Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

Remove this Banner Ad

The Feeder Club said:
That you are unable to see on this thread 1. Sympathisers with the aim of Hamas to eliminate the state of Israel and
Click to expand...
First, let me say this. By defending this particular poster, I am not endorsing their comments.

I'm gonna take particular issue with number one here because it's plainly false. The ultimate strawman.

So you suggested the comments of one particular poster support your assertion, those comments being:

- a comment that said 'Jewish people had no right to create an ethnostate [in Palestine], especially not at the expense of the current inhabitants'; and

- a comment that said 'the optimal solution is one state ... where everyone has equal rights'.

Neither of these comments evince sympathy for Hamas. Nor are they capable of being construed so as to attribute a view to the poster that they wish to eliminate the state of Israel.

The first comment is technically factually correct, as Episode IV pointed out a while ago, there is in fact no right to statehood. There are rights to self-determination but not statehood. It certainly does not convey sympathy for Hamas or the goal of eliminating Israel.

As for the second comment, it also does not convey sympathy for Hamas. In fact, it's incredibly dishonest for you to suggest it does. It also is not capable of being read as suggesting that the person making the comment wishes to eliminate the state of Israel.

You might argue 'oh but their reference to one state, might mean that Israel no longer exists'. Maybe that poster envisaged Israel as the one state in their optimal solution. Did you consider that possibility before you went accusing them of sympathising with a terrorist organisation?

It is also clear that that poster referred to the 'optimal' solution. My 'optimal' solution is one where everyone puts down their guns, sets aside their differences, skips off into the sunset holding hands, we get rid of all borders and do away with the notion of states! Ridiculous. Expressing sympathy for Hamas? Obviously not. But who knows if we adopt your reasoning.

I'm sure I don't need to define optimal for you. However, this poster's use of 'optimal' means they clearly contemplated other solutions. Perhaps they support a two state solution. It is entirely possible that they support a two state solution despite considering that there may be better or more perfect solutions.

Expressing the view that a one state solution is 'optimal' is not expressing sympathy for Hamas. It is not expressing a view that Israel should no longer exist.

It's not too late to walk it back. In fact, I invite you to. Please do. There's enough toxic s**t on this thread, we don't need this strawmanning bullshit too. What was it you said some time ago? Exercise some restraint? I suggest you try that.
 
wahooo said:
First, let me say this. By defending this particular poster, I am not endorsing their comments.

I'm gonna take particular issue with number one here because it's plainly false. The ultimate strawman.

So you suggested the comments of one particular poster support your assertion, those comments being:

- a comment that said 'Jewish people had no right to create an ethnostate [in Palestine], especially not at the expense of the current inhabitants'; and

- a comment that said 'the optimal solution is one state ... where everyone has equal rights'.

Neither of these comments evince sympathy for Hamas. Nor are they capable of being construed so as to attribute a view to the poster that they wish to eliminate the state of Israel.

The first comment is technically factually correct, as Episode IV pointed out a while ago, there is in fact no right to statehood. There are rights to self-determination but not statehood. It certainly does not convey sympathy for Hamas or the goal of eliminating Israel.

As for the second comment, it also does not convey sympathy for Hamas. In fact, it's incredibly dishonest for you to suggest it does. It also is not capable of being read as suggesting that the person making the comment wishes to eliminate the state of Israel.

You might argue 'oh but their reference to one state, might mean that Israel no longer exists'. Maybe that poster envisaged Israel as the one state in their optimal solution. Did you consider that possibility before you went accusing them of sympathising with a terrorist organisation?

It is also clear that that poster referred to the 'optimal' solution. My 'optimal' solution is one where everyone puts down their guns, sets aside their differences, skips off into the sunset holding hands, we get rid of all borders and do away with the notion of states! Ridiculous. Expressing sympathy for Hamas? Obviously not. But who knows if we adopt your reasoning.

I'm sure I don't need to define optimal for you. However, this poster's use of 'optimal' means they clearly contemplated other solutions. Perhaps they support a two state solution. It is entirely possible that they support a two state solution despite considering that there may be better or more perfect solutions.

Expressing the view that a one state solution is 'optimal' is not expressing sympathy for Hamas. It is not expressing a view that Israel should no longer exist.

