Forces had no direct confrontation with Hamas terrorists who killed hostages; ‘The IDF and security forces are doing everything possible to bring all hostages home as quickly as possible. This news shakes us all,’ says army spokesperson Hagari
Israeli forces discovered the bodies of six hostages in a 65-foot-deep tunnel in Rafah, approximately a kilometer from where hostage Farhan Alkadi was recently freed. The IDF had no precise intelligence on the hostages’ location in recent months but knew there were captives in the sector, leading to a gradual and cautious operation in Rafah since the ground offensive began.
It is exactly this. You attack “the left” and “liberals” as though they are the same thing (they very much are not) without mentioning anything specific, so it’s hard for me (the left; not a liberal) to defend any position. I suspected a bunch of implied strawman fallacies was hidden behind this hand-waving and frankly I think this is a cowardly way to argue your point. So let’s do the bullet points.
“From the river to the sea” is not a blatant anything. Yes, it has been used by Hamas, but it has also been used by Likud, for basically the opposite meaning. Therefore context must be absolutely appropriate in the understanding of the intent of the words. If a person or group who are in favour of Palestinian sovereignty and/or a single-state solution use the phrase, you can quite fairly assume that they are talking about this issue, rather than calling for the extermination of an ethnic group. It’s dishonest in the extreme to label anyone who calls for Palestinians to be free an antisemite. As for the other phrase you mentioned, it seems like you are saying anyone who mentions an intifada is antisemitic. That seems ridiculous, and possibly you need to give more context.
Israel is an apartheid regime. It is a settler colonial project. It meets these definitions, and either you’re for settler colonialism or you’re against Israel in its current manifestation.
The reason you’ve not heard about other states doing other things is because we are talking about Israel, and the ways in which Arabic people are opressed there. The mistreatment of Jewish people in other places at other times does not pardon or imply permission for the mistreatment of Arabs anywhere.
It’s not about being “progressive coded”. It’s context, again. If a group’s aim is to restore human rights for people, and/or oversee equality then any accusation of racism should be considered with this context. Conversely, an organisation which has historically made horrific racist/homophobic statements should be considered differently in the same scenario. Again, it’s hard to pinpoint exactly which groups and which incidents you are talking about, as you give no examples.
Lol, every fucking time. The initial question was in bad faith, the response has misinformation, and there’s always some nonsense moral implication. Yet if I just didn’t respond there would be someone commenting something along the lines how “it’s pretty telling” I don’t engage with this crap.
“This crap” being a rational take. It seems like you’ve made your mind up, and any contrary viewpoint be damned.
Side note: it’s a bad faith argument to attach everyone to some arbitrary group, fail to define that group, and then attack it.
There is absolutely nothing I could show you that could change your mind. You phrased your original comment as a good faith question, but in reality you were trying to give yourself ammunition to attack me with.
Your take isn’t even rational. If I thought there was any chance of you changing your mind, I would go through your comment detail by detail showing what arguments you have that are wrong, where you twisted my words, and what claims you avoided.
You’d just respond with more bullshit and more bad faith arguments, until I eventually lost my temper. Arguing with someone like you is a complete waste of time.
I haven’t once argued in bad faith. You, on the other hand have essentially forbidden any criticism of Israel whatsoever, made no arguments except those where you attack me (hint: this is called an ad hominem fallacy) and continuously hand-waved without actually stooping so low as to tell me where I’m wrong; you just claim that I am but you can’t be bothered to say why/how.
Bonus points for your “I know you are but what am I” on the subject of open-mindedness.
If this is you at your coolest, I guess if you were to actually lose your temper we’d just get an incoherent string of characters as repeatedly you smash your keyboard into your face to make a point.
Okay man, believe what you want to believe. I’ve already wasted enough time on you.
Maybe if you had used it constructively instead, by, say, making any coherent point whatsoever? Then we wouldn’t be here would we.