Morch

6 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

Channel 4 reporting is making up my own facts eh? Nope. That's what Israel did to smear UNRWA - get it right.

 

Point 4 is a legal issue. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of international law is aware that if a country signs up to the '1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide' then that country is legally obligated to prevent genocide, anywhere it may be being committed, when made aware that one is plausibly being committed. The ICJ ruling made this clear to all signatories of the convention.

 

By withholding aid from the largest aid agency, they are assisting Israel in its genocide. Israel is allowing around 95 trucks a day into Gaza - prior to the conflict, there were 500 trucks a day entering. Israel is making it almost impossible to get aid into the strip, even things like surgical knives are being rejected and are sitting in a huge warehouse. I learned all of this by listening to a British politician who was talking to Andrew Marr on LBC. He explained how long the whole process takes, and how Israel has made it virtually impossible for aid to enter. He visited the warehouses piled full of vital aid that he says Israel will not let in. It contained things like surgical knives, water etc.

 

UNRWA have stated that they will have to cease operations within this month. We are almost at mid Feb. What are you even trying to say? We have time for an investigation? No, the investigation will take months - especially in the midst of a warzone.

 

We don't stop funding the Roman Catholic church - but we all know its priests love to diddle little kids. We've had several Lucy Letby's and other killers working in the NHS - we don't stop paying all NHS workers while we investigate these crimes . We've had so many police officers thrown in jail for crimes such as rape, murder, pedophilia etc - we haven't stopped funding the police force. This knee jerk reaction from these western governments is disgusting, unconscionable and unexplainable.

 

I wonder why Arab nations might think it is fair that the Western Nations who supported the original Nakba 1948 and who continue supporting Israeli occupation since 1967 pay for the mistakes they made. Western nations caused this problem by capitulating and supporting the political Zionist movement. Western nations should pay for it.

 

@Brickleberry

You misrepresent facts, that's for sure. The Channel 4 report did not provide any 'proof' of the sort you claim.

And no, I don't think you have the slightest knowledge of international law, not when posting such nonsense. Or maybe you think that all of them governments are clueless about this as well? Did any of them air worries about legal issues? Did the UN raise this issue? I think it's mostly you either making up stuff, or echoing something you picked from this or that biased website.

There is no 'we', other than in your mind. You do not speak for 'we', or 'us' or whatever. And the Church got zero to do with this - just another deflection.

I wonder where you got the idea that Western Nations 'supported the original Nakba' form. Or that they support the Israeli occupation. But again - your issues are not with Israel's policies, but with Israel's very existence. As evident in your closing remarks. And you expect to be taken seriously....

6 minutes ago, sirineou said:

How would that affect the story at hand?

The guy tracking her says he does so in order to raise environmental awareness.

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I am aware of the "facts" and was not commenting on them, but only that the oil industry probably doesn't give a rat's bottom if they have to put the price up to buy their product.

 

As for the actual situation, as usual the US has ignored the simple solution- forcing the israelis to stop killing innocent people in Gaza- and chosen the "make weapons manufacturers rich" option.

 

What a vile world we live in!

@thaibeachlovers

I doubt you have any insight as to the considerations and motivations of 'the oil industry'.

What you try to paint as 'the simple solution' is not actually simple.

What you're after is double appeasement - of both the Hamas and the Houthis.

On 2/7/2024 at 7:19 PM, proton said:

 

Laughable scaremongering 😄

Trump fans on here say there will be a civil war if he's sent to prison or barred (no pun intended) from running for President.

Scaremongering as well?

1 hour ago, zhounan said:

What about simply renounce to be a global empire, think about your citizens and let 2/3 of humanity live as they want to live?

How about the Houthis let other people live as they want?

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Whatever the gist of your comments may be, they certainly do not support Sirineou's prediction of the inevitability of decisive action being taken by the US. I don't see how a gradual step-by-step increase in pressure is compatible with that assertion. As far as I can tell, you haven't addressed that point at all but rather chosen to delineate what steps the US might take to ratchet up pressure. So, you may disagree about my contention that we basically are in agreement on the issue of decisive action, but I don't see that you have explained why that is the case. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree about agreement.

I'm not responsible for what others post. I'm also not responsible for you trying to foist your argument (such as it is) on my posts. As said, the USA will probably continue with such actions, gradually increasing their scope/means employed/targets chosen. I'm not under obligation to frame my comments according to your wishes. The rest of your comment is the usual waffle with extra nothing topping.

51 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Biden could stop it tomorrow if he wanted to. If he doesn't send any more bombs they can't bomb Gaza and kill children, and if he stops sending bullets they will have to withdraw from Gaza to conserve what they have for all the other conflicts they have, like on the northern border.

