catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Of course you won't. Who exactly is "pro-Pally" to you? Anyone who dares to contradict the offical Israeli line?
General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 4
- Thread starter theprestige
- Start date
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
If by "pro-Pally" Natalie means "pro the Palestinian people" then I am definitely that. But if they mean "pro Hamas" then I am firmly and absolutely unambiguously not.
NatalieSalat
Thinker
Arfur, None of the Palestinian groups with any power (guns, knives explosives) would be good for the Palestinian people.
That is what frustrates me so -- why is the western left not as forceful against reaction and conservatism in the Global South as they have been against those such as Falwell or Robertson?
That is what frustrates me so -- why is the western left not as forceful against reaction and conservatism in the Global South as they have been against those such as Falwell or Robertson?
NatalieSalat
Thinker
Cats, Given what Hamas and Fatah have done to the Palestinian people (and that you can be judicially murdered in at least 10 Islamic world states for abandoning Islam or saying it is tosh), why are *you* believing western leftist and Global South sources at first glance?
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,757
The vast anti-Israel street demonstrations over the previous few years have been anything but "pro-Palestinian"
Instead of emphasizing a Palestine State as a normative member of the community of nations, with peaceful intentions towards a neighboring Jewish State of Israel, what has been evinced is the complete opposite.
www.israelnationalnews.com
Instead of emphasizing a Palestine State as a normative member of the community of nations, with peaceful intentions towards a neighboring Jewish State of Israel, what has been evinced is the complete opposite.
Is the Pro-Palestine banner now the cover for modern antisemitism?
Dublin’s attempt to erase Jewish history shows the movement is no longer about 'justice'-but about hate. Opinion.
www.israelnationalnews.com
NatalieSalat
Thinker
Palestinian reactionary Islamist and the authoritarian secular groups on Oct. 6:
The same groups on Oct. 8th:
The same groups on Oct. 8th:
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,737
Consequences for IDF soldiers murdering prisoners: they get a promotion.
There are clear precedents for how such a lawless State should be treated: sanctioned, boycotted, isolated, and international arrest warrants for everyone in the chain of command
There are clear precedents for how such a lawless State should be treated: sanctioned, boycotted, isolated, and international arrest warrants for everyone in the chain of command
NatalieSalat
Thinker
Considering their opponents are murderous theocrats and secular corrupt authoritarians. it's very much grey versus black. The world won't come to save Hamas or Fatah. The Global South doesn't want the setting of unfortunate precedents.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
I don't speak Hebrew, so I can't verify the accuracy of the translation here:
View attachment everyone.mp4
View attachment everyone.mp4
NatalieSalat
Thinker
This poster raises some interesting questions. Let us consider its implications.
The slogan "always was, always will be - Aboriginal land," makes the assertion that Indigenous peoples have certain inalienable rights to the land on which their ancestors lived, rights which cannot be erased by subsequent occupation. In Australia, that means that 237 years of European occupation have not changed the status of the land as "Aboriginal land."
Of course, when non-Indigenous Australians make this statement, we don't mean it to be taken literally. My friends who own their own homes are not going to hand them over to any Aboriginal person who knocks on their door, even if they agree, in theory, that they are living on stolen land. But it is an assertion which has wide support in Australia - and I broadly agree with it.
What is curious is that those who make this assertion don't apply this principle in other contexts. No-one who has studied the history of the ancient Middle East can credibly dispute that the Jews are indigenous to the land between the Jordan River and the sea. A community worshipping the god Yahweh and calling themselves Isra-el (those who contend with God) emerged from the wider Semitic population (retrospectively called Canaanites) sometime in the 2nd millennium BCE. By 1000 BCE they had formed a state, Judaea, with its capital at Jerusalem. They retained sovereignty - with some interruptions - until the Roman conquest in 70 CE. Even after the conquest and the exile of the majority of Jews from Israel, sovereignty was never ceded.
But if I put forward the proposition that since sovereignty was never ceded, the land between the Jordan and the sea "always was, always will be - Jewish land," I will be accused of racism, apartheid, genocide and all the other lazy slogans of the current juncture. The Palestinians and their champions in the academies of the west will argue that even if there once was a Jewish state in Israel (which many of them deny), Jewish sovereignty has been extinguished by 1900 years of subsequent Arab settlement and rule over the land. This is of course precisely the argument that prevailed in Australia until it was overturned by the Mabo judgement in 1992.
