Yep. You gotta know when you’re beaten.
Zion and the Art of Armageddon
- Thread starter Odds
- Start date
Sponsored Links
You think you know what it feels like to live a lifetime of oppression and fear?
Even you are not that naïve Mottie.
They should be used to it if they know no different.
Pathetic Mottie. Did the black South Africans accept aparthied ? Did the Vietnamese accept American military might ? Would you accept someone with bigger guns than you forcing you into non existence ?
Sponsored Links
Apartheid is going on all over the world. Where all the other threads on that or are people only triggered by so-called apartheid from the state of Israel? If they are, you know what that makes them…..
lol
I don't recall you making a fuss when BLM pointed out American injustice.
Don't recall any of those countries on the list subjecting the people to criminal acts of war, either.
The worst case of false equivalence i've ever seen.
Attempts to legitimise the mass deaths inflicted by the US and Israel did not disappear after the initial weeks of the slaughter in Gaza. In January, an op-ed in The Washington Post argued that the death and destruction in Gaza are a tragedy for its people but “primary blame must lie with Hamas, because it launched an unprovoked attack on Israel”.
Suggesting that the US-Israeli campaign is responding to an “unprovoked” Palestinian attack implies that the campaign is justifiable. This position does not withstand minimal scrutiny: in the days, weeks, and months leading up to October 7, Israel repeatedly bombed Gaza and shot Palestinians at the fence surrounding the territory while subjecting them to a brutal, illegal siege, to say nothing of the more than 75 years of dispossession leading up to that day.
Because Israel was carrying out acts of war against Palestinians in Gaza prior to October 7, Israel’s actions since then cannot be understood as a form of self-defence. Yet US-Israeli (and forum) apologists in the American media have said “Israel has the right and duty to defend itself”, presenting the US-Israeli crusade as righteous and thus worthy of support. No matter that Israel “defending itself” has entailed an “unrelenting war” on Gaza’s health system and featured air strikes on hospitals and health workers as well as killing Palestinians at the deadliest rate of any conflict this century.
Gregory Shupak@Al Jazeera
He goes on to list American media complicity in the war crimes committed by Israel, including...
A piece published in The New York Times last October engaged in precisely that. “If Gaza is the open-air prison that so many of Israel’s critics allege, it’s not because Israelis are capriciously cruel but because too many of its residents pose a mortal risk,” the article contended. Here broad numbers of Palestinians in Gaza are cast as deadly criminals deserving collective punishment. In the same vein, an October 7 Wall Street Journal editorial told us that Israel is in a “rough neighbourhood”.
The November New York Times op-ed mentioned above put forth the rather novel view that Palestinians would ultimately benefit from being slaughtered. It magnanimously conceded that “in the short term, of course: Palestinian lives would be saved if Israel held its fire.” But the article asserted that, if the US-Israeli assault ended with Hamas still governing Gaza, this outcome would mean “a virtual guarantee for future mass-casualty attacks against Israel, for ever-larger Israeli retaliation, and for deeper misery for the people of Gaza.”
At the end of February, a Wall Street Journal editorial criticised Palestinian American Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and others on the grounds that “the ceasefire they want would have the effect of leaving [Hamas] fighters alive and free to rebuild their terror state. The suffering in Gaza is terrible, but the main cause is Hamas’s use of civilians as human shields.” At that point, Israel had killed at least 7,729 children. For the Journal, it appeared this horror was justified if Hamas was defeated; the tens of thousands of dead Palestinian civilians could be explained away by dubiously and selectively employing the concept of human shields.
The media outlets that published these articles could have given more space to sober reflections on how to generate peace, justice, and liberation across historical Palestine. Instead, they have given platforms to those who have helped incite the carnage America and Israel have wrought. When the history of this grisly period is written, there needs to be a chapter on the media outlets that helped ignite a genocide and helped keep it going.
Suggesting that the US-Israeli campaign is responding to an “unprovoked” Palestinian attack implies that the campaign is justifiable. This position does not withstand minimal scrutiny: in the days, weeks, and months leading up to October 7, Israel repeatedly bombed Gaza and shot Palestinians at the fence surrounding the territory while subjecting them to a brutal, illegal siege, to say nothing of the more than 75 years of dispossession leading up to that day.
