UN warns of ‘blatant disregard for basic humanity’ in Gaza warfare

[WDSmart]

17 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Israelis are happy willing and content to share the land with the Palestinians , its the Palestinians who refuse to share the land with the Israelis is where the problem is 

Nick, Yes, I agree that's the problem, but I at least understand why the Palestinians could feel that way. I don't agree with them, especially with their tactics in trying to repel the Israelis, but I can sympathize with people who do not want to give up ownership of their land. 

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

That's a wide brush, misleading comment.

 

  Which bit is misleading ?

Israel allows Palestinians  to live in Israel, two million of them . Palestinians (outside of Israel) refuse to accept the existence of Israel .

  Israel accepted sharing the land and the Palestinians  rejected the idea 

 

[WDSmart]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Why do you need to blatantly lie?

 

I did not say anything about 'all the land' belonging to Israel ('Hebrews'? Seriously...). Quite the opposite on numerous posts.

Also there is no unified Zionist narrative that claims this - you're making things up all along.

Here is the definition of "Zionist" in the Oxford Dictionary (the remark in [brackets] are mine):

"a supporter of Zionism; a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel [but used to be Palestine].

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  Which bit is misleading ?

Israel allows Palestinians  to live in Israel, two million of them . Palestinians (outside of Israel) refuse to accept the existence of Israel .

  Israel accepted sharing the land and the Palestinians  rejected the idea 

 

 

 

Israel 'allows'? Most of these people had the right to live there even under the 1947 resolution. You earlier comment was with regard to the West Bank - unless you meant something totally different, you current line of reasoning seems like a deflection.

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

Nick, Yes, I agree that's the problem, but I at least understand why the Palestinians could feel that way. I don't agree with them, especially with their tactics in trying to repel the Israelis, but I can sympathize with people who do not want to give up ownership of their land. 

 

   Do you also sympathise with the Jews in the Middle East who were forced to give up their land and flee to Israel ?

   I seem to recall that Jews lost land which equates to four times the size of Israel in the Middle East , which is worth about 300 Billion U.S $  

[Nick Carter icp]

3 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Here is the definition of "Zionist" in the Oxford Dictionary (the remark in [brackets] are mine):

"a supporter of Zionism; a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel [but used to be Palestine].

 

   Could you provide a link to your claim ?

[WDSmart]

Just now, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Do you also sympathise with the Jews in the Middle East who were forced to give up their land and flee to Israel ?

   I seem to recall that Jews lost land which equates to four times the size of Israel in the Middle East , which is worth about 300 Billion U.S $  

I sympathize with anyone who is forced to give up their land. That, in fact, is why I do understand why the Palestinians are trying so hard to prevent that from happening to them. I don't support most of their tactics, but I do understand their efforts at resistance.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

Here is the definition of "Zionist" in the Oxford Dictionary (the remark in [brackets] are mine):

"a supporter of Zionism; a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel [but used to be Palestine].

 

Lying, again.

 

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/zionist_1?q=zionist

 

Not quite what you posted.

 

I am not interested in your silly word games. The fact is that there are many schools of thought represented in Zionism.

This is clearly evident in Israel's political landscape, media and so on.

[Ben Zioner]

10 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Ben, read these... 

Specific risks facing women and girls in Palestine | United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory (ochaopt.org)

How colonizers weaponize rape: reflections from the Palestinian case – Mondoweiss

Yes it says Russian raped Ukrainians and so did some Zionist militias in 1948, where is Tsahal involved?

[WDSmart]

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

5 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Here is the definition of "Zionist" in the Oxford Dictionary (the remark in [brackets] are mine):

"a supporter of Zionism; a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel [but used to be Palestine].

 

   Could you provide a link to your claim ?

Nick, it's as I say in the post, from the online Oxford Dictionary. Just type "Zionist definition." Here is a link:

zionist definition dictionary - Search (bing.com)

[WDSmart]

2 minutes ago, Ben Zioner said:

Yes it says Russian raped Ukrainians and so did some Zionist militias in 1948, where is Tsahal involved?

 I had to look up "Tsahal." I assume that's the same as what is referred to in English as the "IDF." 

In the previous post, I just meant to refer to any Hebrew militia over the past 100 years. I don't know the date that the "Tsahal" was formed. 

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

Nick, it's as I say in the post, from the online Oxford Dictionary. Just type "Zionist definition." Here is a link:

zionist definition dictionary - Search (bing.com)

 

   I did do that  and located the above link myself .

But you altered  the definition and added a bit, and that is why I couldn't find your altered definition .

   You altered the definition and that is why I couldn't locate it .

BTW , its against forum rules to do that , just so that you know .

