Was: Israel is at War; Now: Scoopers diagnose your anti-Semitism

[Hards Alumni]

You suggested a cease fire right after the horrific attack on Israeli civilians by Hamas. Then you said only the Israelis could have bombed the hospital in Gaza that the Palestinians bombed.

And then you claimed to be neutral and everyone had a good laugh.

I suggested it days later.  I didn't even join the thread until four days after the events.  But create your own narrative if you must.  And I still stand by the fact that the hospital bombing origin is unknown.

One more time for your thick skull.  I AM NEUTRAL.  BOTH SIDES HAVE COMMITTED DISGUSTING ATROCITIES AND SHOULD STOP.

[Heisenberg]

So your solution is to treat the Gaza strip like Dresden?  Do you think that if Israel goes that route the world will just stand by and watch it happen?  I have my doubts.  Furthermore, they'll probably alienate a ton of their allies if they do.

Furthermore, say Israel achieves a total victory and blows the Gaza Strip to hell... What happens in the West Bank?  Ethnic cleansing of the Arabs who live there?  Do you think this would have a positive impact on Israel's national security?  What is the final outcome?  Where does this end?  At this point, I'm genuinely curious.

No one said anything about ethnic cleansing. That is uninformed US progressive talk. 20% of Isreal population is Arab. How does ethnic cleansing work with one-fifth of your population Arab? (0% of Gaza is Jewish)

Israel said they would eliminate Hamas. They have to. Everyone from the US President to all European leaders (including Germany's Olaf Schultz on Tuesday) said they have the right to defend themselves.

Do not underestimate these words. It will be ugly and hard to look at. Everyone who said they had the right to defend themselves knows fully what this means. So, be ready. It is getting a lot worse before it gets better.

And if they successfully wipe out Hamas, what happens in the West Bank? Nothing. Because if they act up, Israel will do the same to them.

If Israel shows any weakness in any way, everyone will attack them, sensing they can exterminate the 8 million Jews.

This is why they formed a unity government, and Benny Gantz, the head of the liberal party, is saying the same things as Bibi about the need to eliminate Hamas and what it means.

These are the stakes. Don't pretend they are anything less.

----

If the Palestinians lay down their guns, the Middle East will have peace
If Israel lays down its weapons, Israel ceases to exist.

[Heisenberg]

I AM NEUTRAL.  BOTH SIDES HAVE COMMITTED DISGUSTING ATROCITIES AND SHOULD STOP.

Good people on both sides. Who said that? Remind me again?

[Skatastrophy]

Then, he could have had a better choice of words.

And since he advertises himself as the Sultan of Semantics, we are supposed to take him precisely.

And, again, he might have meant something else, but he should know for an American to say you can be "anti-Isreal" is not anti-Semitic in this context has a specific meaning.

lol you have the worst takes

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

Good people on both sides. Who said that? Remind me again?

We get it. You think all Palestinians are sub human. Your characterization of all of them being Hamas (or intentionally omitting civilians from the conversation) is pretty explicit.

[Hards Alumni]

We get it. You think all Palestinians are sub human. Your characterization of all of them being Hamas (or intentionally omitting civilians from the conversation) is pretty explicit.

Exactly. 

[Hards Alumni]

Good people on both sides. Who said that? Remind me again?

Do you dispute that both sides have committed war crimes?

[Pakuni]

The moment Heisey enters a thread, the discussion devolves.

[Skatastrophy]

Israeli defense officials are advocating for a preemptive strike against Hezbollah. US is urging against major strikes, Netanyahu has been cautious so far.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/20/us/politics/biden-israel-hezbollah-war.html

[Lennys Tap]

  And I still stand by the fact that the hospital bombing origin is unknown.

  And that Jesse Smollett was pummeled by a couple of Maga guys.

[21Jumpstreet]

I meant us nuking them.  Sorry.

You don't owe an apology, gotta say though, I was a little concerned for you.

[MU82]

  And that Jesse Smollett was pummeled by a couple of Maga guys.

And that the Central Park 5 should be executed.

[21Jumpstreet]

I assure you when you ask the average Westerner, they do not

This is my point! Uniformed Westerners think it is a Google Maps reference or a nursery rhyme, so they keep repeating it, thinking it is an innocent statement.

This phrase has a specific meaning, and yes, it was created by Luncatics in the Middle East (many of which you think don't lie about errant missiles hitting hospitals), hoping that uniformed Westerners will keep repeating it to make it a mainstream idea.

I'll ask again. From the River to the Sea (the Jordanian River to the Eastern Mediterranean), or the area now known as Isreal, Palestine will be free. So Israel will become Palestine.

So what happens to the 8 million Jews that live there now?

