FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > A question regarding the Israeli government and the IDF
A question regarding the Israeli government and the IDF
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Yes, definitely. I think the Israeli government have behaved very badly with regards to some of their decisions and subsequent actions, especially with regards to humanitarian aid. I think the military, including the IDF, are just following orders. Actions of individual soldiers outside of their official orders will always happen of course and should be brought to justice if atrocities occur. " Seems a good example | |||
| |||
| |||
"a topic that I wanted to start a thread on…. Is there anyway you can criticise the Israeli government or the IDF without the words antisemitic or antisemitism being thrown around " Yes, by being aware of the words being used, putting forward an argument based on fact not emotion. It’s not difficult. | |||
| |||
"The UK Government’s overall policy is that it is up to the victim to determine whether a crime against them was motivated by any particular characteristics. This builds trust in the police among minority communities, and allows flexibility in our response." This kind of thinking is well intentioned but it effectively means that anyone can make claims with no evidental basis. When this thinking is used by left-leaning folk the right claim it's terribly "woke" but when the shoe is on the other foot it's a different matter. | |||
 | |||
"a topic that I wanted to start a thread on…. Is there anyway you can criticise the Israeli government or the IDF without the words antisemitic or antisemitism being thrown around " Of course. No government or military is off-limits for criticism. Many Israelis criticise their government, military, local authority, state dairy farming organisation... Members of the IDF have committed crimes, and are indeed locked up for them, so one objectively cannot say that they are perfect. That said, Fabio, the other week you suggested that you have been stopped and searched more than white people due to racial discrimination, or anti-black racism. It wasn't the stop and search - if the police did it to everyone equally, either more to white British people, or less to black people, then you wouldn't have thought that racism was at play. Israel gets "stopped and searched" more than Yemen, Sudan, China and Mali combined, and certainly more than Russia. Why? Stopping and searching is valid. Being prosecuted for carrying small amounts of drugs is valid. Being told that your dress sense or hairstyle could be valid in some contexts... But when one group with historical discrimination gets a disproportionate amount of negative scrutiny (and prosecution), from people with no horse in the race... It makes them wonder. People are willing to accept that wars are messy in some cases, but not others. Why? Now, all that said, the Israeli government's go-to "anti-Semitism" trope is wearing a bit thin. And much anti Israel sentiment is just bandwagon jumping, that comes along with tribal identity politics. But it's definitely true that anti-Semitism is alive and well and is thriving in the left as much as the right of politics. People often think that they're not antisemitic because they don't hate Jews for racial reasons (as the Nazis did), but they still sort Jews into "good" and "bad" Jews. "Good" ones hate themselves for what Israel is doing. "Bad" ones don't denounce Israel and Zionism fast enough. And many people will often make sure to sound them out pretty quickly upon meeting them, to sort them into one queue or the other. Right or left. Before criticising the IDF (seriously, it's very much a state army doing its job against hostile adversaries, including a bunch of scared kids holding guns, like any conscripted army), ask why you're so focused on this issue to the exclusion of so many other issues. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Before criticising the IDF (seriously, it's very much a state army doing its job against hostile adversaries, including a bunch of scared kids holding guns, like any conscripted army), ask why you're so focused on this issue to the exclusion of so many other issues." This is an argument that's often made. The response is pretty obvious. Can you think of any other conflict in the world where the UK government supports one side that is oppressing five million people? And where significant numbers of posters on the internet spend hours and hours defending said oppression? If you can then let's discuss that other conflict. If not then let's talk about this one. | |||
"This is an argument that's often made. The response is pretty obvious. Can you think of any other conflict in the world where the UK government supports one side that is oppressing five million people? " Yemen. 17 million facing food insecurity. More children (85,000) dead from resulting famine than Gazans killed in the past three years. Saudi Arabian support for the Yemeni government (against the Houthi Shi'ite rebels) was supported by the UK. Bombs and logistics. QED | |||
"Yemen. 17 million facing food insecurity. More children (85,000) dead from resulting famine than Gazans killed in the past three years. Saudi Arabian support for the Yemeni government (against the Houthi Shi'ite rebels) was supported by the UK. Bombs and logistics. QED" OK then let's talk about the civil war in Yemen. It's something you obviously feel is more important than what's happening in Gaza, so could you outline your understanding of the conflict. What's your position? Are there any plans to resolve the conflict that you support? Exactly how is the UK government involved and how might we lobby the government to change course in order to save lives. Also can you identify who is lobbying for one side or the other in the UK. | |||
"Yemen. 17 million facing food insecurity. More children (85,000) dead from resulting famine than Gazans killed in the past three years. Saudi Arabian support for the Yemeni government (against the Houthi Shi'ite rebels) was supported by the UK. Bombs and logistics. QED OK then let's talk about the civil war in Yemen. It's something you obviously feel is more important than what's happening in Gaza, so could you outline your understanding of the conflict. What's your position? Are there any plans to resolve the conflict that you support? Exactly how is the UK government involved and how might we lobby the government to change course in order to save lives. Also can you identify who is lobbying for one side or the other in the UK." That's the whole point, isn't it. You're asking someone else for their position because you simply don't have one. Why not? Think about it. | |||
