placeholder

Another mindreader.

Maybe you should publish in the Journal of Making It Personal

So, we can agree that being Jewish has no necessary attachment to the State of Israel? That the two shouldn't be conflated? That criticism of Israel and Zionism is not necessarily anti-Semitic?

Trump's lawyers are so bad at defending their client that even the Judge scolds them for it Judge Merchan chides Trump’s lawyers for not objecting more during Stormy Daniels’ testimony The judge responded to their arguments saying, “For some unexplained reason that I still don’t understand” there was no objection to certain testimony cited in the motion for a mistrial and again today. Merchan specifically pointed to Daniels’ testimony about the trailer park, in which Daniels suggested Trump told her she would be stuck living in a trailer park before they had sex in 2006. The judge said he felt that was unnecessary and he objected himself. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/09/politics/judge-merchan-calls-out-trump-attorneys-mistrial/index.html

Liicense to fell falsehoods = IMHO

Being against a political state's right to exist is not the same thing as being against the right to exist of people living in that state. Personally, I don't think it's realistic to expect a one state solution. Israel certainly has a right to defend itself against murderous fanatics like those in Hamas. Do you believe that those who oppose not Israel's right to defend itself, but rather oppose the way Israel is waging it's war, are anti-Semitic?

Being Jewish may not be only a religion, but it certainly doesn't mean being Israeli. It certainly doesn't mean that a Jewish person has some inherent connection to Israel. They are free to choose or reject such a connection. Criticisms of Zionism are not inherently anti-semitic. After all, there are far more evangelical Christians who are strong believers in Zionism.

I guess I should be flattered that you would prefer my characterizations of evidence rather than the evidence itself. What exactly is the point of that?

I now you're not dyslexic. Did you bother to read the text? Do you have a problem with reading evidence?

For those of you who didn't bother to follow this link, )and given the evidentiary quality of KhunLA's past posts on this topic why would you.) Here is the sum total of what who tiktoks under the name of Chica Algeciras said: "So the most powerful governments in the world can't solve homelessness, but they can change the earth's temperature if you pay a few more taxes." This is what passes for rational thinking in minds of some.

Here's some: What is clear, however, is that these historians unearthed official documents confirming Israeli culpability in expelling Palestinians, blocking the return of those who fled and committing a series of war crimes. In one seminal document from June 1948—located by Benny Morris and thereafter removed from public view—an intelligence officer listed many of the depopulated Palestinian villages from the first stage of the 1948 war, conveniently explaining for each village the means by which it was uprooted. Among the factors mentioned for the Palestinian exodus were “direct hostile Jewish operations,” “Jewish whispering operations” (i.e. psychological warfare), “ultimate expulsion orders,” “fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response” and others.5 Although Palestinian and Arab scholars had argued as much for decades (mostly relying on oral history), their claims had often been marginalized in Western scholarship.6 This denial was no longer possible after the work of the New Historians came out. The trail introduced by the New Historians still exists, but it has become harder to follow in the past decade. Even more significant than the 2016 closing of the reading room in the Israel State Archives was the recent formal introduction of members of Military Censorship into the archives’ headquarters. These military officials are tasked with approving any publication of documents on top of the work of the declassification teams.7 Trying to follow the New Historians’ footnotes may very well lead to a dead end. In fact, the chief archivist exposed in 2018 that in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) archives alone, 200 files containing some 20,000 pages that had been opened in the past were sealed again in the last several years. Thousands of other files which are formally designated as “declassified” have at least a third of the file removed or redacted. Still, a large number of documents used by the New Historians are, in fact, still available for scholars, perhaps due to the realization that hiding them would be more incriminating than allowing access https://merip.org/2019/09/israels-vanishing-files-archival-deception-and-paper-trails/

This is just proof that you live in an information bubble. Israel actually helped prop up the Hamas regime to keep it from losing popularity. Despite which, before the Hamas attack, Hamad become very unpopular among the Gazans.

Actually, most current Israeli historians would sharply disagree with you. Historians like Benny Morris. Even though he takes a mostly dismal view of the Palestinian. In fact, after the work of these historians began to be published, Israel reclassified the documents pertaining to the Nakba so as to make future research more difficult if not impossible.

I think the biases of the author of this article are most clearly displayed in this paragraph: "From the manipulation of terminology to the selective framing of events, the narrative is dissected to uncover the underlying agenda driving media coverage of Israel. The term "occupation" stands as a stark example of the media's bias against Israel. Despite factual discrepancies, major news outlets continue to refer to Gaza and the West Bank as "occupied territories," perpetuating a one-sided narrative that undermines Israel's legitimacy." First off, How would the author have the press refer to the Israeli presence in Gaza? Is it really unreasonable to call Gaza as the situation now stands an occupied territory? As for the West Bank, what would be the alternative term? What should it be called? Apparently, the author of this article thinks it should be called "Israel." Most of the world's legal community sharply disagrees.

Making it personal is just another piece of evidence that you've got nothing.

Another demonstration that you don't understand the difference between climate and weather. Even sharing with you a simple definition of "climate" apparently wasn't sufficient to dispel your confusion.

It's not even cutting off Israel mostly, is it?

A very low quality article. Here's a link to a far better reported one which includes this passage: "Edgreen’s claims contradict findings from intelligence officials who concluded last year with varying degrees of confidence that there was no evidence a foreign adversary was behind the mysterious attacks on U.S. personnel. The National Institutes of Health also said last month there was no evidence of brain injuries or abnormalities in the brains of victims of the incidents." https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4567312-former-pentagon-investigator-says-he-believes-russia-behind-havana-syndrome-attacks/

So, when you quote these sources, you're not doing it in support of your arguments? You're just taking random dictation? Disingenuous much?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

What would you expect them to say in such circumstances?

Thanks for sharing with us that nonsense from Jim Risch. Since when has the weapons sale process been non-partisan? Living in an alternative reality much?

Even if, despite the current evidence, the IDF's competency was perfect, that doesn't make it inconsistent with unnecessary brutality. If the US judges that what the IDF needs to win means too high a cost in innocent lives, it has every right, in fact a duty, not to give them what they want.

A terrorist organization that was supported by Israel.

I guess you believe that it's arrogant and belittling for the US to tell Ukraine what it needs, too? Maybe American should just offer its allies a budget number and let them go shopping in its arsenal? As for the IDF knows what it's doing. Really? Hamas is returning to power in northern Gaza, IDF colonel says IDF Col. Hezi Nachman said that there are hundreds of thousands of people in northern Gaza and Hamas rule of the area is returning. Hamas is returning to power in northern Gaza, IDF Col. (res.) Hezi Nachman said in an interview with 103FM Tuesday morning, adding that the Israeli military isn't doing enough to stop it. Speaking to Ben Caspit and Yinon Magal, Nachman, the former head of the Menashe Brigade, was discussing a letter to the war cabinet he and several other IDF commanders signed calling on Gazans not to be allowed to return home in the North until the hostages come home. https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-786771 Wasting troops’ hard-fought gains, Israel is taking time it doesn’t have in Gaza Seven months after it carried out the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, Hamas is still very much alive and kicking. It has reportedly reasserted significant civil control in Gaza cities troops swept through and then left. In some areas, Hamas fighters have resumed their rocket fire, including a recent attack on Sderot and the deadly strike on Israel Defense Forces infantrymen near Kerem Shalom on Sunday. Not only is Hamas surviving, it looks increasingly plucky about its chances to guarantee its return to power .https://www.timesofisrael.com/wasting-troops-hard-fought-gains-israel-is-taking-time-it-doesnt-have-in-gaza/