I agree with this. My wife asked me about the saying as I showed her a video of a demonstration at Penn. I told her some know the meaning and are antisemites. Some do not and are parroting extremely dangerous rhetoric that they do not understand. Ignorance is no excuse, and I think it's an opportunity to explain the disgusting nature of the saying.

[Heisenberg]

We get it. You think all Palestinians are sub human. Your characterization of all of them being Hamas (or intentionally omitting civilians from the conversation) is pretty explicit.

Are the Israelis sub-human?  Seven thousand three hundred rockets have been fired at them in the last 13 days, including hundreds today. Over 1500 were killed for being Jewish.

Please explain to me what is happening to them. Hint: their very existence is being threatened. What do you think happens if they don't respond forcefully?  What are they supposed to do? Explain to me what is a "proportional response."  What is your version?

[Heisenberg]

The moment Heisey enters a thread, the discussion devolves.

This is embarrassingly weak. You can do better.

[Heisenberg]

Do you dispute that both sides have committed war crimes?

Are the Israelis sub-human?  Seven thousand three hundred rockets have been fired at them in the last 13 days, including hundreds today. Over 1500 were killed for being Jewish.

Please explain to me what is happening to them. Hint: their very existence is being threatened. What do you think happens if they don't respond forcefully?  What are they supposed to do? Explain to me what is a "proportional response."  What is your version?

I already gave you mine.

[Pakuni]

This is embarrassingly weak. You can do better.

We both know it's true, though.

[Hards Alumni]

Are the Israelis sub-human?  Seven thousand three hundred rockets have been fired at them in the last 13 days, including hundreds today. Over 1500 were killed for being Jewish.

Please explain to me what is happening to them. Hint: their very existence is being threatened. What do you think happens if they don't respond forcefully?  What are they supposed to do? Explain to me what is a "proportional response."  What is your version?

I already gave you mine.

You can't answer my simple yes or no question, but expect me to go into an exposition to?

I've already gone to extreme lengths to explain what I believe should happen.  I'm not retyping the same thing over and over because you were suspiciously absent from the thread for a week and can't be bothered to find it.

[The Sultan]

Wrong, hey?

Nope.

[Heisenberg]

I agree with this. My wife asked me about the saying as I showed her a video of a demonstration at Penn. I told her some know the meaning and are antisemites. Some do not and are parroting extremely dangerous rhetoric that they do not understand. Ignorance is no excuse, and I think it's an opportunity to explain the disgusting nature of the saying.

Why are calls for genocide against Jews tolerated on college campuses? (the backlash is really building. See what is happening at Penn.)
How are Jewish students supposed to feel? Are they wrong to feel scared, afraid, and threatened?

Free speech? Many agree with this.  While I'm not against as an idea, answer this ....

Marquette University student Amina Dalieh - "Palestinians have every right to resist in the way they are resisting".


What if a student group rented a pickup and  loudspeaker and drove up and down Wisconsin Avenue saying this about George Floyd a week after he was killed

"Palestinians Minneapolis police officers have every right to resist in the way they are resisting".

Is this acceptable, and you would defend their right? What's the difference?

What if a student group rented a pickup and loudspeaker and drove up and down Wisconsin Avenue saying this about abortion?

"Palestinians Pro-lifers have every right to resist in the way they are resisting".

First Amendment? Nothing to see here?


What if a student group rented a pickup and loudspeaker and drove up and down Wisconsin Avenue saying this about transgenders?
"Palestinians sys-genders have every right to resist in the way they are resisting".

Is it perfectly ok to do this?

I could talk about religious groups, Areminans, and the like.

Again, I'm fine with the First Amendment argument, but let's go all the way. No exceptions.

[Heisenberg]

We both know it's true, though.

Yes, you can do better; now put your back into it.

[The Sultan]

Then, he could have had a better choice of words.

And since he advertises himself as the Sultan of Semantics, we are supposed to take him precisely.

And, again, he might have meant something else, but he should know for an American to say you can be "anti-Isreal" is not anti-Semitic in this context has a specific meaning.

Sorry I have to explain it to you like you're 4.

It's very clear from my posts in this topic that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself. But you are too busy pontificating and calling people anti-Semitic that apparently you can't keep things straight.

[Heisenberg]

You can't answer my simple yes or no question, but expect me to go into an exposition to?

I've already gone to extreme lengths to explain what I believe should happen.  I'm not retyping the same thing over and over because you were suspiciously absent from the thread for a week and can't be bothered to find it.

No one is sub-human. But two groups with incompatible world views want to eliminate each other. The only solution for peace is for one side to prevail.  Or they can keep killing each other slowly for the next 1,000 years like they have the last 1,000 years.

Yes, we all wish it did not have to be this way. But humans disagree and think differently, and conflict is, unfortunately, the only way to settle it.