In fact, Arab rule over the Land of Israel did not begin until the conquest by the Caliph Umar in 636 CE, and it lasted only until 1099, when the Christian Crusaders captured Jerusalem. When the Crusaders were evicted, the area was briefly ruled by the Fatimid Arabs, and then from about 1250 by the Mamluk and Ottoman Turks. So the notion of a sovereign "Arab Palestine" at any time in history is a myth.
In practice, of course, neither the Zionist movement nor the State of Israel has ever asserted that all the land is Israel is literally "Jewish land". The Zionists did not seize Arab lands under a doctrine of "Indigenous right." They bought every hectare of land they farmed, from willing Arab and Turkish landowners, under both Ottoman and British rule. Today there are 2 million Arab citizens of Israel, whose property rights are the same as those of Jewish Israelis.
I take a consistent position on this issue. I have supported the Aboriginal land rights movement since I was a student 30 years ago. That movement has won great victories, as a result of which Aboriginal people, 3% of the Australian population, now own 40% of all the land in Australia. I apply the same principle to Israel, while making due allowance for different circumstances. The Jewish people never ceded sovereignty over the Land of Israel, and now they have reclaimed it. But they have never sought to displace the settler population - the Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians - from the lands where they live. Arab property rights in Israel are secured by the laws of the Zionist State of Israel, just as Aboriginal land ownership in Australia is secured by the land law which the Australian Parliament has established.
I don't know who the woman with the megaphone in the poster is. But her dress indicates that she is a Muslim, possibly an Arab Muslim. I would be interested to know whether she accepts the slogan "always was, always will be - Aboriginal land." If she does, I would be interested to know whether she applies the same principle, of inalienable Indigenous land rights, to the Jewish people's claim to sovereignty in the Land of Israel. If, as I suspect, she does not, I'd be interested to know on what basis she draws a distinction between the two situations.
Anyone is free to answer on her behalf
The slogan "always was, always will be - Aboriginal land," makes the assertion that Indigenous peoples have certain inalienable rights to the land on which their ancestors lived, rights which cannot be erased by subsequent occupation. In Australia, that means that 237 years of European occupation have not changed the status of the land as "Aboriginal land."
Of course, when non-Indigenous Australians make this statement, we don't mean it to be taken literally. My friends who own their own homes are not going to hand them over to any Aboriginal person who knocks on their door, even if they agree, in theory, that they are living on stolen land. But it is an assertion which has wide support in Australia - and I broadly agree with it.
What is curious is that those who make this assertion don't apply this principle in other contexts. No-one who has studied the history of the ancient Middle East can credibly dispute that the Jews are indigenous to the land between the Jordan River and the sea. A community worshipping the god Yahweh and calling themselves Isra-el (those who contend with God) emerged from the wider Semitic population (retrospectively called Canaanites) sometime in the 2nd millennium BCE. By 1000 BCE they had formed a state, Judaea, with its capital at Jerusalem. They retained sovereignty - with some interruptions - until the Roman conquest in 70 CE. Even after the conquest and the exile of the majority of Jews from Israel, sovereignty was never ceded.
But if I put forward the proposition that since sovereignty was never ceded, the land between the Jordan and the sea "always was, always will be - Jewish land," I will be accused of racism, apartheid, genocide and all the other lazy slogans of the current juncture. The Palestinians and their champions in the academies of the west will argue that even if there once was a Jewish state in Israel (which many of them deny), Jewish sovereignty has been extinguished by 1900 years of subsequent Arab settlement and rule over the land. This is of course precisely the argument that prevailed in Australia until it was overturned by the Mabo judgement in 1992.
In fact, Arab rule over the Land of Israel did not begin until the conquest by the Caliph Umar in 636 CE, and it lasted only until 1099, when the Christian Crusaders captured Jerusalem. When the Crusaders were evicted, the area was briefly ruled by the Fatimid Arabs, and then from about 1250 by the Mamluk and Ottoman Turks. So the notion of a sovereign "Arab Palestine" at any time in history is a myth.
In practice, of course, neither the Zionist movement nor the State of Israel has ever asserted that all the land is Israel is literally "Jewish land". The Zionists did not seize Arab lands under a doctrine of "Indigenous right." They bought every hectare of land they farmed, from willing Arab and Turkish landowners, under both Ottoman and British rule. Today there are 2 million Arab citizens of Israel, whose property rights are the same as those of Jewish Israelis.