"That's the whole point, isn't it. You're asking someone else for their position because you simply don't have one. Why not? Think about it." I'd genuinely like to hear more about your thoughts on Yemen if you have the time and inclination to share your insights. I've read a little about it but don't know a great deal. As you are saying it's far more important to discuss than what's happening in Gaza, I'd really appreciate you at least trying to explained why in a little more depth. | |||
" Before criticising the IDF (seriously, it's very much a state army doing its job against hostile adversaries, including a bunch of scared kids holding guns, like any conscripted army), ask why you're so focused on this issue to the exclusion of so many other issues." So unless someone is talking about every single other issue in the world, they should stay silent, they're not allowed to talk about anything? This is a common silencing tool. It's a flawed argument. You don't address the issue or topic at hand. It creates a flawed idea of moral perfection - no one is allowed to speak out or protest against something unless they speak up against every conflict or issue 
| |||
| |||
| |||
" Before criticising the IDF (seriously, it's very much a state army doing its job against hostile adversaries, including a bunch of scared kids holding guns, like any conscripted army), ask why you're so focused on this issue to the exclusion of so many other issues. So unless someone is talking about every single other issue in the world, they should stay silent, they're not allowed to talk about anything? This is a common silencing tool. It's a flawed argument. You don't address the issue or topic at hand. It creates a flawed idea of moral perfection - no one is allowed to speak out or protest against something unless they speak up against every conflict or issue
"Nope. See above analogy of discriminatory focus on black "criminals" or suspects. Criticism is valid. But at a certain point, you start to wonder... why? When the average Brit doesn't know or care about most foreign issues, bit somehow has strong options about one particular one, it begs the question. And nobody said that you "should stay silent". That's your reading of it. You are, indeed, free to criticise. Go for it. | |||
"As you are saying it's far more important to discuss than what's happening in Gaza..." Where was that said? (Happy to help and discuss, but that was not the assertion, was it?) | |||
| |||
"""As you are saying it's far more important to discuss than what's happening in Gaza..." Where was that said? (Happy to help and discuss, but that was not the assertion, was it?)" Let's go back through the discussion. You began with a whataboutery fallacy... "Before criticising the IDF (seriously, it's very much a state army doing its job against hostile adversaries, including a bunch of scared kids holding guns, like any conscripted army), ask why you're so focused on this issue to the exclusion of so many other issues."" Rather than just point out your use of fallacy I responded... "This is an argument that's often made. The response is pretty obvious. Can you think of any other conflict in the world where the UK government supports one side that is oppressing five million people? And where significant numbers of posters on the internet spend hours and hours defending said oppression? If you can then let's discuss that other conflict. If not then let's talk about this one." You then said that Yemen was such a conflict (hence your use of QED)... "Yemen. 17 million facing food insecurity. More children (85,000) dead from resulting famine than Gazans killed in the past three years. Saudi Arabian support for the Yemeni government (against the Houthi Shi'ite rebels) was supported by the UK. Bombs and logistics. QED" This implies that you think that the UK government supports one side of the Yemen conflict and that side is oppressing at least five million people and that there are significant numbers of posters on the internet spending hours and hours defending said oppression. It's not clear how you came to this conclusion, so it would be interesting to find out why you did. And as so few people are discussing the Yemen conflict then surely your overall argument is that we need to talk much more about it than we are discussing the actions of the Israeli government or the IDF as lots has already been said about these matters. I hope that explains why I assumed that you thought the conflict in Yemen was "far more important to discuss than what's happening in Gaza". | |||
"There is a fine line between what is taken as anti Zionism and anti Semitism. If you mix the two together, like said rapper did, then all of your remarks will be taken as anti Semitism. " The shift of disgust has moved from Hamas to Israel and not shifting back anytime soon. Whatever the history is Israel’s actions now are turning people against them. | |||
"It's the same way you can call the British government out on its atrocities without blaming the British people" It should. But one chap further up demonstrated, it's not the case with criticism of Israel's government and the IDF. | |||
"It's the same way you can call the British government out on its atrocities without blaming the British people It should. But one chap further up demonstrated, it's not the case with criticism of Israel's government and the IDF." It's certainly the case and not only since trump was elected that justified criticism of some of Israel's actions especially post Oct 7 has been distorted and twisted in order to diminish said criticism and silence the voices that dare to raise such concerns.. | |||
"It's the same way you can call the British government out on its atrocities without blaming the British people It should. But one chap further up demonstrated, it's not the case with criticism of Israel's government and the IDF. It's certainly the case and not only since trump was elected that justified criticism of some of Israel's actions especially post Oct 7 has been distorted and twisted in order to diminish said criticism and silence the voices that dare to raise such concerns.." 
