IDF publishes unedited footage showing Hamas equipment in al-Shifa hospital

[Revoltingest]

Why should the Polish government.....

This isn't about Poland.
It's about Israel's apartheid, oppression, & war crimes.
Nothing that happened in or still happens in Poland
or Germany justifies Israel's perpetrating evil against
Palestinians, non-Jews, Arabs, etc.

 

[Bthoth]

Exactly. They cannot be a "Jewish state" and a free, democratic state at the same time.

You hit the nail on the head.

They must maintain apartheid and segregation and then try to sell it to the rest of the world as a defensive mechanism.

 

[Harel13]

This isn't about Poland

Don't deflect. The logic should hold in any hypothetical. If it doesn't, it means that the logic is faulty. So I'll reiterate. Why should the Polish government treat Germans who do not hold Polish citizenship the same way it treats Polish citizens?

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't deflect.

Now it's deflection to object to your
making the issue about Poland in a
thread about the Israel v Palestinians.

 

[rosends]

Now it's deflection to object to your
making the issue about Poland in a
thread about the Israel v Palestinians.

no the issue is about the consistently applying the word as it is used in international law. If you use a word but it doesn't apply to parallel instances then you are using it wrong.

 

[Harel13]

Now it's deflection to object to your
making the issue about Poland in a
thread about the Israel v Palestinians.

Other than what @rosends wrote, I am perfectly intending to get back to see whether this logic should apply to Israel once we've hashed out the hypothetical with a different country. That's why it's not a deflection. As he said, I would like to see whether your logic is applied consistently. We've debated this topic a number of times since 2021 and I don't recall you ever agreeing to apply your logic to various hypotheticals presented to you. I remain, perhaps naively, hopeful that one day you will. Has that day arrived?

 

[We Never Know]

Now it's deflection to object to your
making the issue about Poland in a
thread about the Israel v Palestinians.

Why should the Israeli government treat others who do not hold Israeli citizenship the same way it treats Israeli citizens?

(I'm not in this arguement but just thought I would see if you would answer with Poland removed)

 

[Revoltingest]

no the issue is about the consistently applying the word as it is used in international law.

Because I'm not an international lawyer,
I use the dictionary definition. Israel
is & has been committing apartheid
according to all such definitions.
Don't play word games to deny the
reality of war crimes & apartheid.

 

[Revoltingest]

Other than what @rosends wrote, I am perfectly intending to get back to see whether this logic should apply to Israel once we've hashed out the hypothetical with a different country. That's why it's not a deflection.

What's wrong in one country is wrong in Israel.

 

[Yerda]

Nice deflection (not). Like I said, I'll be waiting around RF to see whether you have it in you to decry Pakistani treatment of Afghanis, the same country who received billions of your tax money. Toodles.

If I may jump in here, I hold up my hands and accept that I don't have your first-hand experience of life in Israel. And I can tell that even if you lived in the Himalayas you absolutely know more about the conflict than I do. I'm just some numpty watching children being carted to the morgue every night on the news and I don't think it makes me a hypocrite to be furious about it.

Even if it were true that people were only focused on Israel (and you'd have to ignore a century of peace movements all over the world to entertain that idea), it's hardly a defence to point at other places and ask us to criticise them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why should the Israeli government treat others who do not hold Israeli citizenship the same way it treats Israeli citizens?

The question doesn't address my post.

(I'm not in this arguement but just thought I would see if you would answer with Poland removed)

I don't cooperate with whatoutism.
Nothing that happens in Poland
justifies Israel's apartheid & war crimes.

 

[Harel13]

What's wrong in one country is wrong in Israel.

So in your opinion, it is wrong for Poland to give more rights to Polish citizens than to Germans who never applied for citizenship?

 

[rosends]

Because I'm not an international lawyer,
I use the dictionary definition. Israel
is & has been committing apartheid
according to all such definitions.
Don't play word games to deny the
reality of war crimes & apartheid.

Because I can read international law, I use the legal (and appropriate) definition instead of relying on the common man's use and non-legal usages. Israel has not been committing apartheid. Don't misuse words and then try to twist reality to the misuse you rely on and try and create facts that aren't there.

