Jump to content

Israel


SmokeyBear1861

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It’s almost like there’s a pattern out there of how excusing leads to tolerating leads to coddling leads to accepting leads to party capture and that loons need to be policed and excluded. Not excused.

It’s also almost like for extreme edge-lords, it’s the extremism and the anger that’s the draw and not the politics and they will go where they can get that fix. 

Can't argue with you there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Cancel culture on elite liberal campuses is undermining academic freedom and exchange"

"These universities need to be cancelled cause they won't suppress all forms of pro-palestinian speech and label it genocide"

Try to hold these two thoughts simultaneously in your mind and see how much it hurts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can acknowledge that this was essentially a “gotcha” question asked by a ghoul of a human being not in good faith. I can also acknowledge that, under oath, it may be difficult to give an unequivocal response that satisfies both the politicians and the University rules. I can acknowledge that their answer does not necessarily make them antisemitic.

But if it’s not antisemitism, then it’s incompetence. If they were not able to prepare for this exact question and develop an answer that does not basically sound like “lol who gives a fuck about the Jews” then they are not fit to hold their current office.

They walked into a hearing that was begging for a Fox News headline, and were unprepared enough that they ended up giving an answer that I’ve seen ALL over the internet today - even from non-political folks. Inexcusable from individuals tasked with leading higher education in this country.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, 'stache said:

The question is meant to equate all support for Palestinians with calling for genocide of the Jews.

Yeah, I mean, that's what 956 believes. He agrees with her, he's not hiding it at all. It's why he posts more in the DT thread now, where his pro-Palestinian genocidal views are less likely to be challenged. He's not worth engaging on this topic. He's just going try to gaslight you in the same way Stefanik does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It’s almost like there’s a pattern out there of how excusing leads to tolerating leads to coddling leads to accepting leads to party capture and that loons need to be policed and excluded. Not excused.

Now apply this line of thinking to those who continue to support Israel. 

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-many-palestinians-have-died-gaza-war-how-will-counting-continue-2023-12-06/

Quote

 Israeli forces unleashed an aerial and ground blitz against Hamas in Gaza after a cross-border rampage by the enclave's ruling Islamist group on Oct. 7. At least 16,015 Palestinians have been killed since then, according to Gaza Health Ministry figures, while 1,200 people were killed in Hamas' incursion into Israel, according to Israeli tallies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a photo, and I hope I don’t have to copy it here. It is from October 7, and it was taken by Hamas affiliated photographers. It shows a young woman, nabbed from the music festival. She was near naked, bleeding from her groin (she had been raped by many “men”, and the blood was either from brutal intrusions or-and one hates to mention this kind of detail, but it happened often- from knife thrusts into her vagina). Her right leg was formed into several unnatural angles; it is difficult to imagine the process(es) by which it had been broken so often and severely. 
 
She was in the back of a pickup truck heading to Gaza; the intent seems to have been to keep her as a hostage. Evidently, at some point, they realized how impractical that was- the effort to keep her alive after those injuries and the problems coming as a survivor relating her horrors- so they killed her and dumped her along the way. She was found with her head severed, and no one can say whether the decapitation was the coup de grace, or some post death ritual debasement. 
 
These acts, committed on this young woman, and many others, were not the results of chaos, anger and opportunity. They were the plan. the Hamas leaders are and were proud of them and freely admit plans for more of the same. 
 
Israel could negotiate with Hamas. That would be a reward for October 7, and so there will be more October 7’s. 
  
Israel could just have a limited military engagement, get a tit for tat, maybe a little more, and call it good, leaving Hamas and its Iranian funders intact. Again, there will be more October 7’s. 
 
Israel decided, instead, to slay the monsters, along with many of the innocents that the monsters hide among. That is tragic, but, for the life of me, I can’t think of a better option. 

Edited by statsman
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I can acknowledge that this was essentially a “gotcha” question asked by a ghoul of a human being not in good faith. I can also acknowledge that, under oath, it may be difficult to give an unequivocal response that satisfies both the politicians and the University rules. I can acknowledge that their answer does not necessarily make them antisemitic.

But if it’s not antisemitism, then it’s incompetence. If they were not able to prepare for this exact question and develop an answer that does not basically sound like “lol who gives a fuck about the Jews” then they are not fit to hold their current office.

They walked into a hearing that was begging for a Fox News headline, and were unprepared enough that they ended up giving an answer that I’ve seen ALL over the internet today - even from non-political folks. Inexcusable from individuals tasked with leading higher education in this country.