| |||
" Let's go back through the discussion. You began with a whataboutery fallacy... " Nope. And this seems to be why you (rather antisocially) feigned interest in a human tragedy and expected someone you'd never met to write an essay addressing an array of questions, in the answers to which you had no interest. You assume a logical fallacy because you missed the point of the issue, which was a disproportionate hyper-focus on the shortcomings of one group. It was even illustrated with reference to a tangible problem in the UK - a tendency of the state to go looking for problems with black people (e.g. stop and search) more than white people. Imagine that your child went to school and always got told off for graffiti, when 25% of the class were doing it. Yes, graffiti is wrong. But if your child were the only child, you'd be concerned about a culture of discrimination. If the only difference between your child and the others was race (black, Jewish, Arab), you'd wonder whether that was a factor (or perhaps the only factor). Is it whataboutery to say "look, these other kids never get told off, detentions, etc."? Well, yes and no. If you're trying to minimise the culpability of your child for the wrong committed, then one could argue that it is. If it's to question the motivation of the teachers who appear to be picking on your child, then it isn't. So if you said "Israel kills babies" and someone else says "Iran kills more", then you're right, that's whataboutery. But if you say "criticising the wrongs of Israel is not antisemitism" and someone else says "if you seem to disproportionately focus on Israel, then you should ask yourself why", then it isn't. If you could never look to the contrasting responses of one group to different groups, then you could never identify discrimination, for fear of being accused of whataboutery. You seem to have missed this point and figured that (in a thread about criticising Israel and antisemitism) there was an appetite to discuss Yemen. No, that misses the point. It's not about Yemen (in this thread). That was a response to a question implying that there was no UK support in a conflict with similar proportions and human suffering. Not an invitation to ask spurious questions to feign interest in something to prove an erroneous suspicion of a logical fallacy. You also mention that people online do not spend hours discussing the conflict in Yemen. Correct, they don't. Because, in general, people in the West don't really give a shit about what happens to Christians, Kurds or other minorities over there, or the general tribal, sectarian and religious wars. It's about as invisible as Sudan. Because... Who cares, right? | |||
| |||
"It's a valid question to ask why since the US and Israel set up 4 aid centres to replace the nearly 400 aid centres (after a 3 month food blockade) there have been in excess of 550 people killed and over 4200 wounded by Israeli troops.. Yet not one Israel soldier has been injured by any violent action at the centres.. And now Israel soldiers who have or are serving at these centres are saying to the Haaretz newspaper that they were ordered to open fire upon unarmed people and that the sites are a ' killing field'.. Why has the decision been taken to deprive the elderly and infirm the access to food they had before, under international law in times of conflict occupying countries have a duty to feed the civilian population.. " Exactly. These are extremely valid questions to ask and the Israeli government owes answers. If they don't answer or the answers demand it, they should be criticised and any appropriate actions taken. | |||
"It's a valid question to ask why since the US and Israel set up 4 aid centres to replace the nearly 400 aid centres (after a 3 month food blockade) there have been in excess of 550 people killed and over 4200 wounded by Israeli troops.. Yet not one Israel soldier has been injured by any violent action at the centres.. And now Israel soldiers who have or are serving at these centres are saying to the Haaretz newspaper that they were ordered to open fire upon unarmed people and that the sites are a ' killing field'.. Why has the decision been taken to deprive the elderly and infirm the access to food they had before, under international law in times of conflict occupying countries have a duty to feed the civilian population.. " The size of the operation has overwhelmed the contractors they have running it and arming factions has caused chaos. The aim of stopping Hamas controlling the food and supplies is an uphill struggle, again it is not one side or the other it is both who are creating the problem. | |||
"It's a valid question to ask why since the US and Israel set up 4 aid centres to replace the nearly 400 aid centres (after a 3 month food blockade) there have been in excess of 550 people killed and over 4200 wounded by Israeli troops.. Yet not one Israel soldier has been injured by any violent action at the centres.. And now Israel soldiers who have or are serving at these centres are saying to the Haaretz newspaper that they were ordered to open fire upon unarmed people and that the sites are a ' killing field'.. Why has the decision been taken to deprive the elderly and infirm the access to food they had before, under international law in times of conflict occupying countries have a duty to feed the civilian population.. The size of the operation has overwhelmed the contractors they have running it and arming factions has caused chaos. The aim of stopping Hamas controlling the food and supplies is an uphill struggle, again it is not one side or the other it is both who are creating the problem. " It has all the hallmarks of a deliberate policy to encourage people to leave Gaza rather than suffer the malnutrition that's being seen and reported on.. What a choice, don't eat or risk getting shot for no reason other than you have a family to feed.. The modern equivalent of starving a fortified city or town in medieval times.. | |||
"It's a valid question to ask why since the US and Israel set up 4 aid centres to replace the nearly 400 aid centres (after a 3 month food blockade) there have been in excess of 550 people killed and over 4200 wounded by Israeli troops.. Yet not one Israel soldier has been injured by any violent action at the centres.. And now Israel soldiers who have or are serving at these centres are saying to the Haaretz newspaper that they were ordered to open fire upon unarmed people and that the sites are a ' killing field'.. Why has the decision been taken to deprive the elderly and infirm the access to food they had before, under international law in times of conflict occupying countries have a duty to feed the civilian population.. The size of the operation has overwhelmed the contractors they have running it and arming factions has caused chaos. The aim of stopping Hamas controlling the food and supplies is an uphill struggle, again it is not one side or the other it is both who are creating the problem. It has all the hallmarks of a deliberate policy to encourage people to leave Gaza rather than suffer the malnutrition that's being seen and reported on.. What a choice, don't eat or risk getting shot for no reason other than you have a family to feed.. The modern equivalent of starving a fortified city or town in medieval times.." I think they have dropped the ball without doubt, but it is because they don't want Hamas controlling the supplies. The biggest mistake they have made is supplying weapons to small factions within Gaza, the idea behind that is undoubtedly to create some kind of civil war. What is the answer to cutting off Hamas control? | |||
