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

[jesmu84]

Palestinians =\= Hamas

[4everwarriors]

Why don't the other Arab countries take in, with open arms, their Palestinian brothers, hey?

[MU82]

How's election night treat in' ya?

A positive night for American democracy -- and especially for women's rights to control their own reproductive systems. Thanks for asking!

How's that Tlaib censorship workin' out for ya, hey?

Outstanding -- and long overdue. Thanks for asking!

[Hards Alumni]

Worth a watch from an American Nurse with Doctor's Without Border's. Ya'll who are so bloodthirsty/indifferent towards civilian collateral damage would do well to view at least.

https://x.com/omarbaddar/status/1721959865508143339?s=46&t=G2FhP_F2kWewaBOpvRv5lg

I was going to post this.  Absolutely heartbreaking stuff.

[Hards Alumni]

The walls are to keep the Palestinians out so they don't kill Israelis. Not the other way around. They
have been offered peace three times and have rejected it to wage war against Israel. Why is it that the surrounding Arab countries don't want Palestinians in their borders? Because they are troublemakers  They invaded Lebanon and turned the "Paris of the Middleeast" into a war zone and drove out the Christians.

Absolutely incorrect.  Remember when Germany was forced into peace in 1919 by a vengeful France?  What does history teach us about this? 

The surrounding Arab countries don't 'want' Palestinians because they know taking them gives Israel the go ahead to permanently occupy the land.  Which it seems they're already planning on doing.  It has nothing to do with them being 'troublemakers'. 

[MuggsyB]

Absolutely incorrect.  Remember when Germany was forced into peace in 1919 by a vengeful France?  What does history teach us about this? 

The surrounding Arab countries don't 'want' Palestinians because they know taking them gives Israel the go ahead to permanently occupy the land.  Which it seems they're already planning on doing.  It has nothing to do with them being 'troublemakers'.

Why didn't  they want them when they controlled the West Bank and Golan Heights?  Which Arab states care about the Palestinians?

[MuggsyB]

Not really.  And it most certainly is protected speech which was my point all along.

Regardless none of this matters. Israel isn't going away. It's existence isn't threatened. It has every right to defend itself.

But that doesn't mean it's beyond criticism.

But honestly I am growing weary of your culture war and your desire to paint everyone who disagree with you as extremist. You constantly get facts wrong. You are dishonest. Really a great example of what's gone wrong with civil discourse in this country.

"It's existence isn't threatened".  This is seriously ridiculous Fluffy and you should be ashamed of yourself. 

[The Sultan]

"It's existence isn't threatened".  This is seriously ridiculous Fluffy and you should be ashamed of yourself. 

It's not. It will be around for a long time. Who has the will and the ability to destroy them?

[The Sultan]

Why don't the other Arab countries take in, with open arms, their Palestinian brothers, hey?

Like we should take in our Christian brothers from Latin America with open arms ai''nna?

[Hards Alumni]

Why didn't  they want them when they controlled the West Bank and Golan Heights?  Which Arab states care about the Palestinians?

I don't know what you're asking.  Golan is part of Syria, and the West Bank is part of Jordan.  The rest of the world outside of Israel and the US recognizes this.  They are occupied territories being administered by Israel under the guise of 'security'.

Are you suggesting that the surrounding Arab states don't care about Palestinian Arabs?

[Hards Alumni]

"It's existence isn't threatened".  This is seriously ridiculous Fluffy and you should be ashamed of yourself.

No, he's right.  Israel won't cease to exist.  No one is wiping them off of a map no matter how hard they'd try.  Don't be silly.

[Hards Alumni]

Like we should take in our Christian brothers from Latin America with open arms ai''nna?

The perfect analogy

[Uncle Rico]

How's that Tlaib censorship workin' out for ya, hey?

Good.  She's an idiot and wrong.  She's on the wrong side and deserves to be denounced.

Great night for you, though?  Held onto Mississippi.  Tough breaks in Kentucky, Virginia and Ohio for ya, hey?

[Pakuni]

Why don't the other Arab countries take in, with open arms, their Palestinian brothers, hey?

This has been explained several times in this thread already.
You can lead a dentist to reality, but you can't make him embrace it.

[Uncle Rico]

Like we should take in our Christian brothers from Latin America with open arms ai''nna?

That's different!

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

https://www.justsecurity.org/74217/incitement-to-violence-aint-free-speech/

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/first-amendment-limits--fighting-words--hostile-audiences--and-t.html

So are you posting these articles as an admission that you were wrong? Cause neither of these state that a "call to violence" is an exception to the first ammendent as you've repeatedly claimed.