This.  Did their lobbyists not murder board them before the hearing?  And I personally know the MIT lobbyist.  They should all be unemployed this morning. 

Once again, we are having a version of the "Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from consequences" debate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

This.  Did their lobbyists not murder board them before the hearing?  And I personally know the MIT lobbyist.  They should all be unemployed this morning. 

Once again, we are having a version of the "Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from consequences" debate. 

I have no doubt that Stefanik had a bunch of garbage gotcha questions lurking farther down in her paper.  But instead all of them walked into the doorframe so there was no need for the bucket of slime to crash down, she just sat there and watched them bonk into it again and again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, statsman said:

There is a photo, and I hope I don’t have to copy it here. It is from October 7, and it was taken by Hamas affiliated photographers. It shows a young woman, nabbed from the music festival. She was near naked, bleeding from her groin (she had been raped by many “men”, and the blood was either from brutal intrusions or-and one hates to mention this kind of detail, but it happened often- from knife thrusts into her vagina). Her right leg was formed into several unnatural angles; it is difficult to imagine the process(es) by which it had been broken so often and severely. 
 
She was in the back of a pickup truck heading to Gaza; the intent seems to have been to keep her as a hostage. Evidently, at some point, they realized how impractical that was- the effort to keep her alive after those injuries and the problems coming as a survivor relating her horrors- so they killed her and dumped her along the way. She was found with her head severed, and no one can say whether the decapitation was the coup de grace, or some post death ritual debasement. 
 
These acts, committed on this young woman, and many others, were not the results of chaos, anger and opportunity. They were the plan. the Hamas leaders are and were proud of them and freely admit plans for more of the same. 
 
Israel could negotiate with Hamas. That would be a reward for October 7, and so there will be more October 7’s. 
  
Israel could just have a limited military engagement, get a tit for tat, maybe a little more, and call it good, leaving Hamas and its Iranian funders intact. Again, there will be more October 7’s. 
 
Israel decided, instead, to slay the monsters, along with many of the innocents that the monsters hide among. That is tragic, but, for the life of me, I can’t think of a better option. 

Somewhere someone online is typing up an incredibly similar post about all of the dead children Israel has bombed and ranting about how peace with Israel is not possible because they're inhuman monsters. 

This is not to defend Hamas or downplay the horrors of what they did on 10/7 or the horrors they've inflicted upon the Palestinian people for whom they're supposedly responsible.  It's a fact of war.  Humans have and will always inflict what seems like unimaginable cruelty on others during war.  Hamas isn't unique in that regard and they're certainly not worse than the nazis were (saying that they are arguably gets pretty close to a form of holocaust denial).  You can read similar stories about atrocities committed by Israeli soldiers against Palestinans, by Japanese soldiers against Koreans and Chinese in WW2, by American soldiers against Vietnamese people, hell by American police against American children.

Every person on this planet from every ethnic and religious background is capable of doing great good and of committing horrible acts. That's the human condition. Every person on this planet has the urge you're demonstrating here: to excuse cruelty against innocent people because of the perceived inhumanity of the enemy. That only results in more cruelty in response.

There's an unfortunate calculus involved when determining the "collateral damage" that is morally "acceptable" to inflict when going after a group like Hamas or ISIS who needs to be destroyed by military force.  It's not possible to do that without killing innocent people too. But when you start thinking "fuck it, it doesn't matter how many innocent people I kill because they started it so it's entirely their fault" you take a big fucking step down the road to becoming as bad as them.  How do you think they got to thinking the same about Israeli civilians?

Edited by wildcat09
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

This is not to defend Hamas or downplay the horrors of what they did on 10/7 or the horrors they've inflicted upon the Palestinian people for whom they're supposedly responsible.  It's a fact of war.  Humans have and will always inflict what seems like unimaginable cruelty on others during war.  Hamas isn't unique in that regard and they're certainly not worse than the nazis were (saying that they are arguably gets pretty close to a form of holocaust denial).  You can read similar stories about atrocities committed by Israeli soldiers against Palestinans, by Japanese soldiers against Koreans and Chinese in WW2, by American soldiers against Vietnamese people, hell by American police against American children.

 

I don’t think we are ever going to get anywhere so long as we insist in treating October 7 as an awful and unfortunate side effect of war and not as the end-goal.   We keep going around in circles on this even though there’s a a substantial body of international law dedicated to exactly this. 
 

Parsing out your examples: 

- SS: Committing atrocities is their raison d’être; it is both sanctioned and directed by political leadership because leadership viewed the extermination of undesirable groups as a strategic aim. 
 