"Nope. And this seems to be why you (rather antisocially) feigned interest in a human tragedy and expected someone you'd never met to write an essay addressing an array of questions, in the answers to which you had no interest. You assume a logical fallacy because you missed the point of the issue, which was a disproportionate hyper-focus on the shortcomings of one group. It was even illustrated with reference to a tangible problem in the UK - a tendency of the state to go looking for problems with black people (e.g. stop and search) more than white people. Imagine that your child went to school and always got told off for graffiti, when 25% of the class were doing it. Yes, graffiti is wrong. But if your child were the only child, you'd be concerned about a culture of discrimination. If the only difference between your child and the others was race (black, Jewish, Arab), you'd wonder whether that was a factor (or perhaps the only factor). Is it whataboutery to say "look, these other kids never get told off, detentions, etc."? Well, yes and no. If you're trying to minimise the culpability of your child for the wrong committed, then one could argue that it is. If it's to question the motivation of the teachers who appear to be picking on your child, then it isn't. So if you said "Israel kills babies" and someone else says "Iran kills more", then you're right, that's whataboutery. But if you say "criticising the wrongs of Israel is not antisemitism" and someone else says "if you seem to disproportionately focus on Israel, then you should ask yourself why", then it isn't. If you could never look to the contrasting responses of one group to different groups, then you could never identify discrimination, for fear of being accused of whataboutery. You seem to have missed this point and figured that (in a thread about criticising Israel and antisemitism) there was an appetite to discuss Yemen. No, that misses the point. It's not about Yemen (in this thread). That was a response to a question implying that there was no UK support in a conflict with similar proportions and human suffering. Not an invitation to ask spurious questions to feign interest in something to prove an erroneous suspicion of a logical fallacy. You also mention that people online do not spend hours discussing the conflict in Yemen. Correct, they don't. Because, in general, people in the West don't really give a shit about what happens to Christians, Kurds or other minorities over there, or the general tribal, sectarian and religious wars. It's about as invisible as Sudan. Because... Who cares, right?" You are falsely assuming that I don't care about the Yemen conflict. As you raised it I thought you might have something useful to contribute. I don't know much about it but it doesn't appear that the UK government is supporting the oppression of five million people there and there aren't large numbers of internet commentators supporting oppression there. Unlike with the situation in Israel and the OPT. An argument of the form "before criticising X, ask why you're so focused on this issue to the exclusion of Y" is a clearly a whataboutery fallacy. It's designed to deflect away critism of X by using a counteraccusation that has no bearing on the validity of the criticism of X. It's routinely used in I/P discussions to suggest that criticism of the Israeli government or IDF is secretly motivated by antisemitism. Which is what the OP is talking about. As I said if anyone can come up with a comparable conflict where the UK government is aiding oppression then let's talk about that too. If there aren't any comparable conflicts then saying what about something else is whataboutery plain and simple. | |||
"It's a valid question to ask why since the US and Israel set up 4 aid centres to replace the nearly 400 aid centres (after a 3 month food blockade) there have been in excess of 550 people killed and over 4200 wounded by Israeli troops.. Yet not one Israel soldier has been injured by any violent action at the centres.. And now Israel soldiers who have or are serving at these centres are saying to the Haaretz newspaper that they were ordered to open fire upon unarmed people and that the sites are a ' killing field'.. Why has the decision been taken to deprive the elderly and infirm the access to food they had before, under international law in times of conflict occupying countries have a duty to feed the civilian population.. The size of the operation has overwhelmed the contractors they have running it and arming factions has caused chaos. The aim of stopping Hamas controlling the food and supplies is an uphill struggle, again it is not one side or the other it is both who are creating the problem. It has all the hallmarks of a deliberate policy to encourage people to leave Gaza rather than suffer the malnutrition that's being seen and reported on.. What a choice, don't eat or risk getting shot for no reason other than you have a family to feed.. The modern equivalent of starving a fortified city or town in medieval times.. I think they have dropped the ball without doubt, but it is because they don't want Hamas controlling the supplies. The biggest mistake they have made is supplying weapons to small factions within Gaza, the idea behind that is undoubtedly to create some kind of civil war. What is the answer to cutting off Hamas control? " The argument that Hamas were controlling the food aid won't ever be subjectively analysed to say how much control they had.. In some ways it's a deflection by Netanyahu etc to justify cutting food aid completely or to validate the current situation which is failing and unsustainable.. It's much harder to say that children are in danger of dying from malnutrition now is down to Hamas and that situation might according to independent medical charities not being far off.. Not good for prime time in American homes so Trump needs to get a grip of benny on this.. | |||
" An argument of the form "before criticising X, ask why you're so focused on this issue to the exclusion of Y" is a clearly a whataboutery fallacy. It's designed to deflect away critism of... " You've now twice ignored the reasons put forth as to why this is not intended as whataboutery. This does not seem to be a two-way discussion. Thanks for playing. | |||