[21Jumpstreet]

Why are calls for genocide against Jews tolerated on college campuses? (the backlash is really building. See what is happening at Penn.)
How are Jewish students supposed to feel? Are they wrong to feel scared, afraid, and threatened?

Free speech? Many agree with this.  While I'm not against as an idea, answer this ....

Marquette University student Amina Dalieh - "Palestinians have every right to resist in the way they are resisting".


What if a student group rented a pickup and  loudspeaker and drove up and down Wisconsin Avenue saying this about George Floyd a week after he was killed

"Palestinians Minneapolis police officers have every right to resist in the way they are resisting".

Is this acceptable, and you would defend their right? What's the difference?

What if a student group rented a pickup and loudspeaker and drove up and down Wisconsin Avenue saying this about abortion?

"Palestinians Pro-lifers have every right to resist in the way they are resisting".

First Amendment? Nothing to see here?


What if a student group rented a pickup and loudspeaker and drove up and down Wisconsin Avenue saying this about transgenders?
"Palestinians sys-genders have every right to resist in the way they are resisting".

Is it perfectly ok to do this?

I could talk about religious groups, Areminans, and the like.

Again, I'm fine with the First Amendment argument, but let's go all the way. No exceptions.

I'll speak to Penn, and my wife basically asked the same question you are about free speech and safety/violence/fear. Personally, I fall into the speech is protected camp, and while some speech is absolutely repugnant, well, it has to be allowed. Stifling debate is not a path I want to go down personally.

Now, at Penn there are real concerns. While we aren't sure some of the recent vandalism and aggression towards Jews was due to the recent Palestine Writes festival, it is difficult not to let oneself draw that conclusion. In my opinion, speech and rhetoric crossed into physically dangerous and in need of action when Penn Hillel took damage, a person was outwardly threatening Jewish students, and a swastika was painted. To me, that crossed the line from free speech to actions that deserve consequences. Candidly, though, I'm still working through that a bit.

At Penn, there is increased security, increased sensitivity, and a clear way to make it known if one feels unsafe or physically threatened. Do I think shouting from the river to the sea in downtown Philly is threatening, I do, but I do lean towards it being speech rather than an overt threat to Jews at the school. I think Penn has to protect all their students and sometimes the level of protection needed probably fluctuates. Do I think Jewish and Muslim students need more protection now, I do. Do I think marches and shouting should be allowed, I do.

As for your other examples, I don't quite understand what you mean with the resistance piece. I'll wait to respond until I totally understand what you're asking. Do I think anyone can rent a truck and say whatever they want, I do.

Edit—I'll add, I asked my son what he was seeing and hearing. There is a place on campus called the button, and he mentioned many people were around the area having discussions about what is going on. He said each time he walked past the sentiment changed, meaning sometimes people were discussing the nuances of what is going on. His friends, Jewish/Muslim/Otherwise want peace.

[Heisenberg]

I'll speak to Penn, and my wife basically asked the same question you are about free speech and safety/violence/fear. Personally, I fall into the speech is protected camp, and while some speech is absolutely repugnant, well, it has to be allowed. Stifling debate is not a path I want to go down personally.

Now, at Penn there are real concerns. While we aren't sure some of the recent vandalism and aggression towards Jews was due to the recent Palestine Writes festival, it is difficult not to let oneself draw that conclusion. In my opinion, speech and rhetoric crossed into physically dangerous and in need of action when Penn Hillel took damage, a person was outwardly threatening Jewish students, and a swastika was painted. To me, that crossed the line from free speech to actions that deserve consequences. Candidly, though, I'm still working through that a bit.

At Penn, there is increased security, increased sensitivity, and a clear way to make it known if one feels unsafe or physically threatened. Do I think shouting from the river to the sea in downtown Philly is threatening, I do, but I do lean towards it being speech rather than an overt threat to Jews at the school. I think Penn has to protect all their students and sometimes the level of protection needed probably fluctuates. Do I think Jewish and Muslim students need more protection now, I do. Do I think marches and shouting should be allowed, I do.

As for your other examples, I don't quite understand what you mean with the resistance piece. I'll wait to respond until I totally understand what you're asking. Do I think anyone can rent a truck and say whatever they want, I do.

Maybe it was a poorly used rhetorical device.

I started by using the wording that Marquette University student Amina Dalieh actually said in a rented pickup on Wisconsin Avenue with a loudspeaker.
Video here (https://twitter.com/StopAntisemites/status/1714008395231936620?s=20)

I tried to change them as little as possible for the other examples to ask why these words, in the way they were delivered, were acceptable in her instance (acceptable in that it appears to be no percussions against her) and if similar words are acceptable in these other instances.

Should she have been punished?