Current Affairs Israel is an apartheid state

[d34noj]

Genuine question, why, when so many international bodies have called it a genocide and with clear evidence provided are you so determined to excuse Israel - almost to the point of absurdity? And why is ethnic cleansing more acceptable?

They're ACCUSED of genocide by certain powers. None of which are the powers that be.

And who on earth said ethnic cleansing is more acceptable??

 

[tsubaki]

Has the un security council on its history ever actually voted against anything Israel has ever done mate, or does either the US or UK always ensure the vote fails?

more than a few times

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Finally it appears that there maybe a chance of a ceasefire in Southern Lebanon with a proper military force in-place.

 

[tsubaki]

Finally it appears that there maybe a chance of a ceasefire in Southern Lebanon with a proper military force in-place.

Lets see how Netanyahu derails this train.

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

Breathe in, breathe out.

Breathe in, breathe out.

Breathe in, breathe out.

Breathe in, breathe out.

Breathe in, breathe out.

You ok mate?

Not quite sure what you’re looking to achieve in this thread. People are justly upset by the indiscriminate Israeli attacks that have murdered thousands of innocent children. The ‘just asking questions/don’t agree with either side’ character you’re playing is a bit weird. How you can look at Israel’s actions and still not condemn them is beyond me.

 

[Toffeepot]

Is it a genocide? ethnic cleansing maybe but a genocide in it's current definition it isn't - there's been more babies born in the area than people killed, so they're doing a pretty terrible job at it, plus they have the capacity to turn the entire place into a barren wasteland with their air force - they aren't?

The civilian-to-target ratio is the lowest of any war - estimated at 2:1, even with the human shields - partially due to roof knocking and leaflet dropping. If they had genocidal intent would they do that?

Genuine question - As I say, I'm neither for or against either side.

When the ruling party in Israel regard all men as legitimate Hamas targets despite anyone with a brain knowing they are not, that ratio you have lapped up from one of the many surrogate talking head Israeli apologists propped up by a zionist heavy global media is utter BS

ICJ ruled Israel were on the cusp of genocide BEFORE they ramped up the bombing and the restriction of aid. Numerous war crimes have been committed, regularly and continually.

 

[d34noj]

Not quite sure what you’re looking to achieve in this thread. People are justly upset by the indiscriminate Israeli attacks that have murdered thousands of innocent children. The ‘just asking questions/don’t agree with either side’ character you’re playing is a bit weird. How you can look at Israel’s actions and still not condemn them is beyond me.

Mate, I have no interest in what you have to say.

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

Mate, I have no interest in what you have to say.

So little interest you felt compelled to respond to me? Ok mate

 

[d34noj]

When the ruling party in Israel regard all men as legitimate Hamas targets despite anyone with a brain knowing they are not, that ratio you have lapped up from one of the many surrogate talking head Israeli apologists propped up by a zionist heavy global media is utter BS

ICJ ruled Israel were on the cusp of genocide BEFORE they ramped up the bombing and the restriction of aid. Numerous war crimes have been committed, regularly and continually.

Have the ICJ found Israel guilty of genocide as of yet? No. They're ACCUSED - by the morally bankrupt South Africa mainly, this isn't my opinion, this is a fact. Until the case has been tried by the ICJ, they remain accused. That's how the legal system works.

As for 'ruling they were on the cusp', Joan Donaghue herself said that was not the case and interpretations were misconstrued.

The words of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have been subject to intense scrutiny since South Africa brought its case and it’s centred around the use of the word “plausible” in the ruling.

In January, the ICJ delivered an interim judgement - and one key paragraph from the ruling drew the most attention: “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances... are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.”

This was interpreted by many, including some legal commentators, to mean that the court had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was “plausible”.

This interpretation spread quickly, appearing in UN press releases, statements from campaign groups and many media outlets, including the BBC.

In April, however, Joan Donoghue, the president of the ICJ at the time of that ruling, said in a BBC interview that this was not what the court had ruled.

Rather, she said, the purpose of the ruling was to declare that South Africa had a right to bring its case against Israel and that Palestinians had “plausible rights to protection from genocide” - rights which were at a real risk of irreparable damage.