Biden CHOOSES to continue to supply the means for israel to continue the slaughter of innocents in Gaza. He will be remembered in history, not for any good he did, but for the thousands of children who's deaths he facilitated. Not a good memory.

 

Iran will never agree as long as the illegal occupation of Palestinian land continues. IMO it's their greatest recruiting tool for attacks on American assets.

@thaibeachlovers

Quote

He will be remembered in history

And a day or two onward, you'll berate another poster for 'crystal ball' posts,  or something.

2 hours ago, Neeranam said:

He wants all Hamas dead, so will not negotiate with them. He is willing to kill thousands of children to get this done. 

I'm surprised there's any Hamas left, he's flattened the whole of Gaza with indescriminate bombing. This man is a monster. 

@Neeranam

Back to reality:

- there are negotiations going on, these are almost always a series of back and forth offers/statements.

- 'flattened the whole of Gaza' - is an exaggeration, not fact. Same goes for 'indiscriminate bombing'.

Apparently no issues with Hamas, as usual.

37 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Of course they do and to be replaced with a US glove puppet.

Must have been a shock to them that António Guterres grew a pair and went against the US line.

@thaibeachlovers

Anything to support either comment?

4 hours ago, billd766 said:

The main problem is that President Biden can't MAKE it happen.

 

Netanyahu IS the problem as he will reject ANY deal that involves Hamas.

 

He personally is probably the main and possibly the only problem to a settlement and an end to the slaughter and destruction on both sides.

 

If both he and the Hamas leader were no longer in the picture and moderate persons were in control on both sides, it would be so much easier and safer.

 

One possible way might be for the US and probably Iran to stop funneling weapons and money to each side, and for each of them to say to both Hamas and Israel, enough is enough.

 

If there are ANY more attacks from either side, retribution will be swift and painful.

 

I don't think that is possible though.

@billd766

You do not seem to know much about either side.

Netanyahu is hardly the hardliner you paint him as. He's more self-serving, opportunist first, ideologue second. His political position is compormised, and he's doing whatever he can to bolster his position, still hoping to pull through - or be able to cut some deal which gets him off the hook (regarding his legal issues), while saving face. As it is, he is dependent on the more extreme elements in his coalition. Painting him as the 'main and possibly' only problem is nonsense. It wouldn't be easier or smoother with other potential leaders - just a different set of difficulties.

Regarding Hamas (which you seem to mention as an afterthought) - which Hamas leader would that be? Are you even aware how Hamas leadership operates? There is no single leader, and the balance of power between Hamas leaders is a rather intricate game, like most political systems. Right now, it is not even clear who are the hardliners and on what issues.

You think if you took Netanyahu and the fabled 'Hamas leader' out of the equation it would imply 'moderates' stepping up? Based on what? Who are these moderates and what are their positions? What political alliances would they be beholden to? Not quite as simple as you present.

What would be Iran's motivation to stop funding and arming Hamas? Who would pressure them to do so? Again, fantasies. Retribution? From whom? Against whom?

You're all over the place.

3 hours ago, Brickleberry said:

 

1) if you had watched the video, you would know that this is the same report that was given to governments. Fact - Govs made their decisions without any evidence

2) If anyone is treating things as facts without evidence, it is the governments who withdrew funding on allegations made without evidence.

3) I believe they are lies based on the evidence - or rather, a lack thereof.

4) Of course it is a legal issue. The ICJ ruled that aid must be allowed to enter Gaza. The ICJ's ruling against Israel legally binds all nations to prevent the genocide of Palestinians, as the genocide case was found to be plausible. By withdrawing aid and not allowing UNRWA to carry out its life saving work, they are stiffing aid into Gaza. This makes those countries legally complicit in the genocide.

5) Everything I blame Israel for, I have evidence to back it up. Like their lies about UNRWA - I provided evidence from Channel 4. I also provided several links and videos of Israeli media and politicians demanding the destruction of UNRWA over the last few decades.

 

6) Your last point is the most egregious. There is plausibly a genocide happening right now. This is what the ICJ ruling said. If there was 'no genocide' as you say, South Africa's case would have been thrown out. Israel lost, and is now being dragged through the courts to fight against being labelled a genocidal state. I cannot explain the actions of those governments. According to the report on channel 4, this is the same report given to our governments. Even if the evidence shows that 12 were indeed involved (0.009% of UNRWA workers that were all cleared by Israeli intelligence services to work for UNRWA), funding should not stop! There is no other agency in Gaza that has the capacity, manpower or knowledge to give aid to the people in Gaza. They know this. I know this. Perhaps you know this? So it is absolutely ridiculous to be stopping the flow of aid. The UN set up UNRWA, These countries that are withholding donations vote on the leadership of UNRWA and approve its mission, budgets and staff. It is an organization controlled by these countries. Is it not insane what they are doing?