Because Israel was carrying out acts of war against Palestinians in Gaza prior to October 7, Israel’s actions since then cannot be understood as a form of self-defence. Yet US-Israeli (and forum) apologists in the American media have said “Israel has the right and duty to defend itself”, presenting the US-Israeli crusade as righteous and thus worthy of support. No matter that Israel “defending itself” has entailed an “unrelenting war” on Gaza’s health system and featured air strikes on hospitals and health workers as well as killing Palestinians at the deadliest rate of any conflict this century.
Gregory Shupak@Al Jazeera
He goes on to list American media complicity in the war crimes committed by Israel, including...
A piece published in The New York Times last October engaged in precisely that. “If Gaza is the open-air prison that so many of Israel’s critics allege, it’s not because Israelis are capriciously cruel but because too many of its residents pose a mortal risk,” the article contended. Here broad numbers of Palestinians in Gaza are cast as deadly criminals deserving collective punishment. In the same vein, an October 7 Wall Street Journal editorial told us that Israel is in a “rough neighbourhood”.
The November New York Times op-ed mentioned above put forth the rather novel view that Palestinians would ultimately benefit from being slaughtered. It magnanimously conceded that “in the short term, of course: Palestinian lives would be saved if Israel held its fire.” But the article asserted that, if the US-Israeli assault ended with Hamas still governing Gaza, this outcome would mean “a virtual guarantee for future mass-casualty attacks against Israel, for ever-larger Israeli retaliation, and for deeper misery for the people of Gaza.”
At the end of February, a Wall Street Journal editorial criticised Palestinian American Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and others on the grounds that “the ceasefire they want would have the effect of leaving [Hamas] fighters alive and free to rebuild their terror state. The suffering in Gaza is terrible, but the main cause is Hamas’s use of civilians as human shields.” At that point, Israel had killed at least 7,729 children. For the Journal, it appeared this horror was justified if Hamas was defeated; the tens of thousands of dead Palestinian civilians could be explained away by dubiously and selectively employing the concept of human shields.
The media outlets that published these articles could have given more space to sober reflections on how to generate peace, justice, and liberation across historical Palestine. Instead, they have given platforms to those who have helped incite the carnage America and Israel have wrought. When the history of this grisly period is written, there needs to be a chapter on the media outlets that helped ignite a genocide and helped keep it going.
Agree.
Mottie will only let himself see one side.
Well way I see it blame hamas for the entire caper
They knew what was likely to happen ? If they did not than they are fruit cakes
They have always used and sacrificed there own population for propaganda purposes
Used to organise transport to bus people to the border fence to protest
Knowing full well that it was dangerous and people would be likely to be shot ???
All
Martyrs according to them fruit cakes
Than you have the mad muller fruit cakes in Tehran
Oppression ? Talk to the woman in Iran and Yemen and other dire ear a Stan countries
They knew what was likely to happen ? If they did not than they are fruit cakes
They have always used and sacrificed there own population for propaganda purposes
Used to organise transport to bus people to the border fence to protest
Knowing full well that it was dangerous and people would be likely to be shot ???
All
Martyrs according to them fruit cakes
Than you have the mad muller fruit cakes in Tehran
Oppression ? Talk to the woman in Iran and Yemen and other dire ear a Stan countries
"
David Gritten
BBC News
“Israel’s words must be matched by action on the ground,” Linda Thomas-Greenfield said. “Right now, that is not happening.”
The US has given its ally until 12 November to "surge" all assistance, with a minimum of 350 lorries entering Gaza daily. But the UN says only 10% of that number have crossed each day on average since then"
David Gritten
BBC News
- Published
5 hours ago
- Published
“Israel’s words must be matched by action on the ground,” Linda Thomas-Greenfield said. “Right now, that is not happening.”
The US has given its ally until 12 November to "surge" all assistance, with a minimum of 350 lorries entering Gaza daily. But the UN says only 10% of that number have crossed each day on average since then"
As someone who professes to be keen to speak out about genocide being carried out, I’m trying to think of JohnD's justification for not mentioning any of the many different groups suffering genocide around the world and the only reason I can come up with is that there are no Jews involved. Unless, of course, he can tell us different……
Or more likely (and like many others), he bothered to look at the topic under discussion
Nah, I’ve asked him many times if he's bothered about anything non-Jew related but he's not interested. Only one reason why as far as I’m concerned.Or more likely (and like many others), he bothered to look at the topic under discussion
Sponsored Links