- Wehrmacht and IJA: Committing atrocities is an integral part of their strategy while pursuing a military aim.  Political and strategic leadership directed and sanctioned the atrocities as a means to pacify a civilian population and bring it under full control.  Perpetrators are celebrated and promoted. 
 

- U.S. Armed Forces in Vietnam: Atrocities are committed during the pursuit of a military aim.  Leadership does not direct and sanction the atrocities on a political or strategic level but may do so at the operational or lower level; perpetrators are subject to a spectrum of discipline.  Atrocities are not a central aim nor critical to the military mission. 
 

There’s an argument to be had as to where Hamas and IDF fall on that spectrum (I’d say Hamas trends towards the SS end and the IDF to the U.S. end) but it’s a grave mistake to wipe away the spectrum completely. 
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Somewhere someone online is typing up an incredibly similar post about all of the dead children Israel has bombed and ranting about how peace with Israel is not possible because they're inhuman monsters. 

This is not to defend Hamas or downplay the horrors of what they did on 10/7 or the horrors they've inflicted upon the Palestinian people for whom they're supposedly responsible.  It's a fact of war.  Humans have and will always inflict what seems like unimaginable cruelty on others during war.  Hamas isn't unique in that regard and they're certainly not worse than the nazis were (saying that they are arguably gets pretty close to a form of holocaust denial).  You can read similar stories about atrocities committed by Israeli soldiers against Palestinans, by Japanese soldiers against Koreans and Chinese in WW2, by American soldiers against Vietnamese people, hell by American police against American children.

Every person on this planet from every ethnic and religious background is capable of doing great good and of committing horrible acts. That's the human condition. Every person on this planet has the urge you're demonstrating here: to excuse cruelty against innocent people because of the perceived inhumanity of the enemy. That only results in more cruelty in response.

There's an unfortunate calculus involved when determining the "collateral damage" that is morally "acceptable" to inflict when going after a group like Hamas or ISIS who needs to be destroyed by military force.  It's not possible to do that without killing innocent people to. But when you start thinking "fuck it, it doesn't matter how many innocent people I kill because they started it so it's entirely their fault" you take a big fucking step down the road to becoming as bad as them.  How do you think they got to thinking the same about Israeli civilians?

But if you ignore all of that, it becomes much easier to use atrocity porn to dehumanize the other side and justify military action against a civilian population

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Somewhere someone online is typing up an incredibly similar post about all of the dead children Israel has bombed and ranting about how peace with Israel is not possible because they're inhuman monsters. 

This is not to defend Hamas or downplay the horrors of what they did on 10/7 or the horrors they've inflicted upon the Palestinian people for whom they're supposedly responsible.  It's a fact of war.  Humans have and will always inflict what seems like unimaginable cruelty on others during war.  Hamas isn't unique in that regard and they're certainly not worse than the nazis were (saying that they are arguably gets pretty close to a form of holocaust denial).  You can read similar stories about atrocities committed by Israeli soldiers against Palestinans, by Japanese soldiers against Koreans and Chinese in WW2, by American soldiers against Vietnamese people, hell by American police against American children.

Every person on this planet from every ethnic and religious background is capable of doing great good and of committing horrible acts. That's the human condition. Every person on this planet has the urge you're demonstrating here: to excuse cruelty against innocent people because of the perceived inhumanity of the enemy. That only results in more cruelty in response.

There's an unfortunate calculus involved when determining the "collateral damage" that is morally "acceptable" to inflict when going after a group like Hamas or ISIS who needs to be destroyed by military force.  It's not possible to do that without killing innocent people to. But when you start thinking "fuck it, it doesn't matter how many innocent people I kill because they started it so it's entirely their fault" you take a big fucking step down the road to becoming as bad as them.  How do you think they got to thinking the same about Israeli civilians?

I explained why I believed Israel had to respond to the threat of Hamas, and why their choice, lethal as it is to the civilians Hamas shelters among, is their best (least worst) option. 
 
Do you disagree that the government of Israel, which has to stand for popular elections) has to respond?

Do you think there is a better option for them?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

But if you ignore all of that, it becomes much easier to use atrocity porn to dehumanize the other side and justify military action against a civilian population

No. Not de-humanize. What Hamas did/does is all too human. I was very careful in my choice of words. 
 
Hamas are monsters. From the beginning of humanity, society has to eliminate monsters. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I don’t think we are ever going to get anywhere so long as we insist in treating October 7 as an awful and unfortunate side effect of war and not as the end-goal.   We keep going around in circles on this even though there’s a a substantial body of international law dedicated to exactly this. 
 