 

@Brickleberry

You keep repeating the same things on loop, treating things as facts when it suits.

There are claims it is the same report. And, there's also a claim that the evidence (or lack of) does not support Israel's allegations. As far as I'm aware, the news channel did not make the entire document public, nor did they reveal much details about the content. You make your assertions based on this - not a very solid foundation, in my opinion. That you treat the claims as proven, factual and correct does not make them so. When you state governments made their decisions without evidence, that's your opinion, not fact. Most of your argument is based on your 'opinion'.....and trusting your 'opinion' is a matter of choice. Given your posting history, and the number of times you had to backtrack.....

Donor countries withholding funding is not a legal issue, and the ICJ ruling does not 'bind all nations'. It does not even mandate that aid will be channeled through this agency or another. I kinda doubt you're much of a legal expert, or that any of them countries feel legally threatened by such nonsense.

You have blamed Israel for things that Israel did not to. Some of these things you had to backtrack from, some you just glossed over. So no, your most definitely do not have 'evidence' for everything you blame Israel for. Then again, your grasp of what is 'evidence' seems shaky. The channel 4 report, for example, is not 'proof' - it's a report, a claim, it's not verified, and there's no rush by said governments to change their position. No one denied that there were such comments by Israeli politicians, not sure what you're on about.

For all them many words you pour on this, you still can't account for the decision by governments of donor countries  to withhold their donations and funding of UNRWA. It does not seem plausible that all of the would be 'duped' so easily and in such a short span of time - plus this resulting in strong action.

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

No, I only agreed with half of your previous post. I disagree that I was proposing a "total win for Hamas." What I had proposed was a two-state solution, not totally what Hamas wants.

But, yes, I agree with your comment above that "Hamas wants all the Land for themselves; until that stance changes, then there can be no peace. " Of course, I could say the same about Israel unless Netanyahu has his way, and he kills all of Hamas (and others along with them) and completely controls Gaza and the West Bank.

As far as I'm aware, Netanyahu did not say anything about conquering and holding on to the Gaza Strip etc.

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

I agree with half of your post. 

Netanyahu wants total victory for Israel. 

Hamas wants a total victory for Palestine.

I'd like to see some agreement that would give each of them all of the other things I think they want - except complete control of the land now called Israel. I'd like to see that split up somehow.

You are obviously still not aware of Hamas's agenda.

3 hours ago, WDSmart said:

@Morch, Okay, here is my take on the salient points that are On Topic here in this Forum:

1. Both sides want the same thing: complete control of the land that makes up the state now called Israel.

2. Although this conflict has been going on for a long, long time, recently, since the terrorist attacks on Oct 7 and the follow-on, indiscriminate bombing, the two sides are now at a kind of a stalemate as far as reaching any kind of agreement as to how to stop all this carnage.
3. One side has taken hostages and is using their release as leverage in the negotiations, and the other side has a greatly superior military force and is using the prospects of a ceasefire as leverage in the negotiations.
4. If the side with the hostages agrees to a temporary solution, they will release the hostages, and then their leverage will be gone. The other side can institute a temporary ceasefire but can renew their military operations at any time.
5. Any permanent solution should include the return of all hostages, a permanent ceasefire, rebuilding the damaged areas, and a two-state solution.

I'll discuss all or any of these with you if you wish.

You're just deflecting, as usual. I was not referring to all issues discussed on these topics, but to specific things raised in your recent posts from this morning. You neither mention them, nor address them. How (un)surprising.

As for your list above, it's the same old nonsense. You have very little knowledge on sides' composition, agendas and so on - but somehow manage to imagine what these are. If this is your 'take', then you have not read much that was posted or linked on these topics, and you've obviously lacking much by way or prior knowledge regarding much of this (your 'opinions' notwithstanding).

It is not true that both sides want the same thing. There are various factions on either side, each with its own agenda, ideas and wishes. It's a whole lot more nuanced and complicated than that. Treating things in the crude, simplistic way you favor does not help understand things, or promote a solution. Quite the opposite.

There is on equivalency between the Hamas 7/10 attack and Israel's response. That's your opinion, maybe. It's not something agreed upon. Just another one of the lame 'same same' efforts. Same goes for pitting hostage taking vs. the response. Try harder.

It is not true that Israel could renew it's military operation at any time. There will be constraints involved, and Hamas would be able to improve it's positions during the ceasefire. Other than broadcasting a Hamas talking point (again), this has very little to do with reality. It also broadcasts that you see the use of hostages by Hamas as legitimate. Shame on you.

Talks about a two-state solution were carried out for decades. That you somehow imagine this could be sorted out in a timely manner is ridiculous. Also, your talking point does not address Hamas's role in things, which is a major issue.