It's not too late to walk it back. In fact, I invite you to. Please do. There's enough toxic s**t on this thread, we don't need this strawmanning bullshit too. What was it you said some time ago? Exercise some restraint? I suggest you try that.
Click to expand...
Considering I am said poster I have a few comments to add to what you've said.

Firstly I deleted the posts because I really don't think it's worth my time going back and forth with people who delibaretly misconstrue my comments to accuse me of supporting a terrorist organisation. Like seriously "one democratic state where all have equal rights" = supporting Hamas????

For the most part, I actually do support a two state solution on the 1967 borders. But I also know that it's incredibly unrealistic mostly due to the huge number of illegal israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. A two state solution requires Israel to give up those illegal settlements and relocate all the settlers (600,000+ people), which they will never agree to. Hence, the only other realistic way around that that I can think of is one state where anyone can live anywhere.

I don't care if that state is Israel or Palestine or the United States of Israel and Palestine, all I care about is that it is a democratic state where there are equal rights between the Palestinians and the Israeli's and that those expelled during the Nakba are able to exercise their right to return as refugees.

And no single state anywhere has an inherent right to exist. People have a right to exist.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

s_wd6 said:
Considering I am said poster I have a few comments to add to what you've said.

Firstly I deleted the posts because I really don't think it's worth my time going back and forth with people who delibaretly misconstrue my comments to accuse me of supporting a terrorist organisation. Like seriously "one democratic state where all have equal rights" = supporting Hamas????

For the most part, I actually do support a two state solution on the 1967 borders. But I also know that it's incredibly unrealistic mostly due to the huge number of illegal israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. A two state solution requires Israel to give up those illegal settlements and relocate all the settlers (600,000+ people), which they will never agree to. Hence, the only other realistic way around that that I can think of is one state where anyone can live anywhere.

I don't care if that state is Israel or Palestine or the United States of Israel and Palestine, all I care about is that it is a democratic state where there are equal rights between the Palestinians and the Israeli's and that those expelled during the Nakba are able to exercise their right to return as refugees.

And no single state anywhere has an inherent right to exist. People have a right to exist.
Click to expand...

I am interested in this line of thinking and how it matches up with:

From the River to the Sea

and

Free Palestine

The meaning of those statements, although no one is willing to define them would seem to make a one state solution impossible. Would it not?

Do you think that given Hamas is the elected power and would be elected again, and their mission includes killing all Jews, that one state is unrealistic mostly due to illegal Israeli settlements? I am trying to see where you weight the stated purpose and goals of the elected, controlling power in the region in this equation.
 
poshman said:
I am interested in this line of thinking and how it matches up with:

From the River to the Sea

and

Free Palestine

The meaning of those statements, although no one is willing to define them would seem to make a one state solution impossible. Would it not?

Do you think that given Hamas is the elected power and would be elected again, and their mission includes killing all Jews, that one state is unrealistic mostly due to illegal Israeli settlements? I am trying to see where you weight the stated purpose and goals of the elected, controlling power in the region in this equation.
Click to expand...

You mentioned that you dislike the Islamic religion as they have different beliefs to the West. Ok, fair enough.

Why do Isreal only bully Palestine? Easy target?
 
poshman said:
From the River to the Sea
Click to expand...
I can't tell you the History of "From the River to the Sea" but the way I interpret it, and the way the majority of people using it interpret it is meaning that every Palestinian on the land, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranea sea deserves freedom. It's a complete farce that the same people who interpret it as genocidal have nothing to say about the Likud party slongan "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
poshman said:
Free Palestine
Click to expand...
As for Free Palestine that one is extremely clear cut. Is Palestine under occupation and blockade? Yes? Perfect, Free Palestine from the occupation and blockade. I don't see how that in anyway undermines a one state solution. A one state solution literally cannot occur without a free Palestine.
poshman said:
The meaning of those statements, although no one is willing to define them would seem to make a one state solution impossible. Would it not?
Click to expand...
I don't think those statements would make a one state solution impossible at all. The exact opposite actually. A truly free Palestine from the river to the sea is in one state where all have equal rights (regardless of what that state is). Palestinian freedom does not have to come at the expense of Israeli freedom.
poshman said:
Do you think that given Hamas is the elected power and would be elected again, and their mission includes killing all Jews, that one state is unrealistic mostly due to illegal Israeli settlements?
Click to expand...
Firstly, I said that a two state solution is unrealistic due to the settlements, because a two state solution would entail the dismantling of the illegal settlements in the West Bank, which I can't see Israel agreeing to. And that if they refuse to remove the illegal settlements required for a two state solution then they need to accept a one state solution. A one-state solution is unrealistic due to the decades long history of violence and dehumanisation between the two groups.