Parsing out your examples: 

- SS: Committing atrocities is their raison d’être; it is both sanctioned and directed by political leadership because leadership viewed the extermination of undesirable groups as a strategic aim. 
 

- Wehrmacht and IJA: Committing atrocities is an integral part of their strategy while pursuing a military aim.  Political and strategic leadership directed and sanctioned the atrocities as a means to pacify a civilian population and bring it under full control.  Perpetrators are celebrated and promoted. 
 

- U.S. Armed Forces in Vietnam: Atrocities are committed during the pursuit of a military aim.  Leadership does not direct and sanction the atrocities on a political or strategic level but may do so at the operational or lower level; perpetrators are subject to a spectrum of discipline.  Atrocities are not a central aim nor critical to the military mission. 
 

There’s an argument to be had as to where Hamas and IDF fall on that spectrum (I’d say Hamas trends towards the SS end and the IDF to the U.S. end) but it’s a grave mistake to wipe away the spectrum completely. 
 

 

I don't think anything I said could be reasonably read as trying to wipe away that spectrum. The point of my comments wasn't on where Hamas falls on that spectrum, but on the disregard for the humanity of Palestinian people based on acts carried out by Hamas.

I do think it's wrong to say that US leadership during Vietnam did not direct or sanction atrocities. Kissinger himself micromanaged bombings in Cambodia and Laos himself and often picked civilian villages with no enemy combatants as targets, pretty much for shits and giggles. He really fucking loved being the one making those decisions. We, and the IDF, have often not clearly been morally better than our enemies. Those instances when we've failed to be result from exactly the reactive, emotional mindset I cautioned against in my prior post.  When we are better, it's not because of some innate goodness that others simply lack the capacity for, but because we listen to that caution (and have built protocols and institutions that require us to do so) and don't give in to our emotional need for revenge.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think it’s “revenge” that is the motivation to eliminate Hamas. It’s common sense. You either eliminate Hamas, or you pack up and move (Iran is fine with both, although they reserve the right to pursue their final solution globally). 

Edited by statsman
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't think anything I said could be reasonably read as trying to wipe away that spectrum. The point of my comments wasn't on where Hamas falls on that spectrum, but on the disregard for the humanity of Palestinian people based on acts carried out by Hamas.

I do think it's wrong to say that US leadership during Vietnam did not direct or sanction atrocities. Kissinger himself micromanaged bombings in Cambodia and Laos himself and often picked civilian villages with no enemy combatants as targets, pretty much for shits and giggles. He really fucking loved being the one making those decisions. We, and the IDF, have often not clearly been morally better than our enemies. Those instances when we've failed to be result from exactly the reactive, emotional mindset I cautioned against in my prior post.  When we are better, it's not because of some innate goodness that others simply lack the capacity for, but because we listen to that caution (and have built protocols and institutions that require us to do so) and don't give in to our emotional need for revenge.   

I think that you can have a robust debate on bombing campaigns, my understanding is that we were focusing on the “on the ground” type stuff like My Lai or the IJA and Wehrmacht everywhere. You’d also want to talk about Bomber Harris and the European strategic campaigns. 
 

Agree with @statsman that eliminating Hamas isn’t about “revenge.” 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2023 at 7:10 PM, Chuckie Finster said:

I can acknowledge that this was essentially a “gotcha” question asked by a ghoul of a human being not in good faith. I can also acknowledge that, under oath, it may be difficult to give an unequivocal response that satisfies both the politicians and the University rules. I can acknowledge that their answer does not necessarily make them antisemitic.

But if it’s not antisemitism, then it’s incompetence. If they were not able to prepare for this exact question and develop an answer that does not basically sound like “lol who gives a fuck about the Jews” then they are not fit to hold their current office.

They walked into a hearing that was begging for a Fox News headline, and were unprepared enough that they ended up giving an answer that I’ve seen ALL over the internet today - even from non-political folks. Inexcusable from individuals tasked with leading higher education in this country.

image.png?t=1701906846

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2023 at 5:10 PM, Anastasis said:

"Cancel culture on elite liberal campuses is undermining academic freedom and exchange"

"These universities need to be cancelled cause they won't suppress all forms of pro-palestinian speech and label it genocide"

Try to hold these two thoughts simultaneously in your mind and see how much it hurts.  

My preference would be for college campuses to be like UT in the ‘80s- a broad and expansive field for debate, even offensive debate. 
 