In short, it's another nonsense list. You cannot even grasp the details and facts involved, so how can you meaningfully 'discuss' anything?

4 hours ago, impulse said:

American conservative journalist and political commentator Tucker Carlson has said that his conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin will be aired at 6 pm EST on Thursday. 

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/592042-tucker-putin-interview-date/

 

Edit:  “He parrots Vladimir Putin’s pack of lies about Ukraine,” former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told MSNBC.

 

So he's pissing off the right people.

 

Yeah, because that's what really important - pissing off people.

7 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

 

Morch, I've already addressed the issues between us that are On Topic many, many times. Most of the issues you've addressed lately have been , and are concerning me personally. I'd love to discuss all these with you, but not on this particular Forum. We need to stay On Topic, or at least I know I do. 

No.

You made specific claims just this morning. They were addressed, commented on. You continue deflecting. Claiming you have addressed whereas you did no such thing. The usual from you.

22 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

Do you not realize that you are talking about yourself? You have no evidence to prove any of these claims because there is no evidence. This has been proven by Channel 4's reporting.

 

What you are saying is that we must believe the lies because so many other people do... even though it has been proven that the lies are lies. Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds? 'My mum and dad said it was true, so it must be". That's not how the world works. That's not how international law works. No evidence, no conviction. Are we not forgetting the most important western value in the legal world? Innocent until proven guilty.

 

There is zero evidence. Zilch. Nada.

 

What these governments are doing is aiding and abetting Israel's genocidal actions in the Gaza strip. More evidence for South Africa to batter them with over the course of their genocide trial.

@Brickleberry

I don't need to 'prove' anything. I don't claim to have seen the evidence. I'm commenting on them governments of donor countries' reaction.

As far as I understand the report you cited did not 'prove' things, but claimed. It's not like the entire report was shared with the public, not is it clear what it did contain. The channel did not actually say much about that. So more a case of your assuming things, rather than knowing. Treating things as facts whereas they are not proven to be so. And before your start jumping up and down - read the first line, again.

Unlike you, I do not pretend to speak for any 'we'. I also did not assert Israel's information was 'lies'. Same goes for 'proven'. All of these are things you injected to the 'discussion' (such as it is...) and try to paint as agreed upon. They are not.

You misrepresent what I said, and no surprise - you can't address the actual view. The proposition that the report presenting no evidence, and all these governments, previously regularly donating to UNRWA doing an about face based on nothing, doesn't strike me as very convincing, or reasonable. You do not provide any insight whatsoever into that - other than asserting they are all stupid, uninformed, or somehow controlled by Israel. Again, rather weak arguments.

As for 'innocent until proven guilty' - that's kinda rich coming from someone who routinely blames Israel for things he's got no evidence of, or just using some version of 'I-heard-that'. Further, how is this a legal issue? Countries are not obligated to donate funds to UNRWA, it's a voluntary thing. As far as I'm aware, there are no courts involved in this (unless UNRWA decided to sue Israel and the donor countries for defamation, or something).

What you are doing is injecting more and more of your agenda into posts, regardless of the flimsy basis or even lack of basic logic involved. There is no 'genocide', even the ICJ did not say that. And those very same countries were providing UNRWA with funds for years now. Claiming that they are somehow into 'genocide' is bizarre. I don't think UNRWA made such allegations, even, or denied things as hotly as you.

19 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

Don't you get it? This is precisely what Israel has done.

 

Accusations about UNRWA without providing any intelligence to support their claims. You wish to believe a conspiracy theory about UNRWA without any evidence - then 'of course' - that's up to you.

@Brickleberry

What I 'get' is that you guys have a habit of chopping parts of posts you can't deal with.

So, according to the conspiracy theory you push Israel provided all them Western government with essentially nothing, and then all them countries who for years, donated to UNRWA, decided to suspend funding because of....what? You can't get around this point no matter how much you wiggle and make up things.

Moreover, I actually provided you with an account (links and all) of how things happened. You, on the other hand....not so much.

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

"...who are effected."

This should be "affected."

And that major point scored, you must feel really good about yourself.

Now try and read (and understand) what's on that sign in the emoticon you like so much.

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

"You know nothing." 

And I know enough to disagree with almost everything you post.

That probably makes a great argument in your mind.

Notice you didn't actually address things, though.

3 hours ago, Neeranam said:

I admit I don't know much about Judaism, but have been learning bits and pieces for over 7 years. My advisor is not teaching me about Juaism specifically but how to find a higher power and mentions his religion obviously and experience in doing this.

He is not Israeli, and knows my stance on Israeli policy, apartheid, etc.

I find it strange when jewish people reject their religion as it is kinda rejecting their ethnicity. I can understand when non-religious Jews take offence to a non-Jew studying their religion, bit weird but.