It is also rather deceptive to alter dictionaries definition of words and thenuse that altered definition as being factual 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

 I had to look up "Tsahal." I assume that's the same as what is referred to in English as the "IDF." 

In the previous post, I just meant to refer to any Hebrew militia over the past 100 years. I don't know the date that the "Tsahal" was formed. 

 

Not knowing a whole lot about things doesn't seem to stop you from posting about them.

The IDF is not a militia, and your new nonsense 'Hebrew' thing is just as daft (and obvious) as the 'Zionist' silliness.

[James105]

4 hours ago, WDSmart said:

And from the other perspective, the Zionists in Israel (which used to be called Palestine) have been waging war on the Palestinians for well over 100 years, trying to completely take over their country, which they've effectively done with help from the UN. Now, Palestinians have been compartmentalized into two small areas, Gaza and the West Bank,  while the Zionists in Isreal continue to take over land and squeeze them even further. 

None of this justifies the actions Hamas took on 7 Oct, but neither does it justify the actions the Zionists are now taking in Gaza. They are both guilty of atrocities (again), and I'm sure they will continue. 

 

Hamas have stated since Oct 7 that they want to repeat this atrocity over and over again.  Isreal has an obligation to their citizens to prevent this from happening again.   I don't really understand why (some) people find this complicated.  If Hamas were in any way not monstrous barbarians that simply want to kill Jews and wipe Isreal off the map then perhaps there would be opportunity for diplomacy, but unfortunately for the small percentage of Palestinians that do not support Hamas and their barbaric actions, Hamas have left Isreal no choice but to continue on the path of destroying Hamas.   

 

It's quite obvious that should Hamas surrender unconditionally and release all the innocent hostages that they kidnapped, that there would be an immediate ceasefire and then a diplomatic solution, but such is the intense bigotry of low expectations that comes from the left that they never call on Hamas to do so, even though that is the guaranteed way to stop the unfortunate loss of civilian lives.  

[WDSmart]

4 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   I did do that  and located the above link myself .

But you altered  the definition and added a bit, and that is why I couldn't find your altered definition .

   You altered the definition and that is why I couldn't locate it .

BTW , its against forum rules to do that , just so that you know .

It is also rather deceptive to alter dictionaries definition of words and thenuse that altered definition as being factual 

 

4 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   I did do that  and located the above link myself .

But you altered  the definition and added a bit, and that is why I couldn't find your altered definition .

   You altered the definition and that is why I couldn't locate it .

BTW , its against forum rules to do that , just so that you know .

It is also rather deceptive to alter dictionaries definition of words and thenuse that altered definition as being factual 

Nick, AGAIN, I said that I added my own remark in [brackets] in my original post. I didn't change any of the other wording. Here's what I wrote in my post:

 

  16 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Here is the definition of "Zionist" in the Oxford Dictionary (the remark in [brackets] are mine):

"a supporter of Zionism; a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel [but used to be Palestine].

[Nick Carter icp]

3 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

 

Nick, AGAIN, I said that I added my own remark in [brackets] in my original post. I didn't change any of the other wording. Here's what I wrote in my post:

 

  16 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Here is the definition of "Zionist" in the Oxford Dictionary (the remark in [brackets] are mine):

"a supporter of Zionism; a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel [but used to be Palestine].

 

 

   Did you write that the words in brackets are yours in the original post ?

Or was that changed ?

Has you original post been altered ?

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

 

Nick, AGAIN, I said that I added my own remark in [brackets] in my original post. I didn't change any of the other wording. Here's what I wrote in my post:

 

  16 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Here is the definition of "Zionist" in the Oxford Dictionary (the remark in [brackets] are mine):

"a supporter of Zionism; a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel [but used to be Palestine].

 

[placeholder]

31 minutes ago, Ben Zioner said:

I am glad you relativise.

 

Not surprised to see that you are bigoted against all Arabs.

[placeholder]

29 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

A whole lot happened before the illegal settlement effort became a possibility and a thing. What I referred to - Palestinian choices, actions, attitudes and so on, contributed heavily to bringing about current conditions. I think you're aware of my positions regarding Israel's policies in the West Bank, and if you weren't maybe that 'illegal' bit might help. There are two sides to this conflict - both have made mistakes, bad choices, regretful actions and whatnot. Making it all about one side's supposed blame is another (bad) choice.

Engaging in unweighted bothsidesism much?

[WDSmart]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Not knowing a whole lot about things doesn't seem to stop you from posting about them.

The IDF is not a militia, and your new nonsense 'Hebrew' thing is just as daft (and obvious) as the 'Zionist' silliness.

Okay, so the IDF is a regular "army" and not a "militia" (a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency).

I use the term "Hebrew" the same as I use the term "Arab." That's opposed to "Israeli" and "Palestinian" or "Zionist" and Hamas." I want to differentiate between these groups.  

