it's sort of funny. as i was reflecting on what inferences to draw from a comparison of the israel and ukraine threads, the only thing I could really come up with is that we really don't seem to like wars that someone actually wins.
**** Official Israel War thread****
- Thread starter EagleHawk
- Start date
I'm disingenuous? You disregard/ignore/avoid nearly all of every piece of linked content I provide.
Clearly I am spreading "blame" — while making it pretty clear I'm not into this either/or, finger-pointing blame game. It's stupid and works to remove the very context and nuance I'm patiently trying to provide.
The audience sucks, the narrative-deliverers suck. The phrase in contention isn't singularly used by Hamas or Palestinians, and, in fact, has Zionist origins. To singularly consider Hamas' usage only serves to advance the narrative that serves the ACTUAL "eradication" — your word — of Palestinians. The international community, that is, those outside the media bubble that serves American (and, clearly, Israeli) interests, are increasingly seeing what's happening as genocide and ethnic cleansing. That is, Israel's long-desired "from the river to the sea" removal of Palestinians. This, on the heels of decades of increasingly apartheid-level occupation and treatment of Palestinians.
Here's the top-of-page definition of disingenuous, by the way. Maybe reconsider.
Meaning of disingenuous in English
(of a person or their behavior) slightly dishonest, or not speaking the complete truth.
Last edited:
Yes. You are disengenuous.
I’ll run down your rabbit holes, but before we go on that journey I want you to answer my question.
The one I’m asking a fourth time, that you continue to disregard/ignore/avoid:
If you’re parroting the KKK do you blame the audience for their lack of nuance in understanding the distinction you’re trying to create, while parroting the KKK?
Or do you reconsider parroting the KKK?
How am I disingenuous? Am I being dishonest? Am I trying to avoid truth?
I have taken your question and patiently worked to understand it better. Then I dismantled it given I think the question, itself, is disingenuous — given how much truth is removed from it. I think it's, intentionally or not, a dishonest question. But, then, after all that, I answered it — first part, anyway.
Second part is implicitly answered by the first, given I explain the problem with implying that Hamas is singularly
"parroting" the KKK.
And all along and throughout this "discussion", you continue to ignore and avoid everything I am patiently bringing forward to — directly — challenge your question as you've stated it.
This is pretty much the opposite of being disingenuous on my part, and the embodiment of it on your part.
It took me sitting next to someone who looks like they could be Palestinian to consider this:
Your question speaks to American arrogance, never mind the ignorance I’ve already alluded to. You’re basically suggesting people in some entirely different part of the world, arguably a different world, entirely, should first consider how Isolde arrogant, uninformed and/or misinformed Americans will perceive their words.
Think about that for a moment.
Especially in context of how Israel, too, has used that phrase in context of wanting that land to themselves, and, as we are seeing now, will actually do the worst stuff either explicitly stated or implicit in the usage of that phrase.
It’s being repeated on college campuses in the US and by a member of Congress.
So, in that American context, let me ask you a fifth time the question that you continue to disregard/ignore/avoid:
If you’re parroting the KKK do you blame the audience for their lack of nuance in understanding the distinction you’re trying to create, while parroting the KKK?
Or do you reconsider parroting the KKK?
You said you answered, but i didn’t see where you faulted the speaker or the audience for the misunderstanding.
You’ve already forgotten how this conversation in the thread started.
It started with a dishonest statement from you:
“Palestinians have always just wanted to not be treated as unequal.”
Some of them are interested in more than that, and I consider it disengenuous to assert otherwise.
I think it was also disengenuous to ask for an example of Hamas using the phrase the way it has been interpreted by the ADL, but I provided it anyway.
I think you’re avoiding the truth that the people in power in Gaza seek more than ‘just wanting to be treated as unequal’.
What did you think of the op ed from Ala Mohammed Mushtaha?
Do you think ‘sitting next to someone who looks like they could be Palestinian’ helped him form this conclusion:
“They do all this brainwashing to make you think the cause of our suffering is Israel. But I see very clearly who causes our suffering.”