"It's a valid question to ask why since the US and Israel set up 4 aid centres to replace the nearly 400 aid centres (after a 3 month food blockade) there have been in excess of 550 people killed and over 4200 wounded by Israeli troops.. Yet not one Israel soldier has been injured by any violent action at the centres.. And now Israel soldiers who have or are serving at these centres are saying to the Haaretz newspaper that they were ordered to open fire upon unarmed people and that the sites are a ' killing field'.. Why has the decision been taken to deprive the elderly and infirm the access to food they had before, under international law in times of conflict occupying countries have a duty to feed the civilian population.. The size of the operation has overwhelmed the contractors they have running it and arming factions has caused chaos. The aim of stopping Hamas controlling the food and supplies is an uphill struggle, again it is not one side or the other it is both who are creating the problem. It has all the hallmarks of a deliberate policy to encourage people to leave Gaza rather than suffer the malnutrition that's being seen and reported on.. What a choice, don't eat or risk getting shot for no reason other than you have a family to feed.. The modern equivalent of starving a fortified city or town in medieval times.. I think they have dropped the ball without doubt, but it is because they don't want Hamas controlling the supplies. The biggest mistake they have made is supplying weapons to small factions within Gaza, the idea behind that is undoubtedly to create some kind of civil war. What is the answer to cutting off Hamas control? The argument that Hamas were controlling the food aid won't ever be subjectively analysed to say how much control they had.. In some ways it's a deflection by Netanyahu etc to justify cutting food aid completely or to validate the current situation which is failing and unsustainable.. It's much harder to say that children are in danger of dying from malnutrition now is down to Hamas and that situation might according to independent medical charities not being far off.. Not good for prime time in American homes so Trump needs to get a grip of benny on this.." Doubt Americans even get to see it on their prime time tv. | |||
"It's a valid question to ask why since the US and Israel set up 4 aid centres to replace the nearly 400 aid centres (after a 3 month food blockade) there have been in excess of 550 people killed and over 4200 wounded by Israeli troops.. Yet not one Israel soldier has been injured by any violent action at the centres.. And now Israel soldiers who have or are serving at these centres are saying to the Haaretz newspaper that they were ordered to open fire upon unarmed people and that the sites are a ' killing field'.. Why has the decision been taken to deprive the elderly and infirm the access to food they had before, under international law in times of conflict occupying countries have a duty to feed the civilian population.. The size of the operation has overwhelmed the contractors they have running it and arming factions has caused chaos. The aim of stopping Hamas controlling the food and supplies is an uphill struggle, again it is not one side or the other it is both who are creating the problem. It has all the hallmarks of a deliberate policy to encourage people to leave Gaza rather than suffer the malnutrition that's being seen and reported on.. What a choice, don't eat or risk getting shot for no reason other than you have a family to feed.. The modern equivalent of starving a fortified city or town in medieval times.. I think they have dropped the ball without doubt, but it is because they don't want Hamas controlling the supplies. The biggest mistake they have made is supplying weapons to small factions within Gaza, the idea behind that is undoubtedly to create some kind of civil war. What is the answer to cutting off Hamas control? The argument that Hamas were controlling the food aid won't ever be subjectively analysed to say how much control they had.. In some ways it's a deflection by Netanyahu etc to justify cutting food aid completely or to validate the current situation which is failing and unsustainable.. It's much harder to say that children are in danger of dying from malnutrition now is down to Hamas and that situation might according to independent medical charities not being far off.. Not good for prime time in American homes so Trump needs to get a grip of benny on this.." It is difficult to back Israel into a corner when Hamas are continuing to try and force control. If Hamas stood down would things immediately improve? If the answer is yes, where is the pressure coming from to convince Hamas to stand down and allow people to eat, live and start rebuilding. If the answer is no, the situation wouldn't change, I would suggest Hamas use that outcome to increase international pressure on Israel. Changes to this conflict need to be forced through both sides. | |||
"It's a valid question to ask why since the US and Israel set up 4 aid centres to replace the nearly 400 aid centres (after a 3 month food blockade) there have been in excess of 550 people killed and over 4200 wounded by Israeli troops.. Yet not one Israel soldier has been injured by any violent action at the centres.. And now Israel soldiers who have or are serving at these centres are saying to the Haaretz newspaper that they were ordered to open fire upon unarmed people and that the sites are a ' killing field'.. Why has the decision been taken to deprive the elderly and infirm the access to food they had before, under international law in times of conflict occupying countries have a duty to feed the civilian population.. The size of the operation has overwhelmed the contractors they have running it and arming factions has caused chaos. The aim of stopping Hamas controlling the food and supplies is an uphill struggle, again it is not one side or the other it is both who are creating the problem. It has all the hallmarks of a deliberate policy to encourage people to leave Gaza rather than suffer the malnutrition that's being seen and reported on.. What a choice, don't eat or risk getting shot for no reason other than you have a family to feed.. The modern equivalent of starving a fortified city or town in medieval times.. I think they have dropped the ball without doubt, but it is because they don't want Hamas controlling the supplies. The biggest mistake they have made is supplying weapons to small factions within Gaza, the idea behind that is undoubtedly to create some kind of civil war. What is the answer to cutting off Hamas control? The argument that Hamas were controlling the food aid won't ever be subjectively analysed to say how much control they had.. In some ways it's a deflection by Netanyahu etc to justify cutting food aid completely or to validate the current situation which is failing and unsustainable.. It's much harder to say that children are in danger of dying from malnutrition now is down to Hamas and that situation might according to independent medical charities not being far off.. Not good for prime time in American homes so Trump needs to get a grip of benny on this.. It is difficult to back Israel into a corner when Hamas are continuing to try and force control. If Hamas stood down would things immediately improve? If the answer is yes, where is the pressure coming from to convince Hamas to stand down and allow people to eat, live and start rebuilding. If the answer is no, the situation wouldn't change, I would suggest Hamas use that outcome to increase international pressure on Israel. Changes to this conflict need to be forced through both sides." Netanyahu knows they won't step down, despite being at present a spent force nor will they give up their claims to the land of their grandparents etc as normal will Israel do.. Any solution requires give from both sides, without compromise on both sides there will be no peace.. | |||