Secondly, as someone posted on here already, Hamas modified their charter in 2017.

16. Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.

17. Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine.

And while they don't recognise the legitimacy of Israel,

Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.

So from that it states that 1. Hamas stated purpose and goal isn't to kill all Jews and 2. They are open to the idea of a two state solution on 1967 borders. None of what I've said means I support them, just to be clear. I'm simply pointing out the discrepancies between what you said and what their actual stated goal is.

poshman said:
I am trying to see where you weight the stated purpose and goals of the elected, controlling power in the region in this equation.
Click to expand...
A one-state solution involves every citizen, both Israeli and Palestinian, voting democratically for the party that represents them. If there are equal parts Palestinians and Israelis how do you see Hamas coming into power to have control over this one state? There is no future for Hamas in a one-state solution.

And while we're on the topic of "stated purpose and goals of the elected, controlling power in the region" why haven't you mentioned the Likud party slogan "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." which completely opposes even a two state solution? Or the fact that Netanyahu has bragged about how proud he is to be the sole person in preventing a Palestinian state for the past 30 years.
 
Last edited:
poshman said:
I have stayed away from this discussion, although I have spent a lot of time in the region, which I have discussed previously in regards to mindset. The challenge for the western mind is the the Ancient Near East mind does not hold the same values. In fact they believe we lack values in almost all the most important areas.

Having said that I will ask this as I have read the last 6 pages (may have missed it) and haven't seen it. What do the following statements mean practically?

Free Palestine =

From the river to the sea =

Secondly, how would you propose entering into a political agreement (2 state solution) with the very same leadership that just raped and killed your people during a time of peace? How is that done practically when the people support that leadership and would vote them in again?

Also - there are still hostages being kept and based on what released hostages have said, repeatedly abused and raped. Personally if that was one of my daughters I know how I would feel. Why have they not been released and why do I not hear outrage or demands on their behalf from the pro palestine side? In my opinion the rest is almost a non starter given this is an elected and majority supported political party.

Hint: They need to be released, but... is not a sound argument.
____________________

I am interested in practical, reasonable solutions. As I have been in every area of my professional and not for profit career. Before I am labelled anything I have worked in the middle east and northern africa through 2004-2014.
Click to expand...

There you go.
 
s_wd6 said:
I can't tell you the History of "From the River to the Sea" but the way I interpret it, and the way the majority of people using it interpret it is meaning that every Palestinian on the land, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranea sea deserves freedom. It's a complete farce that the same people who interpret it as genocidal have nothing to say about the Likud party slongan "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."

As for Free Palestine that one is extremely clear cut. Is Palestine under occupation and blockade? Yes? Perfect, Free Palestine from the occupation and blockade. I don't see how that in anyway undermines a one state solution. A one state solution literally cannot occur without a free Palestine.

I don't think those statements would make a one state solution impossible at all. The exact opposite actually. A truly free Palestine from the river to the sea is in one state where all have equal rights (regardless of what that state is). Palestinian freedom does not have to come at the expense of Israeli freedom.

Firstly, I said that a two state solution is unrealistic due to the settlements, because a two state solution would entail the dismantling of the illegal settlements in the West Bank, which I can't see Israel agreeing to. And that if they refuse to remove the illegal settlements required for a two state solution then they need to accept a one state solution. A one-state solution is unrealistic due to the decades long history of violence and dehumanisation between the two groups.

Secondly, as someone posted on here already, Hamas modified their charter in 2017.

16. Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.

17. Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine.

And while they don't recognise the legitimacy of Israel,

Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.