 

[rosends]

If I may jump in here, I hold up my hands and accept that I don't have your first-hand experience of life in Israel. And I can tell that even if you lived in the Himalayas you absolutely know more about the conflict than I do. I'm just some numpty watching children being carted to the morgue every night on the news and I don't think it makes me a hypocrite to be furious about it.

Even if it were true that people were only focused on Israel (and you'd have to ignore a century of peace movements all over the world to entertain that idea), it's hardly a defence to point at other places and ask us to criticise them.

But that's not what is happening here. The application of a use in one country, under international law, should be the way it is applied to all countries. If it wouldn't be used in a European country that has different rules for non-citizens, why would it be required in Israel? No one is asking anyone to criticize anyone else. All that is being pointed out is that if other people AREN'T being criticized, why choose to criticize Israel for the same behavior? That creates a double standard, expecting behavior by Israel that isn't expected of others.

 

[Harel13]

If I may jump in here, I hold up my hands and accept that I don't have your first-hand experience of life in Israel. And I can tell that even if you lived in the Himalayas you absolutely know more about the conflict than I do. I'm just some numpty watching children being carted to the morgue every night on the news and I don't think it makes me a hypocrite to be furious about it.

Even if it were true that people were only focused on Israel (and you'd have to ignore a century of peace movements all over the world to entertain that idea), it's hardly a defence to point at other places and ask us to criticise them.

I agree that in a fair, objective world, it would not be a very useful defense. The problem is that Israel is consistently held to a much higher standard than other countries, but few will admit to that. That is why, from time to time, I try to get people to admit they hold Israel to a higher standard. Few, if any, ever do. Certainly, seeing a child be killed is saddening. But it remains a question to be debated whether Israel's actions in this war, as well as in previous operations, may be considered actual war crimes. That is not a term to be used lightly. People often point to the UN or other human rights groups who have unequivocally announced that Israel is at fault and has, indeed, committed war crimes. However, typically these groups fail entirely or almost entirely to denounce other political entities and even terrorist organizations for acts some may argue are far worse than what Israel does. For example, hop over now to Wikipedia and check out who sits on the Human Rights Council. You may be surprised to discover that these are some of the worst human rights violators in the world. This tells me that the UN is likely not an objective body. So why should I hang my head in shame when it tells me that my country commited war crimes? What reason do I have to believe its objectivity on the matter? Why should I put my faith in the UN's judgment?

We can start having a real discussion regarding the legitimacy of Israel's methods both in war time and in daily life once we can all agree that the UN and many other human rights groups are holding Israel to a far higher standard, in a grossly hypocritical manner, for highly unclear reasons. Yes, I am open to a serious discussion on the topic which will likely lead me to concede many things. But only when concessions are also made on the other side. So far, not a single user here on RF has agreed to make these concessions (since I've joined the site, that is).

 

[Orbit]

Nice deflection (not). Like I said, I'll be waiting around RF to see whether you have it in you to decry Pakistani treatment of Afghanis, the same country who received billions of your tax money. Toodles.

Your reasoning is fallacious, but you can’t seem to see it. It’s a classic ad hominem fallacy. “Orbit is a bad person, therefore her views on the thread topic are invalid.”

 

[Harel13]

Your reasoning is fallacious, but you can’t seem to see it. It’s a classic ad hominem fallacy. “Orbit is a bad person, therefore her views on the thread topic are invalid.”

I didn't say you were bad, nor do I think that. I think you're being hypocritical on this topic. There's a difference.

 

[Orbit]

I didn't say you were bad, nor do I think that. I think you're being hypocritical on this topic. There's a difference.

How is “Orbit is a hypocrite therefore her views on the thread topic are invalid” any different? It’s still an ad hom, and it’s deflection away from the topic.

 

[Revoltingest]

So in your opinion, it is wrong for Poland...

I don't address Poland, nor specious
analogies, nor whataboutism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't misuse words

That is a specious admonition.
You only prefer definitions that exculpate
Israel's apartheid....if they even do. Based
upon the bizarre rationalization for war
crimes & such in other posts, I doubt
that you read the law correctly.