"It's a valid question to ask why since the US and Israel set up 4 aid centres to replace the nearly 400 aid centres (after a 3 month food blockade) there have been in excess of 550 people killed and over 4200 wounded by Israeli troops.. Yet not one Israel soldier has been injured by any violent action at the centres.. And now Israel soldiers who have or are serving at these centres are saying to the Haaretz newspaper that they were ordered to open fire upon unarmed people and that the sites are a ' killing field'.. Why has the decision been taken to deprive the elderly and infirm the access to food they had before, under international law in times of conflict occupying countries have a duty to feed the civilian population.. The size of the operation has overwhelmed the contractors they have running it and arming factions has caused chaos. The aim of stopping Hamas controlling the food and supplies is an uphill struggle, again it is not one side or the other it is both who are creating the problem. It has all the hallmarks of a deliberate policy to encourage people to leave Gaza rather than suffer the malnutrition that's being seen and reported on.. What a choice, don't eat or risk getting shot for no reason other than you have a family to feed.. The modern equivalent of starving a fortified city or town in medieval times.. I think they have dropped the ball without doubt, but it is because they don't want Hamas controlling the supplies. The biggest mistake they have made is supplying weapons to small factions within Gaza, the idea behind that is undoubtedly to create some kind of civil war. What is the answer to cutting off Hamas control? The argument that Hamas were controlling the food aid won't ever be subjectively analysed to say how much control they had.. In some ways it's a deflection by Netanyahu etc to justify cutting food aid completely or to validate the current situation which is failing and unsustainable.. It's much harder to say that children are in danger of dying from malnutrition now is down to Hamas and that situation might according to independent medical charities not being far off.. Not good for prime time in American homes so Trump needs to get a grip of benny on this.. It is difficult to back Israel into a corner when Hamas are continuing to try and force control. If Hamas stood down would things immediately improve? If the answer is yes, where is the pressure coming from to convince Hamas to stand down and allow people to eat, live and start rebuilding. If the answer is no, the situation wouldn't change, I would suggest Hamas use that outcome to increase international pressure on Israel. Changes to this conflict need to be forced through both sides. Netanyahu knows they won't step down, despite being at present a spent force nor will they give up their claims to the land of their grandparents etc as normal will Israel do.. Any solution requires give from both sides, without compromise on both sides there will be no peace.. " | |||
"a topic that I wanted to start a thread on…. Is there anyway you can criticise the Israeli government or the IDF without the words antisemitic or antisemitism being thrown around " I don’t believe there is because if you look into the definition of antisemitism that was agreed although not accepted by every organisation, it includes criticism of the state of Israel | |||
"You've now twice ignored the reasons put forth as to why this is not intended as whataboutery. This does not seem to be a two-way discussion. Thanks for playing." I wasn't saying it was intended as whataboutery, I was sayng it was whataboutery even if it was accidental. I think what you have been trying to argue is that there is a double-standard applied to the Israeli government and the IDF but you've not expressed it very well. A double-standards argument has the form "regardless of whether criticism of X is valid there are criticisms of Y that are not being made even though X and Y share a large number of characteristics." This isn't whataboutery. However you need to show that X and Y do share a large number of characteristics or specifically in the context of my argument that both X and Y are involved in large-scale oppression and are supported by the UK giovernment and a significant number of commentators. Or in your analogy that other children are guilty of graffiti but not being told off for it. Your argument was "before criticising X, ask why you're so focused on this issue to the exclusion of Y" which is a whataboutery fallacy rather than a double-standards argument. | |||
| |||
"Sorry if my posts sound very pedantic but this whataboutery fallacy is so routinely used in I/P debates that it needs addressing given that the subject of this thread is "Is there anyway you can criticise the Israeli government or the IDF without the words antisemitic or antisemitism being thrown around"." | |||
"a topic that I wanted to start a thread on…. Is there anyway you can criticise the Israeli government or the IDF without the words antisemitic or antisemitism being thrown around " Yes. I think most people will agree that Netanyahu's actions are reckless and excessive in terms of civilian casualties and human suffering What I find interesting is that the people who use their platform for Free Palestine make a lot of noise condemning Israel/IDF etc but stay very very silent on Hamas. Also several prominent voices (Greta Tunberg for example) have displayed a lack of awareness with regards to symbols which have anti-Semitic implications | |||
| |||
 . Generally, with reasonable points and a reasonable audience, it's certainly possible.
Israel's leadership, especially the PM, seems to have been acting more in his interests, that the well-being of hostages and its citizens . His approval level isn't great and hostage families haven't been overwhelmingly supportive. Sizeable groups of Jewish people have also been very critical of the government and him. It must be a depressing time for them, seeing the nation's approval levels from other countries, falling so heavily. The levels of seemingly genocidal acts relates to him and his government's strategy.