So from that it states that 1. Hamas stated purpose and goal isn't to kill all Jews and 2. They are open to the idea of a two state solution on 1967 borders. None of what I've said means I support them, just to be clear. I'm simply pointing out the discrepancies between what you said and what their actual stated goal is.


A one-state solution involves every citizen, both Israeli and Palestinian, voting democratically for the party that represents them. If there are equal parts Palestinians and Israelis how do you see Hamas coming into power to have control over this one state? There is no future for Hamas in a one-state solution.

And while we're on the topic of "stated purpose and goals of the elected, controlling power in the region" why haven't you mentioned the Likud party slogan "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." which completely opposes even a two state solution? Or the fact that Netanyahu has bragged about how proud he is to be the sole person in preventing a Palestinian state for the past 30 years.
Click to expand...

I can't tell you the History of "From the River to the Sea" but the way I interpret it, and the way the majority of people using it interpret it is meaning that every Palestinian on the land, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranea sea deserves freedom.

That is not how Hamas defines it or the majority of the Muslims I know describe it. Even the modified charter points to it. We don't want to kill all Jews. Just those who occupy Palestine. So all the Jews in Palestine.. What do they define as Palestine? From the river to the sea... Therefore they are only at war with every Jew in Palestine.

There is a vast difference between only wanting Israeli sovereignty and genocide. There is a gulf larger than Gaza between we want sovereignty and war against every Jew who lives in palestine.

How do we know it is every Jew who lives in Palestine? Because they have made it clear Jews are not welcome in their controlled lands.

Also, this is comical... like hilariously comical.

17. Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine.

bahahaahahahaa come on, you know that is hilarious right? If there is an issue and we want lefty support blame colonialism so the intersectional, oppressed vs oppressor mind virus takes over reason.

I don't love either side, and haven't heard one practical solution provided here or elsewhere that I think is workable.


________

A one-state solution is unrealistic due to the decades long history of violence and dehumanisation between the two groups.

I appreciate this honest take. At least this points to both sides instead of laying the majority of the blame on the Israeli side.
 
poshman said:
I can't tell you the History of "From the River to the Sea" but the way I interpret it, and the way the majority of people using it interpret it is meaning that every Palestinian on the land, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranea sea deserves freedom.

That is not how Hamas defines it or the majority of the Muslims I know describe it. Even the modified charter points to it. We don't want to kill all Jews. Just those who occupy Palestine. So all the Jews in Palestine.. What do they define as Palestine? From the river to the sea... Therefore they are only at war with every Jew in Palestine.
Click to expand...
If you choose to interpret the words like that, go ahead, no ones stopping you. Doesn't mean you have the right to accuse others of saying those words with the same interpretation you have of it. Israeli's don't recognise Palestine, by the way. Notice how they refuse to refer to Palestinians and Palestinian and instead call them Arabs exclusively? Also, the West Bank is Israel according to them.
poshman said:
There is a vast difference between only wanting Israeli sovereignty and genocide. There is a gulf larger than Gaza between we want sovereignty and war against every Jew who lives in palestine.
Click to expand...
You know what there is also a massive gulf between? The amount of Jews killed by Hamas and the amount of Palestinians killed by Israel. There have been more Palestinian children killed this conflict alone than total Israelis killed since the start of the century. You seem more upset with the fact that Hamas supposedly calls for the genocide of Jews than the fact that Israel is actively participating in the genocide of Gaza (which I'm not getting into a debate with you with, go watch South Africa's address). Why is the hypothetical more important to you than the reality?
poshman said:
How do we know it is every Jew who lives in Palestine? Because they have made it clear Jews are not welcome in their controlled lands.
Click to expand...
I expect you share the same sentiment for the genocidal statements coming from Israeli leaders?
poshman said:
17. Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine.

bahahaahahahaa come on, you know that is hilarious right? If there is an issue and we want lefty support blame colonialism so the intersectional, oppressed vs oppressor mind virus takes over reason.
Click to expand...
Me copy and pasting a statement doesn't mean I support or agree with the contents of said statement. That being said, Zionism is colonialism. The earliest Zionists were proud of that fact and didn't shy away from it. Would Hamas exist without Israeli violence? Obviously not because they didn't exist until the 80s. I read somewhere that when he was a child, one of the founders watched Israel line up all the adult males in his village and line them up against the wall and execute them. Does that not place the blame on Israel for creaing Hamas?