But that’s not common among the most popular universities. FIRE ranks campuses for tolerance for free speech- Harvard ranks last and Penn second to last. They are comfortable codifying the boundaries of allowed speech. Which, they are allowed to do. 
 
So, when asked about incidences of tolerated speech that is offensive and even threatening to Jewish students, they start talking up free speech, sounding like Voltaire. That is disingenuous (just as, you noted, these former proponents of free speech ante now calling for regulating), and that’s what they’re being called out for. 

Edited by statsman
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2023 at 8:04 PM, Boss Hogg said:

Young people are fucking stupid, and loud. And taught by idiots like this.  

 

Evidence for the “Young People are Stupid” crowd, one in five think the Holocaust is a myth.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/12/07/one-in-five-young-americans-think-the-holocaust-is-a-myth

 

image.jpeg.9ab6915742059cf3d7e339902ec954d9.jpeg

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.thumb.png.e80c1774d54ce16901f84fcfd2517a32.png

image.thumb.png.3c2d9c6869d6127002ace18d8f4c5155.png

 

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-un-resolution-ceasefire-humanitarian-6d3bfd31d6c25168e828274d96b85cf8

BY EDITH M. LEDERER

Updated 6:13 PM CST, December 8, 2023

Share

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The United States vetoed a United Nations resolution Friday backed by almost all other Security Council members and dozens of other nations demanding an immediate humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza. Supporters called it a terrible day and warned of more civilian deaths and destruction as the war goes into its third month.

The vote in the 15-member council was 13-1, with the United Kingdom abstaining. The United States’ isolated stand reflected a growing fracture between Washington and some of its closest allies over Israel’s monthslong bombardment of Gaza. France and Japan were among those supporting the call for a cease-fire.

 

 

It's easier to accept if you just close your eyes and whisper things like "decency" and "we the people" to yourself.

 

 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went back and read the resolution. I didn’t see any calls for Hamas to cease military actions nor any concerns about Israeli civilians. 
 
There are two war zones in the world. The UN resolution calling for Russia to cease its invasion was voted against by many nations calling for Israel to cease its attack on Hamas. 
 
Fascinating

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I really want to know why Magill is smiling the whole time. Either way, these are revolting people.

To Anastasis's point, I like freedom of speech so I don't think a chant constitutes "harassment". But the presidents are completely blind to the fact that a large portion of their student body, and even their faculty, supports terrorism. And these assholes aggressively censor speech on a minute to minute basis. Fuck them all, they are evil personified and the enemy of reasoned academic discourse

The academy cannot be saved.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
I really want to know why Magill is smiling the whole time. Either way, these are revolting people.
To Anastasis's point, I like freedom of speech so I don't think a chant constitutes "harassment". But the presidents are completely blind to the fact that a large portion of their student body, and even their faculty, supports terrorism. And these assholes aggressively censor speech on a minute to minute basis. Fuck them all, they are evil personified and the enemy of reasoned academic discourse
The academy cannot be saved.
 

Says a man who supports a party that couldn’t even agree not to associate with avowed Nazis.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2023 at 8:54 AM, Bateshorn said:

This.  Did their lobbyists not murder board them before the hearing?  And I personally know the MIT lobbyist.  They should all be unemployed this morning. 

Once again, we are having a version of the "Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from consequences" debate. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/business/dealbook/wilmerhale-penn-harvard-mit-antisemitism-hearing.html

 

One Law Firm Prepared Both Penn and Harvard for Hearing on Antisemitism

The presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and M.I.T. came under fire after dodging questions about their policies.

 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I legitimately don't know if responding to you with the below in the DT thread would be considered too political, so apologies for quoting you to reply here.

Anyway, Bibi was all too happy to allow Qataris to bring suitcases full of cash and as has been outlined previously, the Israeli far-right has long supported Hamas as its partner in Gaza to undermine the Palestinian Authority.

The NYTimes had a much more detailed article about all this in yesterday's paper.

No paywall link to the full article: ‘Buying Quiet’: Inside the Israeli Plan That Propped Up Hamas

Some excerpts:

Quote

 

During his meetings in September [just before the attacks] with the Qatari officials, according to several people familiar with the secret discussions, the Mossad chief, David Barnea, was asked a question that had not been on the agenda: Did Israel want the payments to continue?

Mr. Netanyahu’s government had recently decided to continue the policy, so Mr. Barnea said yes. The Israeli government still welcomed the money from Doha.