Secondly,  since you posted these articles as sources to try (and fail) to prove yourself correct,  can I assume that you agree with them? Cause if so,  I'm surprised to see that you believe that Trump sound be convicted for his role in January 6 because that's what the first article is arguing.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

How's that Tlaib censorship workin' out for ya, hey?

You must be in favor of censoring Marge and Gosar, oona?

[Heisenberg]

Not really.  And it most certainly is protected speech which was my point all along.

Regardless none of this matters. Israel isn't going away. It's existence isn't threatened. It has every right to defend itself.

But that doesn't mean it's beyond criticism.

But honestly I am growing weary of your culture war and your desire to paint everyone who disagree with you as extremist. You constantly get facts wrong. You are dishonest. Really a great example of what's gone wrong with civil discourse in this country.

I understand you hold the only correct opinion, and once you stated it, you do not want to be challenged. That you've been very clear for years.

——-

I did not ask if they were protected speech, I asked you if you thought they were phrases and words that call for violence against the Jewish people in Israel. You did not answer for the third time.

You don't think this is a war for the existence of Israel. You've made this very clear many times. Because you think their army is strong enough to prevent the demise of Israel. So you use carefully chosen words. "Israel isn't going away." "It's Existence is in threatened."

You then say Israel has the right to defend itself. Against what exactly? Be specific what are they defending against and how far can they go to defend themselves from whatever threat you think they have?

——-

I have said that those words and phrases that the kids in Madison were chanting and carrying on their signs were calls for genocide against Israel. We can debate whether they are protected speech, but I didn't ask you that. And I said that I'm very much on the fence is the weather not it is protected speech. But those words and phrases are definitely hate speech and universities to have restrictions against the use of hate speech.

I've been very clear Israel is defending their existence, and they have to remove the threat of a Hamas and Islamic Jihadism. And to this end, if a Hamas and Jihadis hide under schools, hospitals, and behind human shields, then they have turned those schools, hospital, said human shields into military targets.

Israel will make every effort to reduce civilian casualties, but they will not be stopped by the prospects of civilian casualties. And the fact that there are civilian casualties as the attack military targets does not make their actions war crimes. So, if they bomb a hospital or a refugee camp, if they shoot a human shield, these are unfortunate collateral damage in a war against military targets.

International law governing war, and the Geneva convention, are all structured to make sure that military targets and civilian targets are separated. That's why the first articles of the Geneva convention say soldiers must wear uniforms so they could be distinguished from the civilian population. This civilian population must be separated from the battlefield.

Hamas is responsible for wearing a uniform is responsible for moving its citizens off the battlefield. They do not wear uniforms and they do not move their civilians from the battlefield. Therefore, they are committing war crimes, not Israel. Every time Hamas or PIJ fire a rocket it is intended to kill civilians, that is a war crime. Every time Israel drop a bomb on a military target, civilians are collateral damage, that is not a war crime.

It's war and war is nothing but a mistake. But I'm not going to draw any moral equivalence between what Israel's doing and what Hamas is doing.

Israel is on the right side of this war, and the Palestinians are on the wrong side of this war. I have no moral confusion about this.

[21Jumpstreet]

The House just condemned Tlaib for trying to redefine "from the river to the sea." And for this to happen, 22 Democrats had to cross the aisle to do it. A similar censure failed last week. So, the difference in the previous week was her trying to redefine "from the river to the sea."

The House now has more moral clarity on the meaning of these phrases and statements than you.

This is how far you have sunk in your moral confusion.

So, I'll ask again, "river to the sea," Free Palestine," and "Apartheid state" are all calls, with nice words, to genocide the Jewish people.

Do you now agree?

----

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-votes-censure-rashida-tlaib-over-anti-israel-comments

The House of Representatives has voted to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., in a 234 - 188 vote on Tuesday night.

The punishment, while largely symbolic, was a formal public rebuke of her most recent anti-Israel comments made in the wake of the Jewish nation's war against terror group Hamas.

Twenty-two Democrats voted with 212 Republicans to censure Tlaib.

Her critics have pointed out that the rallying cry implicitly calls for the destruction of Israel as a state. Hamas has also co-opted the phrase.

"It is fundamentally a call for a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, territory that includes the State of Israel, which would mean the dismantling of the Jewish state," the Anti-Defamation League's website says. "It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland."

Tlaib has remained unrepentant over her use of the phrase.