As for 'global Zionist Media - Didn't the Managing Director of Al Jazeera admit that they fabricated stories to “arouse the nation’s fervor and brotherhood.”


There's a quote by CH Spurgeon “a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.” You all post reported atrocities like they're facts and whip yourselves into a frenzy - where was this frenzy when Hamas were murdering, torturing and raping? which is fact, seeing as they posted the videos themselves.


The single underlying fact of all of this is, if Hamas didn't attack on October 7th, this war wouldn't be happening. Resolution to the Israeli occupation could have been done around a table (a deal has been on the table multiple times) not with machetes and automatic weapons. They poked a bear considerably bigger than them, and now them - and the Palestinian civilians they claim to protect, are suffering for it.

 

[d34noj]

Not quite sure what you’re looking to achieve in this thread. People are justly upset by the indiscriminate Israeli attacks that have murdered thousands of innocent children. The ‘just asking questions/don’t agree with either side’ character you’re playing is a bit weird. How you can look at Israel’s actions and still not condemn them is beyond me.

I can condemn it, and I have.

And I condemn Hamas, and the 2 thirds of Palestinians who condone the October 7th attacks.


If you don't like my opinion, feel free to ignore it. Don't cry and stamp your feet like a toddler because it doesn't align perfectly with yours.

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

I can condemn it, and I have.

And I condemn Hamas, and the 2 thirds of Palestinians who condone the October 7th attacks.


If you don't like my opinion, feel free to ignore it. Don't cry and stamp your feet like a toddler because it doesn't align perfectly with yours.

Whenever anyone disagrees with you you claim they’re acting like a toddler. It’s weird.

 

[d34noj]

Not quite sure what you’re looking to achieve in this thread. People are justly upset by the indiscriminate Israeli attacks that have murdered thousands of innocent children. The ‘just asking questions/don’t agree with either side’ character you’re playing is a bit weird. How you can look at Israel’s actions and still not condemn them is beyond me.

Whenever anyone disagrees with you you claim they’re acting like a toddler. It’s weird.

Is this not you stamping your feet? sounds like a baby tantrum to me.

If I state facts, i'll say it's a fact, if I offer an opinion, i'll say IT'S MY OPINION - as i'm entitled to have.


I've said on multiple occasions I condemn the actions of Israel and the IDF, and I also condemn the actions of Hamas.

 

[Toffeepot]

Have the ICJ found Israel guilty of genocide as of yet? No. They're ACCUSED - by the morally bankrupt South Africa mainly, this isn't my opinion, this is a fact. Until the case has been tried by the ICJ, they remain accused. That's how the legal system works.

As for 'ruling they were on the cusp', Joan Donaghue herself said that was not the case and interpretations were misconstrued.

The words of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have been subject to intense scrutiny since South Africa brought its case and it’s centred around the use of the word “plausible” in the ruling.

In January, the ICJ delivered an interim judgement - and one key paragraph from the ruling drew the most attention: “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances... are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.”

This was interpreted by many, including some legal commentators, to mean that the court had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was “plausible”.

This interpretation spread quickly, appearing in UN press releases, statements from campaign groups and many media outlets, including the BBC.

In April, however, Joan Donoghue, the president of the ICJ at the time of that ruling, said in a BBC interview that this was not what the court had ruled.

Rather, she said, the purpose of the ruling was to declare that South Africa had a right to bring its case against Israel and that Palestinians had “plausible rights to protection from genocide” - rights which were at a real risk of irreparable damage.



As for 'global Zionist Media - Didn't the Managing Director of Al Jazeera admit that they fabricated stories to “arouse the nation’s fervor and brotherhood.”


There's a quote by CH Spurgeon “a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.” You all post reported atrocities like they're facts and whip yourselves into a frenzy - where was this frenzy when Hamas were murdering, torturing and raping? which is fact, seeing as they posted the videos themselves.