Watch Tantura. These ex soldiers proudly boast about their indiscriminate killing and even laugh about it.
poshman said:
A one-state solution is unrealistic due to the decades long history of violence and dehumanisation between the two groups.

I appreciate this honest take. At least this points to both sides instead of laying the majority of the blame on the Israeli side.
Click to expand...
As the occupying power, the majority of the blame does lie with Israel. It's funny how you youre insistent on me presenting a "both sides are at fault" argument while you try and plant the blame firmly on the occupied state. You haven't criticised Israel once. Why are the Palestinians held responsible for electing an extremist violent government 17 years ago, but the Israelis don't have to be held accountable for continously supporting and electing their facist extremist violent government time and time again?

How do you expect Palestinians to react when they've been under blockade and occupation for 75+ years? Do you want them to peacefully protest instead? Because they did that for two years straight and hundreds were killed and tens of thousands shot at and injured. Do you think any normal person would sit down and take it, or do you think it would radicalise them to the point of committing terrorist attacks?

Anyway, it's very clear that neither of us are going to change the other's mind, so that's the last I'm going to say on the topic.
 
Last edited:
s_wd6 said:
If you choose to interpret the words like that, go ahead, no ones stopping you. Doesn't mean you have the right to accuse others of saying those words with the same interpretation you have of it. Israeli's don't recognise Palestine, by the way. Notice how they refuse to refer to Palestinians and Palestinian and instead call them Arabs exclusively? Also, the West Bank is Israel according to them.

You know what there is also a massive gulf between? The amount of Jews killed by Hamas and the amount of Palestinians killed by Israel. There have been more Palestinian children killed this conflict alone than total Israelis killed since the start of the century. You seem more upset with the fact that Hamas supposedly calls for the genocide of Jews than the fact that Israel is actively participating in the genocide of Gaza (which I'm not getting into a debate with you with, go watch South Africa's address). Why is the hypothetical more important to you than the reality?

I expect you share the same sentiment for the genocidal statements coming from Israeli leaders?

Me copy and pasting a statement doesn't mean I support or agree with the contents of said statement. That being said, Zionism is colonialism. The earliest Zionists were proud of that fact and didn't shy away from it. Would Hamas exist without Israeli violence? Obviously not because they didn't exist until the 80s. I read somewhere that when he was a child, one of the founders watched Israel line up all the adult males in his village and line them up against the wall and execute them. Does that not place the blame on Israel for creaing Hamas?

Watch Tantura. These ex soldiers proudly boast about their indiscriminate killing and even laugh about it.

As the occupying power, the majority of the blame does lie with Israel. It's funny how you youre insistent on me presenting a "both sides are at fault" argument while you try and plant the blame firmly on the occupied state. You haven't criticised Israel once. Why are the Palestinians held responsible for electing an extremist violent government 17 years ago, but the Israelis don't have to be held accountable for continously supporting and electing their facist extremist violent government time and time again?

How do you expect Palestinians to react when they've been under blockade and occupation for 75+ years? Do you want them to peacefully protest instead? Because they did that for two years straight and hundreds were killed and tens of thousands shot at and injured. Do you think any normal person would sit down and take it, or do you think it would radicalise them to the point of committing terrorist attacks?

Anyway, it's very clear that neither of us are going to change the other's mind, so that's the last I'm going to say on the topic.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the reply even if filled with lefty word games. If Hamas means get rid of all Jews when they say from the river to the sea, you saying it and meaning something different isn't a good thing.

As for South Africa, I couldn't care less what they have to say.

Me copy and pasting a statement doesn't mean I support or agree with the contents of said statement.

You used their writing to make your point that the aim of Hamas is not to get rid of all Jews to support your One State solution. This was the goalpost remember, your proposed one state solution.

I clearly showed that they haven't changed the intentions or aims and now you are dismissing the points you brought up.

Which is the older religion? Judaism or Islam?

I am searching for practical solutions, a one state solution is not practical as long as Hamas is in power and the people of Gaza support them. That statement absolves no one on either side.