“Before October 7, people were afraid—and of course some people are still afraid—but ironically, when there is fighting, Hamas goes underground, and people can be more vocal about how Hamas has ruined our lives. People are starting to publicly violate the laws, rules, dictates, and orders of Hamas. They are openly cursing Hamas and its leaders in the streets and markets, and ignoring the directives of the few Hamas officials and police still above ground. They have caused so much damage, it’s undeniable. They’ve imposed themselves on our society, on my father, for too long. We’re all paying the price. People want freedom. We hope deeply that this war will end, and that Hamas will end with it.“
We could play this game all day. You haven't commented on any content I've shared, Pogrund's writings for example. Put Hamas on trial all you want. I'm not here to defend Hamas. Should you care to simplify things, Hamas started as a resistance effort. Zionism started as a displacement effort. Hamas evolved to become something not as defendable. Zionism has evolved to, demonstrably, the effect of becoming an apartheid regime, and, now, arguably guilty of genocide.
Condemn Hamas all you want. Palestinians are not Hamas. Just like Israelis are not, necessarily, Zionists. Just like Jews are not, necessarily, Zionists. For every Mushtaha I can offer up Israelis (including former IDFers), non-Israeli Jews, experts on apartheid, experts on genocide, on and on who are condemning the government of Israel.
I get it, you don't want to move an inch. And you like to "debate" at all costs, because to come to a mutual understanding would be, I dunno, maybe a behavior of weakness to you. I don't know, I'm just guessing.
And there is nothing disingenuous about trying to gain clarity, even if it means duplicity of efforts. I'm not attached to this forum nor this thread. So if I ask you to, in essence, do something you've already done, that's not disingenuous. This is why I pasted the definition of the word in there.
But whatever, you put this quote by Mushtaha in there as a truly weird sort of straw man to "counter" a point I made that is entirely irrespective of whatever anyone feels about Hamas.
What did you think of the op ed from Ala Mohammed Mushtaha?
Do you want a ceasefire to protect his oppressors, or do you want them eliminated so he has a chance to live in peace?
I'm kinda into holding him to this these days. 1 state solution. Gaza and WB Palestinians get the right to organize and vote in Israel and the knesset.
**** that guy. Don't want 2 states? Enjoy an Israel with 50% moslem voters.
Just really shocked that Netanyahu turned out to be who I thought he was.
Go door to door slaughtering women and children and you get your own country.
Marvelous.
Marvelous.
Yes the Palestinian Authority has turned down two state solution multiple times. They make it clear they want 100% of the land and all Jews to die or leave.
There is no negotiating with religious fanatics. They are closer to Nazis than anyone will admit.
I see Hamas says it will return the hostages with an agreement that it will stay in power in Gaza. Sounds like the dog caught the car.
It’s like when the bank robbers demand a helicopter.
Bibi doesn't want peace. A majority of his people do. He is a war criminal. I through him right in with Hamas and Hezbollah as being evil
What are you thoughts on the Israelis chasing down Nazis and executing them decades after WW2?
Would you rather they didn’t?
Western officials in protest over Israel Gaza policy
More than 800 officials in the US and Europe have penned a letter calling for more pressure on Israel.
www.bbc.com
So i see the diplomatic corps is, shockingly, getting skiddish.
Kudos to them for using the diplomatic back channels available for registering this sort of dissent, shame on those talking to the press. Also, shame on them for turning a temporary refugee agency into a permanent dependency agency for four generations of people. The corps is probably the last group of people to listen to here.
And I keep thinking, for all of the talk of over the top recklessness by the israelis, 25000 deaths just doesn't create that much of an inference of recklessness in a densely populated territory of 3 million, particularly given that building damage looks to be well over 50%. And for all of the yammering about long term starvation, etc., well, think of that 50% number as new reconstruction contracts that hamas will eventually skim 20% off of.
Did the Palestinian people vote to put them in power?
Find all the Nazis and destroy them.
The one and ONLY reason they are offering a truce now is because they (Hamas) must feel they are losing badly and have literally no other choice.
Once they surrender, try them, and hang them as war criminals. Then move on to negotiations with Zero Hamas representation. Only sane, non-genocidal Palestinians. They must acknowledge Israels right to exist and have a peaceful State. No exceptions.
The Allies permitted exactly zero food shipments into Nazi Germany, or the Empire of Japan.
Most people don’t know that we waged the most successful submarine warfare ever seen, and absolutely devastated Japanese commercial shipping. The goal was to starve them into submission.
Sherman, however, burned or captured all the food stores that Georgians had saved for the winter months. As a result of the hardships on women and children, desertions increased in Robert E. Lee’s army in Virginia. Sherman believed his campaign against civilians would shorten the war by breaking the Confederate will to fight, and he eventually received permission to carry this psychological warfare into South Carolina in early 1865.
Now show me some wars won where the enemy was shipped food to sustain their efforts. I’m unfamiliar with them.