The single underlying fact of all of this is, if Hamas didn't attack on October 7th, this war wouldn't be happening. Resolution to the Israeli occupation could have been done around a table (a deal has been on the table multiple times) not with machetes and automatic weapons. They poked a bear considerably bigger than them, and now them - and the Palestinian civilians they claim to protect, are suffering for it.

You were doing so well until the end. Yes the ICJ did not rule genocide but did by your own admission say Palestinian protections from it were at risk and as I said since then the IDF have increased carpet bombing, attacking aid trucks and aid workers and in doing so committing war crimes.

The single underlying fact as you say is that this persecution has been going on since 1948 and the attack 7th attack triggered this particular response. You don't know how I viewed that attack, so less with the assumptions that anyone critiquing your stance must be pro violence against Israelis. That is a particularly predictable partisan view point.

War crimes are war crimes, and the ICJ have ruled that unlawful seizure of land and resources are such. Even now they are settling lands once again in North Gaza. The fact you think this 70year land seizure and squeezing out of a people, by displacement or death, by extreme measures is not significant in this is purely blinkered thinking

 

[d34noj]

You were doing so well until the end. Yes the ICJ did not rule genocide but did by your own admission say Palestinian protections from it were at risk and as I said since then the IDF have increased carpet bombing, attacking aid trucks and aid workers and in doing so committing war crimes.

The single underlying fact as you say is that this persecution has been going on since 1948 and the attack 7th attack triggered this particular response. You don't know how I viewed that attack, so less with the assumptions that anyone critiquing your stance must be pro violence against Israelis. That is a particularly predictable partisan view point.

War crimes are war crimes, and the ICJ have ruled that unlawful seizure of land and resources are such. Even now they are settling lands once again in North Gaza. The fact you think this 70year land seizure and squeezing out of a people, by displacement or death, by extreme measures is not significant in this is purely blinkered thinking

1st point. Israel haven't been found guilty, maybe it's pedantic - but it's a fact. Your opinion is irrelevant as facts contradict it.


I've not assumed your stance mate - anyone with a brain would oppose the 7th October attacks, just like anyone with a brain wouldn't want civilians to die in what is an avoidable war. What I said was that Hamas's response was wrong - as it's triggered this war when a democratic solution should have been sought - again, anyone with a modicum of common sense would agree that sitting round a table and discussing peace is better than rape and murder.


Also not once have I stated that the land grab is not significant - I said my opinion is that it's not a genocide, but ethnic cleansing by the Israeli's due to forceful displacement, probably making it the base of my argument.

All you and everyone else piping up are arguing is terminology.

 

[Toffeepot]

1st point. Israel haven't been found guilty, maybe it's pedantic - but it's a fact. Your opinion is irrelevant as facts contradict it.


I've not assumed your stance mate - anyone with a brain would oppose the 7th October attacks, just like anyone with a brain wouldn't want civilians to die in what is an avoidable war. What I said was that Hamas's response was wrong - as it's triggered this war when a democratic solution should have been sought - again, anyone with a modicum of common sense would agree that sitting round a table and discussing peace is better than rape and murder.


Also not once have I stated that the land grab is not significant - I said my opinion is that it's not a genocide, but ethnic cleansing by the Israeli's due to forceful displacement, probably making it the base of my argument.

All you and everyone else piping up are arguing is terminology.

We've seen the videos of both sides atrocities. To pretend otherwise is as I said blinkered.

The peaceful approach has been tried many times but it would involve measures that stop Israel continually forcibly removing people and settling their land so it was never accepted by Israel. This is fact. The current government want nothing to do with a two state solution and have promoted the idea of a greater Israel that literally wipes Palestine from the map. Oct 7th gave them the immediate justification but its doing a lot of heavy lifting now to justify their war crimes. Remember they did ignore Egypt's warning that an attack was coming, denied they received one, then admitted they did. They wanted their casus belli and got it. Instant reference to 911 was the giveaway too.

You can defend the indefensible if you want but it is clear to anybody paying attention that they are lashing out on all sides with no regard for the the lives of innocents. The front line soldiers even sing a song saying 'no uninvolved civilians' which once again, targeting civilians is not justifiable to anyone but the wholly partisan