Allowing the payments — billions of dollars over roughly a decade — was a gamble by Mr. Netanyahu that a steady flow of money would maintain peace in Gaza, the eventual launching point of the Oct. 7 attacks, and keep Hamas focused on governing, not fighting.

 

 

Quote

Even as the Israeli military obtained battle plans for a Hamas invasion and analysts observed significant terrorism exercises just over the border in Gaza, the payments continued. For years, Israeli intelligence officers even escorted a Qatari official into Gaza, where he doled out money from suitcases filled with millions of dollars.

 

Quote

As far back as December 2012, Mr. Netanyahu told the prominent Israeli journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Mr. Margalit, in an interview, said that Mr. Netanyahu told him that having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state.

 

Quote

Qatar’s work in Gaza during this period was blessed by the Israeli government. And Mr. Netanyahu even lobbied Washington on Qatar’s behalf. In 2017, as Republicans pushed to impose financial sanctions on Qatar over its support for Hamas, he dispatched senior defense officials to Washington. The Israelis told American lawmakers that Qatar had played a positive role in the Gaza Strip, according to three people familiar with the trip.

 

Quote

 

Among the team of Mossad agents that tracked terrorism financing, some came to believe that — even beyond the money from Qatar — Mr. Netanyahu was not very concerned about stopping money going to Hamas.

Uzi Shaya, for example, made several trips to China to try to shut down what Israeli intelligence had assessed was a money-laundering operation for Hamas run through the Bank of China.

 

 

Quote

 

Shlomo Brom, a retired general and former deputy to Israel’s national security adviser, said an empowered Hamas helped Mr. Netanyahu avoid negotiating over a Palestinian state.

“One effective way to prevent a two-state solution is to divide between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank,” he said in an interview. The division gives Mr. Netanyahu an excuse to disengage from peace talks, Mr. Brom said, adding that he can say, “I have no partner.”

Mr. Netanyahu did not articulate this strategy publicly, but some on the Israeli political right had no such hesitation.

Bezalel Smotrich, a far-right politician who is now Mr. Netanyahu’s finance minister, put it bluntly in 2015, the year he was elected to Parliament.

“The Palestinian Authority is a burden,” he said. “Hamas is an asset.”

 

Quote

 

Each month, Israeli security officials met Mohammed al-Emadi, a Qatari diplomat, at the border between Israel and Jordan. From there, they drove him to the Kerem Shalom border crossing and into Gaza.

At first, Mr. Emadi brought with him $15 million to distribute, with $100 handed out at designated locations to each family approved by the Israeli government, according to former Israeli and American officials.

The funds were intended to pay salaries and other expenses, but one senior Western diplomat who was based in Israel until last year said that Western governments had long assessed that Hamas was skimming from the cash disbursements.

“Money is fungible,” said Chip Usher, a senior Middle East analyst at the C.I.A. until his retirement this year. “Anything that Hamas didn’t have to use out of its own budget freed up money for other things.”

 

 

Quote

 

It was hard to stop these military payments, he said, when Israel had become so reliant on Qatar.

Yossi Cohen, who managed the Qatari file for many years as the Mossad chief, came to question Israel’s policy toward the Gaza money. During his final year running the spy service, he believed there was little oversight over where the money was going.

In June 2021, Mr. Cohen gave his first public speech after retiring from the spy service. He said that the Qatari money to the Gaza Strip had gotten “out of control.”

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Good point.  They don't really want the war to end.  Carry on.

I mean you waltzed into the thread like the Trumpanzee dipshits used to come into the Trump threads and post "You guys got him yet?" so I was just curious as to who you were trying to get real good with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

 

 And don’t forget, this is ALL and ONLY about Palestine! 

It is disgusting to squeeze antisemitic hateful bullshit alongside, like, a real problem (tens of thousands of civilians dead). I hate that shit so much.

I understand that you're posting this only to not so subtly call everyone that criticizes Israel's actions antisemitic (for the 100th time in this thread), but the point still stands. It's not ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I understand that you're posting this only to not so subtly call everyone that criticizes Israel's actions antisemitic (for the 100th time in this thread), but the point still stands. It's not ok.

I appreciate your "it's not ok" sentiment. And I agree with you -- not everyone who criticizes Israel's actions is antisemitic or seeks to exterminate the Israeli state and/or the jewish people.