Any argument that criticism of individual acts of behaviour is racist must be countered with discussion and to not let potential or actual fear of accusations of racism etc be used to block meaningful improvements to the lives of everyone | |||
"a topic that I wanted to start a thread on…. Is there anyway you can criticise the Israeli government or the IDF without the words antisemitic or antisemitism being thrown around Yes. I think most people will agree that Netanyahu's actions are reckless and excessive in terms of civilian casualties and human suffering What I find interesting is that the people who use their platform for Free Palestine make a lot of noise condemning Israel/IDF etc but stay very very silent on Hamas. Also several prominent voices (Greta Tunberg for example) have displayed a lack of awareness with regards to symbols which have anti-Semitic implications" Following this logic. Would someone have to list every major event in the conflict stretching back decades before being allowed to criticise the current mass slaughter of innocent people? | |||
"a topic that I wanted to start a thread on…. Is there anyway you can criticise the Israeli government or the IDF without the words antisemitic or antisemitism being thrown around Yes. I think most people will agree that Netanyahu's actions are reckless and excessive in terms of civilian casualties and human suffering What I find interesting is that the people who use their platform for Free Palestine make a lot of noise condemning Israel/IDF etc but stay very very silent on Hamas. Also several prominent voices (Greta Tunberg for example) have displayed a lack of awareness with regards to symbols which have anti-Semitic implications Following this logic. Would someone have to list every major event in the conflict stretching back decades before being allowed to criticise the current mass slaughter of innocent people?" I think you missed the point- all the criticism seems to be directed at Israel but you never hear of people like Bob Vylan or Tunberg criticise Hamas. There's been numerous examples of borderline/outright anti-Semitic comment and actions but never any mention of questionable tactics and behaviour about Hamas. I fully support ones right to criticise and condemn the actions of Netanyahu and the IDF I just question why they stay silent about the atrocities on the other side? | |||
"a topic that I wanted to start a thread on…. Is there anyway you can criticise the Israeli government or the IDF without the words antisemitic or antisemitism being thrown around Yes. I think most people will agree that Netanyahu's actions are reckless and excessive in terms of civilian casualties and human suffering What I find interesting is that the people who use their platform for Free Palestine make a lot of noise condemning Israel/IDF etc but stay very very silent on Hamas. Also several prominent voices (Greta Tunberg for example) have displayed a lack of awareness with regards to symbols which have anti-Semitic implications Following this logic. Would someone have to list every major event in the conflict stretching back decades before being allowed to criticise the current mass slaughter of innocent people? I think you missed the point- all the criticism seems to be directed at Israel but you never hear of people like Bob Vylan or Tunberg criticise Hamas. There's been numerous examples of borderline/outright anti-Semitic comment and actions but never any mention of questionable tactics and behaviour about Hamas. I fully support ones right to criticise and condemn the actions of Netanyahu and the IDF I just question why they stay silent about the atrocities on the other side? " Because there is nothing in it for them. If they show support for Israel or criticise Hamas their careers will be over. Much easier to say “Fuck Israel” and get a few more bookings and sell a few more records. This is what passes for “rebellion” in the arts in 2025. | |||
"a topic that I wanted to start a thread on…. Is there anyway you can criticise the Israeli government or the IDF without the words antisemitic or antisemitism being thrown around Yes. I think most people will agree that Netanyahu's actions are reckless and excessive in terms of civilian casualties and human suffering What I find interesting is that the people who use their platform for Free Palestine make a lot of noise condemning Israel/IDF etc but stay very very silent on Hamas. Also several prominent voices (Greta Tunberg for example) have displayed a lack of awareness with regards to symbols which have anti-Semitic implications Following this logic. Would someone have to list every major event in the conflict stretching back decades before being allowed to criticise the current mass slaughter of innocent people? I think you missed the point- all the criticism seems to be directed at Israel but you never hear of people like Bob Vylan or Tunberg criticise Hamas. There's been numerous examples of borderline/outright anti-Semitic comment and actions but never any mention of questionable tactics and behaviour about Hamas. I fully support ones right to criticise and condemn the actions of Netanyahu and the IDF I just question why they stay silent about the atrocities on the other side? " Probably most of them are/have been. Just a matter of scale. Plus the UK government isn't sending support to, and isn't sending military equipment to Hamas. | |||
| |||
"Okay… so the United Nations are saying 800 people have been killed whilst the Israeli and Americans have been doing there “food assistance” ( I don’t know if I should say running because it’s been a shitshow and obviously don’t know what they are doing) So… fair to now criticise again.. or am I going to get a whole lot more of “antisemitic” accusations?" Don't be tedious. Of course you can criticise. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"a topic that I wanted to start a thread on…. Is there anyway you can criticise the Israeli government or the IDF without the words antisemitic or antisemitism being thrown around " No way it is there goto statement which is suffering from fatigue. | |||
| |||
"Not because most of you are antisemitic and never stepped foot in the Middle East Also having zero knowledge of the reality on the ground and not understanding how Hamas works And how everything is linked to Iran regime How the Muslim world including Iran Qatar etc What a Muslim caliphate across the world. And anyone not Muslim or the wrong kind of Muslim is a fair target If you don’t understand it at a basic level Your full of woke leftist crap " A) oh boy.. here we go again . That antisemitism thing didn’t take long B) the Muslim caliphate was Sunni, if you know Iran and Qatar is predominantly Shia | |||