No problem if it is the last you will comment on it. Have a great day, hope you are surviving the 40c weather ok.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Pillow Guy...
 
King Huskii said:
I read between the lines
Click to expand...
poshman said:
Ah so i didn't say it, and you are assuming the worst. Great way to have a discussion.
Click to expand...

Just on this. My recollection was the tone and wording of the way it was originally posted was different.

There was mention of visits to North Africa and the Middle East, Poshman talking about both his business and charity work, and preceding that was a phrase along the lines of "before you all come at me..." to justify what he was saying.

When I first saw it, I had to stop from reading it all the way through because it seemed too bigoted and not worthy of consideration or response.
 
Last edited:
Again 24-48 hours is a long time in the politics thread. I was up in Lower Chittering on the weekend, with one of my best friends who owns a hobby farm up there. It was s**t scary. So sorry for being distracted and not replying earllier to the several posts in my direction including the offended ones, I can't be bothered replying to you all individually now, I'll just do it as a collective.
I don't recall seeing on here anyone in support of the terrorist tactics of Hamas, and that is not what I meant by Hamas sympathisers. If people think I am accusing them of being in favour of massacre and terrorism, I apologise that wasn't my intent. I do see people in various guises support the goal of fundamentalist islamists (of which Hamas is only one), which is the elinmiation of a Jewish majority "ethnostate" from the middle east. All tied in to the idea that Israel is an illegitimate coloniser state commiting genocide. That is what I meant by Hamas sympathisers.
I've outlined the four stages of denial that Hamas committed atrocities and if you want to align yourself with one of those four stages, feel free. Please, look for as many angles as you want to try and promote the narrative that Israel is an illegitimate coloniser state doing atrocity propaganda to justify committing genocide in Gaza.
25000 Palestinians dead in the last few months is a tragedy, and the way Israel is conduction this war deserves condemnation. Six million Jews dead 75 years ago is enough of a tragedy, in my opinion, for it to be non-negotiable that there is a Jewish majority nation state as a permanent sanctuary for the Jewish diaspora. If that is accepted that Israel has a right to exist, it is entrirely correct and I agree that Israel needs to make concessions in land, Jerusalem etc to accomodate a Palestinian state and the rights of Palestinians.
Unless I see any further complete lying bullshit that prompts me to post, I think I've said enough and will take wahoos point and exercise restraint. Cheers all
 
The Feeder Club said:
Again 24-48 hours is a long time in the politics thread. I was up in Lower Chittering on the weekend, with one of my best friends who owns a hobby farm up there. It was s**t scary. So sorry for being distracted and not replying earllier to the several posts in my direction including the offended ones, I can't be bothered replying to you all individually now, I'll just do it as a collective.
I don't recall seeing on here anyone in support of the terrorist tactics of Hamas, and that is not what I meant by Hamas sympathisers. If people think I am accusing them of being in favour of massacre and terrorism, I apologise that wasn't my intent. I do see people in various guises support the goal of fundamentalist islamists (of which Hamas is only one), which is the elinmiation of a Jewish majority "ethnostate" from the middle east. All tied in to the idea that Israel is an illegitimate coloniser state commiting genocide. That is what I meant by Hamas sympathisers.
I've outlined the four stages of denial that Hamas committed atrocities and if you want to align yourself with one of those four stages, feel free. Please, look for as many angles as you want to try and promote the narrative that Israel is an illegitimate coloniser state doing atrocity propaganda to justify committing genocide in Gaza.
25000 Palestinians dead in the last few months is a tragedy, and the way Israel is conduction this war deserves condemnation. Six million Jews dead 75 years ago is enough of a tragedy, in my opinion, for it to be non-negotiable that there is a Jewish majority nation state as a permanent sanctuary for the Jewish diaspora. If that is accepted that Israel has a right to exist, it is entrirely correct and I agree that Israel needs to make concessions in land, Jerusalem etc to accomodate a Palestinian state and the rights of Palestinians.
Unless I see any further complete lying bullshit that prompts me to post, I think I've said enough and will take wahoos point and exercise restraint. Cheers all
Click to expand...

Before you go, Got that Le Monde article to share? Give my regards to Square Peg.
 