But maybe we can have a mature discussion about a pretty big problem.  There's a lot of daylight between "nobody who supports the Palestinians is genocidal against jews" and "all supporters of the Palestinians are antisemitic and want all jews to die."  Arguing either extreme is missing the point, that point being "what is the reality?"  And the reality is that a disturbingly large number of "Palestinian supporters" ARE antisemitic and call for the eliminiation of Israel and jews worldwide, or something frighteningly close to that.

If you are a member of a group of, say, 1,000 people, and 5 of them are antisemites, that's just an unfortunate function of the fact that a certain percentage of all people are shitheads.  But if you're a member of a group of 1,000 people and 200 of them are antisemites.....there's a big fucking problem.

The fact that it is very difficult to see and hear pro-Palestinian messages without ALSO seeing and hearing antisemitic messages is a big fucking problem.   The intractable problems of both "sides" are why this issue will never, ever, ever, ever come anywhere close to being "solved."  We'll just see them wearing increasingly blacker hats.

Israel: good argument that jews have a right to exist, and even have a right to a "safe state" where they will always have refuge from global antisemitism which regularly rears its ugly head.  BUT....in its zeal to "protect itself," Israel goes over the top in an orgy of violence, and even in times of peace, violently abuses and subjugates Palestinians in the occupied territories - a huge blow to any moral high ground Israel and the jewish people have.

Palestinians: a desperate and impoverished people who have been living largely as refugees for decades, many having lost ancestral homes.  They seek a future where they can live with security, peace, and a chance at prosperity.  BUT...a problematically large percentage of them support the extermination of jews, the complete end of Israel, and cheer on atrocities like the October 7th attacks - a huge blow to any moral high ground the Palestinian people and cause may have.

You have no problem with (correctly) calling out the fact that Israel and its supporters have a real problem - it's not some isolated, unfortunate thing that only a few people believe/do - with violence and oppression against Palestinians, overly destructive military responses, and the like.  But you bristle like hell when there's even a hint of someone suggesting that the Palestinian "side" has a similar problem (it's genocidal shitheels are not aberrations, but rather are a sizable element of the cause).  Open BOTH eyes.  See the full picture, in stereo.  At which point you will realize that it is truly hopeless, and the future is only more death and horrific suffering, for as long as humanity exists.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Just checking in to see if Hamas has surrendered and release all hostages since they want the war to end and all....?

Pretty disingenuous in my opinion to deny the existence of Palestine as a country and Hamas as a government, then get upset when they don't act like a government. It's because they aren't, they are terrorists, and should be treated as terrorists, not representatives of 2 million people. And just as a reminder, collective punishment is defined as a war crime.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But maybe we can have a mature discussion about a pretty big problem.  There's a lot of daylight between "nobody who supports the Palestinians is genocidal against jews" and "all supporters of the Palestinians are antisemitic and want all jews to die."  Arguing either extreme is missing the point, that point being "what is the reality?"  And the reality is that a disturbingly large number of "Palestinian supporters" ARE antisemitic and call for the eliminiation of Israel and jews worldwide, or something frighteningly close to that.

If you are a member of a group of, say, 1,000 people, and 5 of them are antisemites, that's just an unfortunate function of the fact that a certain percentage of all people are shitheads.  But if you're a member of a group of 1,000 people and 200 of them are antisemites.....there's a big fucking problem.

Yes, clearly it is a problem. The issue I have is, it's not like whatever percentage of Gazans have anti-Jewish sentiment baked into their fucking DNA. It's a learned sentiment that is passed down generation to generation, and it's only fed into by the actions of Israel and Hamas and their respective propaganda. I won't go as far as to say it's not their fault, because of course they bear some level of responsibility, but the deck is pretty stacked against them.

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The fact that it is very difficult to see and hear pro-Palestinian messages without ALSO seeing and hearing antisemitic messages is a big fucking problem.   The intractable problems of both "sides" are why this issue will never, ever, ever, ever come anywhere close to being "solved."  We'll just see them wearing increasingly blacker hats.

Yeah, I mean, it's also not surprising. It sucks, but it was inevitable that hateful, anti-Jewish rhetoric would find its way into pro-Palestinian messaging. Some of it is purposeful, and some is just plain ignorance, but none of it is ok.

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Israel: good argument that jews have a right to exist, and even have a right to a "safe state" where they will always have refuge from global antisemitism which regularly rears its ugly head.  BUT....in its zeal to "protect itself," Israel goes over the top in an orgy of violence, and even in times of peace, violently abuses and subjugates Palestinians in the occupied territories - a huge blow to any moral high ground Israel and the jewish people have.