I think the part of the podcast that stuck out to me most was when he discussed the protests. He mentions that other countries have slaughtered tens of thousands of Arabs and not a chirp. Israel does it, and people line the streets. Now, I understand the Palestine Israel war is its own, nuanced set of atrocities, but it struck me personally. As I mentioned privately to another poster, I have spent my adult life learning about racism towards black and brown people, the courts, the laws, history, the systemic nature of it, why it happened/s, the economics, really as much as I can consume. I do not do that when it comes to Jews and anti-semitism. Of course, I find it abhorrent that other countries are murdering Arabs or Palestinians, so I better speak up in the future. I also better learn more about the plight of the Jewish people.

Additionally, H2O, I agree with you on your sentiment of using charged language. I spend a lot of time with people discussing why language is charged and why we shouldn't use it. Why things like "insert any term that has evolved over the years to mean something negative to someone" should he carefully considered when used, if at all. I will never use the phrase "from the river to the sea" even if I want a free Palestine state. Free from terror, free from pain and suffering, free from poverty, free to live the way they choose to live, free from anyone and any organization that limits this. As my oldest son and I discussed on the weekend, that doesn't mean I don't want it for Israel, too.

That being said, to those who are outspoken in their 100% support of Israel, when does that support wane? When does Israel cross that imaginary, subjective line among countries into unnecessary violence, an overreaction as it were? Sam Harris also mentions he thinks the Israeli reaction might have been a mistake. H2O, thoughts?

[Heisenberg]

Like we should take in our Christian brothers from Latin America with open arms ai''nna?

Have you seen what's going out in the southern border in the last three years?

[Hards Alumni]

I understand you hold the only correct opinion, and once you stated it, you do not want to be challenged. That you've been very clear for years.

——-

I did not ask if they were protected speech, I asked you if you thought they were phrases and words that call for violence against the Jewish people in Israel. You did not answer for the third time.

You don't think this is a war for the existence of Israel. You've made this very clear many times. Because you think their army is strong enough to prevent the demise of Israel. So you use carefully chosen words. "Israel isn't going away." "It's Existence is in threatened."

You then say Israel has the right to defend itself. Against what exactly? Be specific what are they defending against and how far can they go to defend themselves from whatever threat you think they have?

——-

I have said that those words and phrases that the kids in Madison were chanting and carrying on their signs were calls for genocide against Israel. We can debate whether they are protected speech, but I didn't ask you that. And I said that I'm very much on the fence is the weather not it is protected speech. But those words and phrases are definitely hate speech and universities to have restrictions against the use of hate speech.

I've been very clear Israel is defending their existence, and they have to remove the threat of a Hamas and Islamic Jihadism. And to this end, if a Hamas and Jihadis hide under schools, hospitals, and behind human shields, then they have turned those schools, hospital, said human shields into military targets.

Israel will make every effort to reduce civilian casualties, but they will not be stopped by the prospects of civilian casualties. And the fact that there are civilian casualties as the attack military targets does not make their actions war crimes. So, if they bomb a hospital or a refugee camp, if they shoot a human shield, these are unfortunate collateral damage in a war against military targets.

International law governing war, and the Geneva convention, are all structured to make sure that military targets and civilian targets are separated. That's why the first articles of the Geneva convention say soldiers must wear uniforms so they could be distinguished from the civilian population. This civilian population must be separated from the battlefield.

Hamas is responsible for wearing a uniform is responsible for moving its citizens off the battlefield. They do not wear uniforms and they do not move their civilians from the battlefield. Therefore, they are committing war crimes, not Israel. Every time Hamas or PIJ fire a rocket it is intended to kill civilians, that is a war crime. Every time Israel drop a bomb on a military target, civilians are collateral damage, that is not a war crime.

It's war and war is nothing but a mistake. But I'm not going to draw any moral equivalence between what Israel's doing and what Hamas is doing.

Israel is on the right side of this war, and the Palestinians are on the wrong side of this war. I have no moral confusion about this.

So, I was right then.  Israel is beyond capable of committing war crimes, in your opinion.

Thank you for your clarification. 

The Nazis would have loved you.

[21Jumpstreet]

Palestinians =\= Hamas

Palestinians =\= Jihadist

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

But those words and phrases are definitely hate speech and universities to have restrictions against the use of hate speech.

No they don't.  That would be illegal.  You are making things up again.

[21Jumpstreet]

Like we should take in our Christian brothers from Latin America with open arms ai''nna?

Excellent point. And, yes, we should.

[MuggsyB]

It's not. It will be around for a long time. Who has the will and the ability to destroy them?

What do you think Iran will do if they get nuclear weapons?