The Feeder Club said:
Again 24-48 hours is a long time in the politics thread. I was up in Lower Chittering on the weekend, with one of my best friends who owns a hobby farm up there. It was s**t scary. So sorry for being distracted and not replying earllier to the several posts in my direction including the offended ones, I can't be bothered replying to you all individually now, I'll just do it as a collective.
I don't recall seeing on here anyone in support of the terrorist tactics of Hamas, and that is not what I meant by Hamas sympathisers. If people think I am accusing them of being in favour of massacre and terrorism, I apologise that wasn't my intent. I do see people in various guises support the goal of fundamentalist islamists (of which Hamas is only one), which is the elinmiation of a Jewish majority "ethnostate" from the middle east. All tied in to the idea that Israel is an illegitimate coloniser state commiting genocide. That is what I meant by Hamas sympathisers.
I've outlined the four stages of denial that Hamas committed atrocities and if you want to align yourself with one of those four stages, feel free. Please, look for as many angles as you want to try and promote the narrative that Israel is an illegitimate coloniser state doing atrocity propaganda to justify committing genocide in Gaza.
25000 Palestinians dead in the last few months is a tragedy, and the way Israel is conduction this war deserves condemnation. Six million Jews dead 75 years ago is enough of a tragedy, in my opinion, for it to be non-negotiable that there is a Jewish majority nation state as a permanent sanctuary for the Jewish diaspora. If that is accepted that Israel has a right to exist, it is entrirely correct and I agree that Israel needs to make concessions in land, Jerusalem etc to accomodate a Palestinian state and the rights of Palestinians.
Unless I see any further complete lying bullshit that prompts me to post, I think I've said enough and will take wahoos point and exercise restraint. Cheers all
Click to expand...

Thank God! One less poster that I have to read who thinks they can justify oppression and war.

The old square peg has left the building.
 
stax on the mull said:
Just on this. My recollection was the tone and wording of the way it was originally posted was different.

There was mention of visits to North Africa and the Middle East, Poshman talking about both his business and charity work, and preceding that was a phrase along the lines of "before you all come at me..." to justify what he was saying.

When I first saw it, I had to stop from reading it all the way through because it seemed too bigoted and not worthy of consideration or response.
Click to expand...

Perhaps read the post. If saying the ANE mindset is different than the western mindset is bigoted...

The ANE covers more than just Islam and extends beyond Israel/Palestine. It is also seen as similar but different to far eastern mindset.

Do you not think there are differences between western thinking and eastern?

Bigoted? Stupidity.
 
poshman said:
Perhaps read the post. If saying the ANE mindset is different than the western mindset is bigoted...

The ANE covers more than just Islam and extends beyond Israel/Palestine. It is also seen as similar but different to far eastern mindset.

Do you not think there are differences between western thinking and eastern?

Bigoted? Stupidity.
Click to expand...
They do not. We're all the same, humanity. Haven't you heard?
It's unfortunate that, as I've mentioned before, there are those who cannot understand exactly what it means that we are.

The vast majority of commentary here comes from posters who live in Australia, a land girt by sea, never invaded by a foreign power (yeah yeah, I know), sometimes several of them at once, and with no experience of what they're speaking about.
We have no rowdy neighbours, those who hate us only do so at a distance (again... mostly), we've never had missiles exploding in the sky overhead to such an extent that our children are suffering rates of PTSD at a rate of 50% or more.

Idealistic stances and moral absolutism are a social constructs which have become part of the fabric of the world only through Abrahamic ideals enforced upon most of the rest of the world through Western dominance, and more recently economic pragmatism.
Whether by hard power or soft power - enforcement is the only way ideals survive. That enforcement also provides the comfortable little bubbles in which the idealists can survive and thrive without consequence.

Sympathy is often displayed here, by one side or the other - that's quite natural. Any claim to empathy, however, is often an obvious lie, albeit disguised by cloudy idealistic thinking often indiscernible as such even by those claiming it.
We call ourselves Australians, but that sympathy for one side or the other quite often depends upon our backgrounds.

Empathy is almost impossible for most Australians. Perhaps some of the newer ones, but that form of empathy is more than a little hypocritical in nature and by no means universal. Again, it's a very human thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top