"Not because most of you are antisemitic and never stepped foot in the Middle East Also having zero knowledge of the reality on the ground and not understanding how Hamas works And how everything is linked to Iran regime How the Muslim world including Iran Qatar etc What a Muslim caliphate across the world. And anyone not Muslim or the wrong kind of Muslim is a fair target If you don’t understand it at a basic level Your full of woke leftist crap " Jewish hate bad? Muslim hate good? It's all hate, they're all just people. | |||
"...Qatar is predominantly Shia " Qatar is actually mostly Sunni. They are quite financially aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. | |||
"a topic that I wanted to start a thread on…. Is there anyway you can criticise the Israeli government or the IDF without the words antisemitic or antisemitism being thrown around " Ask Grok it's opinion lol | |||
"a topic that I wanted to start a thread on…. Is there anyway you can criticise the Israeli government or the IDF without the words antisemitic or antisemitism being thrown around Yes. I think most people will agree that Netanyahu's actions are reckless and excessive in terms of civilian casualties and human suffering What I find interesting is that the people who use their platform for Free Palestine make a lot of noise condemning Israel/IDF etc but stay very very silent on Hamas. Also several prominent voices (Greta Tunberg for example) have displayed a lack of awareness with regards to symbols which have anti-Semitic implications Following this logic. Would someone have to list every major event in the conflict stretching back decades before being allowed to criticise the current mass slaughter of innocent people? I think you missed the point- all the criticism seems to be directed at Israel but you never hear of people like Bob Vylan or Tunberg criticise Hamas. There's been numerous examples of borderline/outright anti-Semitic comment and actions but never any mention of questionable tactics and behaviour about Hamas. I fully support ones right to criticise and condemn the actions of Netanyahu and the IDF I just question why they stay silent about the atrocities on the other side? Because there is nothing in it for them. If they show support for Israel or criticise Hamas their careers will be over. Much easier to say “Fuck Israel” and get a few more bookings and sell a few more records. This is what passes for “rebellion” in the arts in 2025." Didn't do Bob Vylan's bookings any good. One chorus of "kill the IDF" cost him a US tour various other bookings and got him dumped by his agent. Clever lad. | |||
"a topic that I wanted to start a thread on…. Is there anyway you can criticise the Israeli government or the IDF without the words antisemitic or antisemitism being thrown around Yes. I think most people will agree that Netanyahu's actions are reckless and excessive in terms of civilian casualties and human suffering What I find interesting is that the people who use their platform for Free Palestine make a lot of noise condemning Israel/IDF etc but stay very very silent on Hamas. Also several prominent voices (Greta Tunberg for example) have displayed a lack of awareness with regards to symbols which have anti-Semitic implications Following this logic. Would someone have to list every major event in the conflict stretching back decades before being allowed to criticise the current mass slaughter of innocent people? I think you missed the point- all the criticism seems to be directed at Israel but you never hear of people like Bob Vylan or Tunberg criticise Hamas. There's been numerous examples of borderline/outright anti-Semitic comment and actions but never any mention of questionable tactics and behaviour about Hamas. I fully support ones right to criticise and condemn the actions of Netanyahu and the IDF I just question why they stay silent about the atrocities on the other side? Because there is nothing in it for them. If they show support for Israel or criticise Hamas their careers will be over. Much easier to say “Fuck Israel” and get a few more bookings and sell a few more records. This is what passes for “rebellion” in the arts in 2025. Didn't do Bob Vylan's bookings any good. One chorus of "kill the IDF" cost him a US tour various other bookings and got him dumped by his agent. Clever lad." But think of the record sales and the publicity - how many people had heard of them before? __ Ad I've said, stand up for your beliefs and it's good to see artists using their platform to raise awareness but don't stay silent on terrorism, have respect and don't offer a 2D solution to a 3D problem. | |||
"a topic that I wanted to start a thread on…. Is there anyway you can criticise the Israeli government or the IDF without the words antisemitic or antisemitism being thrown around Yes. I think most people will agree that Netanyahu's actions are reckless and excessive in terms of civilian casualties and human suffering What I find interesting is that the people who use their platform for Free Palestine make a lot of noise condemning Israel/IDF etc but stay very very silent on Hamas. Also several prominent voices (Greta Tunberg for example) have displayed a lack of awareness with regards to symbols which have anti-Semitic implications Following this logic. Would someone have to list every major event in the conflict stretching back decades before being allowed to criticise the current mass slaughter of innocent people? I think you missed the point- all the criticism seems to be directed at Israel but you never hear of people like Bob Vylan or Tunberg criticise Hamas. There's been numerous examples of borderline/outright anti-Semitic comment and actions but never any mention of questionable tactics and behaviour about Hamas. I fully support ones right to criticise and condemn the actions of Netanyahu and the IDF I just question why they stay silent about the atrocities on the other side? Because there is nothing in it for them. If they show support for Israel or criticise Hamas their careers will be over. Much easier to say “Fuck Israel” and get a few more bookings and sell a few more records. This is what passes for “rebellion” in the arts in 2025. Didn't do Bob Vylan's bookings any good. One chorus of "kill the IDF" cost him a US tour various other bookings and got him dumped by his agent. Clever lad. But think of the record sales and the publicity - how many people had heard of them before? __ " Records (I'll still use the old terminology) and downloads don't produce the money that they used to. Years ago it was cheap to go to a concert because the artist was promoting a new album and that is where the money came from. Nowadays the hit recording isn't much more than a tool to sell tickets for now very expensive concerts. So yes he will get a few penny's from downloads but the big earning concerts are gone. Like I said. Clever lad. NOT! | |||
| |||