I take a consistent position on this issue. I have supported the Aboriginal land rights movement since I was a student 30 years ago. That movement has won great victories, as a result of which Aboriginal people, 3% of the Australian population, now own 40% of all the land in Australia. I apply the same principle to Israel, while making due allowance for different circumstances. The Jewish people never ceded sovereignty over the Land of Israel, and now they have reclaimed it. But they have never sought to displace the settler population - the Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians - from the lands where they live. Arab property rights in Israel are secured by the laws of the Zionist State of Israel, just as Aboriginal land ownership in Australia is secured by the land law which the Australian Parliament has established.
I don't know who the woman with the megaphone in the poster is. But her dress indicates that she is a Muslim, possibly an Arab Muslim. I would be interested to know whether she accepts the slogan "always was, always will be - Aboriginal land." If she does, I would be interested to know whether she applies the same principle, of inalienable Indigenous land rights, to the Jewish people's claim to sovereignty in the Land of Israel. If, as I suspect, she does not, I'd be interested to know on what basis she draws a distinction between the two situations.
Anyone is free to answer on her behalf
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,757
I looked into the authenticity of that video short. Maybe, the reason you can't verify the accuracy is because it's inaccurate.
GROK says:
The overlaid subtitles claiming he "dreams" of entering Gaza to "kill everyone" are fabricated propaganda; they don't match the original interview answer.
No credible source backs the video's violent statement—this is edited with AI to incite against Jews.
His actual response to the 'dream' question was innocuous, something along the lines of aspiring to greater mobility or normalcy.
Who is that person? It should be easy to identify him and the interviewer.
Where is the video posted?
This war has introduced a massive amount of content that amplifies misinformation.
Circulating unreliable material online can lead to confusion and expands the reach of harmful narratives. It would be wonderful if people here would make a stronger effort to verify information in the future and to avoid reposting claims without first ensuring their accuracy.
We do know there's Israeli individuals who lost limbs in Gaza, for instance Matan Angrest.
The guy isn't going around wishing to kill everyone.
He's dancing in the streets, enjoying himself and threatening no-one.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Lol. Grok says. We know that Grok is incredibly biased towards misinformation because Elon Musk is a whiny little baby. Other AI chatbots are sometimes accurate by accident, but Grok is always untrustworthy. Always.
I'm open to the possibility that it's inaccurate. I just don't believe anything Grok says. I'd like to hear a translation from someone who speaks Hebrew.
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,757
When you manage to locate the original clip, I'll translate for you.
Who is that person? It should be easy to identify him and the interviewer.
Where is the video posted?
From what I'm understanding, you've only introduced the manipulated version. C'mon, do a little research and present that interview in total, so we can evaluate this for ourselves.
Who is that person? It should be easy to identify him and the interviewer.
Where is the video posted?
From what I'm understanding, you've only introduced the manipulated version. C'mon, do a little research and present that interview in total, so we can evaluate this for ourselves.
Last edited:
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
Nor democratic either.
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
Using the Israelisches Einsatsgruppen Force's admittedly conservative numbers, they're claiming that they've murdered more than 200,000 semitic Gazans, roughly ten percent of the population.
Given the level of destruction that Israel visited on the Gaza Konzentrationschlagter, double that number of murders is more likely to be true than the confirmed number that the Gazan authorities are currently using.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
I'm not familiar with Israeli media. I got this off Instagram - I wouldn't know how to go about locating the original. If it's manipulated, then it's manipulated, but if that's the case I'd really like to get a proper translation.
NatalieSalat
Thinker
If you keep up with this ◊◊◊◊, whilst knowing perfectly well what your friends the Palestinian leadership would do to those the western left purport to care about, you and the others in this thread that pull the same old ◊◊◊◊, could be forced at gunpoint to chant "Paedophile Palestine, Paedophile Muhammed...".
Yes, I am getting irritated.
What is the age of consent for marriage (and sex) in Gaza? What is it in Israel? you may be surprised by the facts.
I take it you are not interested in taking your “history” lesson back further than the 1950s. Why not?
NatalieSalat
Thinker
Mate, he's probably hoping that the news of the sinking of the Titanic hasn't hit the wireless.
The suffix -phobia in Islamophobia implies that Islam is inherent and non-negotiable such as if you were gay.
And that is all the evidence that anyone would ever need about the western hard and far left.