaknesses in my claims to try to weaken support of Palestinian rights.
Are you going to argue that my statements against Israeli human rights abuse and genocide are totally correct and not worthy of debate, are you also going to say the same of shack, mandrill and other's support of Israeli actions? Or are you going to continue to focus only Hamas the way that shack and basketcase mention the word in every post, as a way of trying to dehumanize Palestinians to justify genocide?

Back to this being all about your feelings, I see.

No, this is about your personal feelings that run contrary to the views of millions of people in the US. Your attempt to claim that your views are some sort of academic universal truth about political wisdom are your feelings and my arguments are based of respecting the lesson from the Holocaust, Never Again, working to support international law, human rights and to work against racism and colonialism as repeated through mass protests globally. Your views are closer to academic establishment, don't rock the boat, support the feudal tenure system and be 'pragmatic' to keep it all running, even if that academic system is its own colonial enterprise.

Your claim that supporting 'Never Again' is based on feelings is just your attempt to justify your support of genocide because you're worried about an election.

We aren't going down that rabbit hole again.
If you want to , you can review the thread.

I have no need to, I know that you pasted an image of text from the body of the ruling and only after I quoted and linked the full additional measures in the ruling did you change your argument.

 

[Valcazar]

Same thing. You're trying to find logical weaknesses in my claims to try to weaken support of Palestinian rights.

No.
That's what you believe.

Are you going to argue that my statements against Israeli human rights abuse and genocide are totally correct and not worthy of debate, are you also going to say the same of shack, mandrill and other's support of Israeli actions? Or are you going to continue to focus only Hamas the way that shack and basketcase mention the word in every post, as a way of trying to dehumanize Palestinians to justify genocide?

I am going to ask for clarity on things that seem inconsistent and correct specific misstatements when I notice either and I can be bothered.
Given I am not on all day everyday like some of you, this isn't going to be anything like what you would prefer.

Your claim that supporting 'Never Again' is based on feelings...

That you believe that is what I claimed is part of why you are having so much difficulty understanding this.

I have no need to, I know that you pasted an image of text from the body of the ruling and only after I quoted and linked the full additional measures in the ruling did you change your argument.

That's nonsense and untrue.

 

[Frankfooter]

No.
That's what you believe.
I am going to ask for clarity on things that seem inconsistent and correct specific misstatements when I notice either and I can be bothered.
Given I am not on all day everyday like some of you, this isn't going to be anything like what you would prefer.
That you believe that is what I claimed is part of why you are having so much difficulty understanding this.
That's nonsense and untrue.

None of that changes the fact that you repeatedly focused on the word 'Hamas', ignored other issues and justified supporting genocide as 'pragmatic' because of an upcoming election.

All of that is correct, as was my interpretation of the ICJ ruling.

All of that shows bias whether you admit it or not.