[Morch]

Just now, placeholder said:

Engaging in unweighted bothsidesism much?

 

I'm sure you think you meant something by that.

[Morch]

Just now, WDSmart said:

Okay, so the IDF is a regular "army" and not a "militia" (a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency).

I use the term "Hebrew" the same as I use the term "Arab." That's opposed to "Israeli" and "Palestinian" or "Zionist" and Hamas." I want to differentiate between these groups.  

 

Your word games are inane. Your reluctance to simply use the common labels is indicative of deeper issues with Israel. Practically no ones uses 'Hebrews' these days. There is no equivalence between Hamas and 'Zionists'. You're either truly clueless or very very bigoted to insist on this nonsense.

[WDSmart]

9 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Hamas have stated since Oct 7 that they want to repeat this atrocity over and over again.  Isreal has an obligation to their citizens to prevent this from happening again.   I don't really understand why (some) people find this complicated.  If Hamas were in any way not monstrous barbarians that simply want to kill Jews and wipe Isreal off the map then perhaps there would be opportunity for diplomacy, but unfortunately for the small percentage of Palestinians that do not support Hamas and their barbaric actions, Hamas have left Isreal no choice but to continue on the path of destroying Hamas.   

 

It's quite obvious that should Hamas surrender unconditionally and release all the innocent hostages that they kidnapped, that there would be an immediate ceasefire and then a diplomatic solution, but such is the intense bigotry of low expectations that comes from the left that they never call on Hamas to do so, even though that is the guaranteed way to stop the unfortunate loss of civilian lives.  

I generally agree with you, but this is just one side of the story. The other side would describe a people whose land is being rapidly confiscated by another, and they are either being forced out, isolated in ever-descreaing territories, or forced to live as lower-class citizens. I'm not saying all that justifies what was done on 7 Oct, but I do understand their frustration.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

I'm sure you think you meant something by that.

is it bothsidesism you don't understand?

 

or is unweighted?

 At any rate, bothsideism means giving  justification to both sides of an argument.

Unweighted means treating both sides as having equal validity.

 

If there's any other phrases you need help in understanding, feel free to ask.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I generally agree with you, but this is just one side of the story. The other side would describe a people whose land is being rapidly confiscated by another, and they are either being forced out, isolated in ever-descreaing territories, or forced to live as lower-class citizens. I'm not saying all that justifies what was done on 7 Oct, but I do understand their frustration.

 

How much of that related to their own doing? Choices they made?

[Morch]

Just now, placeholder said:

is it bothsidesism you don't understand?

 

or is unweighted?

 At any rate, bothsideism means giving  justification to both sides of an argument.

Unweighted means treating both sides as having equal validity.

 

If there's any other phrases you need help in understanding, feel free to ask.

 

No I got your words just fine. just not how they apply.

Maybe you think that issues should be considered from one angle only, or that there's always just one party responsible for things, I dunno.

 

[WDSmart]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Your word games are inane. Your reluctance to simply use the common labels is indicative of deeper issues with Israel. Practically no ones uses 'Hebrews' these days. There is no equivalence between Hamas and 'Zionists'. You're either truly clueless or very very bigoted to insist on this nonsense.

I use these different terms to differentiate between these groups of people. 

Hebrews and Arabs are racial groups.
Zionists and Hamas are radical, militant groups.
Jews and Muslims are religious groups.
Israelis and Palestinians are citizen groups.

All of the above contains mixtures of the others. I don't think you can just refer to one and assume it includes all the others.

[Morch]

Just now, WDSmart said:

I use these different terms to differentiate between these groups of people. 

Hebrews and Arabs are racial groups.
Zionists and Hamas are radical, militant groups.
Jews and Muslims are religious groups.
Israelis and Palestinians are citizen groups.

All of the above contains mixtures of the others. I don't think you can just refer to one and assume it includes all the others.

 

Just your nonsense on loop.

 

Nobody uses 'Hebrews' nowadays much.

Zionists are not necessarily radical, militant or even a group.

 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

No I got your words just fine. just not how they apply.

Maybe you think that issues should be considered from one angle only, or that there's always just one party responsible for things, I dunno.

 

False. Which is why I qualified "bothsideism" with "unweighted".

[WDSmart]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

7 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I generally agree with you, but this is just one side of the story. The other side would describe a people whose land is being rapidly confiscated by another, and they are either being forced out, isolated in ever-descreaing territories, or forced to live as lower-class citizens. I'm not saying all that justifies what was done on 7 Oct, but I do understand their frustration.

 

How much of that related to their own doing? Choices they made?

Most of it has to do with their choice not to simply give in and allow Hebrews to take over their land (Palestine). But the worst of that does have to do with the choices they made and make as to how to try to prevent that.