Palestinians: a desperate and impoverished people who have been living largely as refugees for decades, many having lost ancestral homes.  They seek a future where they can live with security, peace, and a chance at prosperity.  BUT...a problematically large percentage of them support the extermination of jews, the complete end of Israel, and cheer on atrocities like the October 7th attacks - a huge blow to any moral high ground the Palestinian people and cause may have.

All of this is true, of course. I would expand upon it by saying that a desire to wipe out your oppressors is a rational point of view. Obviously, from the outside, X% of Palestinians hoping for the end of Israel and for Jews to be wiped out is an awful thing to see, but it's also understandable when you look at it from a standpoint of a desperate people wanting to be out from under the boot.

This isn't just true for the Palestinians, by the way. They're sold a lie that Jewish people are all evil, despotic freaks and that is why they're being oppressed, and Israelis (and Americans, very importantly) are sold a lie that Palestinians are all bloodthirsty orcs looking to pillage their country and kill them all. That's the only reason Netanyahu & Co. (along with firm backing from the American war machine) can get away with what they're doing.

Of course, the true problem is that some Israelis ARE evil, despotic freaks (meaning the right wing psychos in charge of the government and military), and some Gazans ARE bloodthirsty orcs that just want to kill Jews to punish them for whatever (Hamas), and those fucking people are IN CHARGE OF BOTH SIDES.

28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You have no problem with (correctly) calling out the fact that Israel and its supporters have a real problem - it's not some isolated, unfortunate thing that only a few people believe/do - with violence and oppression against Palestinians, overly destructive military responses, and the like.  But you bristle like hell when there's even a hint of someone suggesting that the Palestinian "side" has a similar problem (it's genocidal shitheels are not aberrations, but rather are a sizable element of the cause).  Open BOTH eyes.  See the full picture, in stereo.  At which point you will realize that it is truly hopeless, and the future is only more death and horrific suffering, for as long as humanity exists.

I mean, this is just straight up bullshit. I fully acknowledge and am fully aware of the problems on both sides. My problem is when people use the problems on the Palestinian side to justify the actions of Israel, and refuse to turn that same lens on the problems on the Israeli side. If we can't acknowledge that a lot of these problems stem from decades upon decades of ethnic cleansing, then what the fuck are we doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Pretty disingenuous in my opinion to deny the existence of Palestine as a country and Hamas as a government, then get upset when they don't act like a government. It's because they aren't, they are terrorists, and should be treated as terrorists, not representatives of 2 million people. And just as a reminder, collective punishment is defined as a war crime.

The Palestinians say they want a country (narrator "They don't") and now they're being treated like one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I fully acknowledge and am fully aware of the problems on both sides. My problem is when people use the problems on the Palestinian side to justify the actions of Israel, and refuse to turn that same lens on the problems on the Israeli side. If we can't acknowledge that a lot of these problems stem from decades upon decades of ethnic cleansing, then what the fuck are we doing?

You say that you are fully aware of the problems on both sides.  Then you lay the responsibility functionally SOLELY at the feet of Israel (I presume that's the side you're accusing of ethnic cleansing).  You came THIS close to getting it....but you just couldn't help running to the "Israel's bad, it's Israel's fault" corner of comfort when it gets down to nut-cutting time.  And THAT tendency - the tendency to, when it comes down to it, award Israel the black hat - is one of the very things that fuels Israel's stance of "why should we give a fuck what other people/countries think they're all against us anyway?"

In other words, everyone keeps providing more than enough fuel to the extremes of both sides to keep on keeping on.  And yes, "everyone" includes you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

The Palestinians say they want a country (narrator "They don't") and now they're being treated like one.

Not sure what the parenthetical is meant to convey other than justifying the extermination of 2 million people, but the fact is they had a country, until the western powers told them they didn't. That tends to cause hostility towards those who they are told are superior to them and have the right to occupy their former territory.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Not sure what the parenthetical is meant to convey other than justifying the extermination of 2 million people, but the fact is they had a country, until the western powers told them they didn't. That tends to cause hostility towards those who they are told are superior to them and have the right to occupy their former territory.

I mean, this is factually untrue. There has never, ever, ever been a country or nation called Palestine with self-rule in the Levant. The name itself is a creation of the Roman Empire and for centuries before World War I they were ruled by Turks and their figureheads. There’s been a lot of whitewashing, but the actual residents of “Palestine” pretty much hatred the Ottomans and kept starting campaigns against them. 
 

Let’s at least get the history right. The closest the Palestinians have ever been to having a nation called “Palestine” with self-rule and determination was during the derailed peace talks with Israel. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...