Ebionite
Well-Known Member
What context could possibly affect the meaning of Cohen's statement? It clearly implies that the state of Israel is ultimately responsible for the current conflict. The quote is not hard to find.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
UNRWA fires 12 workers over suspected involvement in the October 7 attacks on Israel
- Thread starter Shaul
- Start date
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
I not interested in discussing it without a source. If I have time, maybe, I'll look it up myself.
I have mediated on how to respond and I think the crux of our disagreement can be expressed without getting bogged down in the teaching resources.
I do think that it was irresponsible for countries that did not have this evidence (my own country Canada,) to make decisions that affected the funding for dozens of clinics based on the alleged actions of 12 people during the lowest point in Gaza in my lifetime.
The good evidence I am to believe exists that Israel has is about the alleged crimes of 12.
I do think that it was irresponsible for countries that did not have this evidence (my own country Canada,) to make decisions that affected the funding for dozens of clinics based on the alleged actions of 12 people during the lowest point in Gaza in my lifetime.
Suffice it to say that I do not consider the the stance that these teaching resources constitute 'Actively participating' in 'making war' to be serious positions. There are several levels of subjectivism here between the actions of a small group of ex-employees and the 3% of teaching materials and that UNRWA is raising an army against Israel.
As I had mentioned earlier in the thread, Canada had made this decision without reviewing the evidence.
Canada has in the last two weeks since reinstated UNRWA funding. The CBC is reporting that Canada resumed funding after reviewing the UN report on the evidence: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-government-resume-unrwa-funding-1.7134961.
Yesterday the Canadian parliament voted to halt further authorizations of arms exports to Israel which some have reported as constituting an arms embargo. The tide seems to be changing here.
Canada has in the last two weeks since reinstated UNRWA funding. The CBC is reporting that Canada resumed funding after reviewing the UN report on the evidence: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-government-resume-unrwa-funding-1.7134961.
Yesterday the Canadian parliament voted to halt further authorizations of arms exports to Israel which some have reported as constituting an arms embargo. The tide seems to be changing here.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
No, it was not. You deliberately left out significant details, such as the fact that LESS THAN 7% of Mandatory Palestine was actually legally sold to Israeli settlers, the rest was militarily occupied following the outbreak of war. You even ignore literally all of the historical evidence I presented, which is very telling.
You're clearly not depicting history accurately. You're pretending ALL OF THE LAND was sold to Israel, when only a TINY PORTION of it was. The rest was taken over by military force, and through numerous massacres, displacements and ethnic cleansing. You are engaging in propaganda.
Last edited:
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Without knowing precisely the reasons which produced cutting off the funding, how are you able to judge whether or not it's irresponsible? Do we agree that there is good strong evidence against these 12 or not? If there is good strong evidence, then the executives made a good choice cutting off funding. Their trust in their sources has been shown to be valid.
If an executive receive's communication 2nd hand or 3rd hand from a trusted source: "Israel has strong evidence that UNRWA is participating in making war ( actions which are specifically prohibited in their mandate )" and they cutoff funding prior to reviewing the evidence themself, it's not irresponsible unless their "trusted-source" is known to be untrustworthy or Israeli evidence is known to fallacious. Since the allegations are true, there is strong evidence, then the decision is not irresponsible.
But putting all of this aside: the humanitarian aid has increased dramatically as a direct consequence of removing UNRWA from the distribution tasks. They were a roadblock standing in the way of getting aid to northern Gaza. They were, at the least, contributing to the humanitarian crisis. There is no good reason to continue to nurture the failure called UNRWA. This ignores that they publish and distribute violent propaganda. I'm not sure where your 3% number is coming from, but, it's not from the reports I brought showing what UNRWA is doing with the majority of their funding.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
The Palestinian's started a war to steal the land purchased legally by the Jewish immigrants. It doesn't matter if it was 7%, 15%, or 3%. Then, the Jewish immigrants fought back. The Palestinians list the war and surrendered their land.
No. Not at all. I wrote that a buffer zone was needed between the Jewish immigrants and the Palestinians who had cowed to annihilate them and had acted on those aspirations. Palestinians are still making those same vows. Palestinians are still acting on those aspirations.
It was surrendered by the Palestinian leaders because they had started a war and had lost.
The rest of the world knows a different history.
Zionists' is remarkably similar to Holocaust denial,
ie, belief in a fabricated history to serve a purpose.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
That's also not true. It started with the declaration of the establishment of Israel, and the partitioning of Mandatory Palestine by the UN in May 1948, which included a significant amount of land owned by Palestinians that was not previously sold to Israelis, and Israeli military forces had already begun occupying land outside of that partition plan for over month before the partitioning by the UN and the dissolution of the British mandate in the same month. Military operations to occupy Mandatory Palestine were in planning since 1947, and executed a month before the mandate in April 1948:
Plan Dalet - Wikipedia
1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia
Israeli Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
It is utterly false to claim that the war started because Arabs attacked land that was legally purchased from them by Israelis. That is simply not the case. It is, at best, a dramatic over-simplification verging on propaganda.
Last edited:
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
The Palestinians started a war with the jewish immigrants long before 1948. The partitioning was the UN's reaction to the ongoing unjust Palestinian violence against the jewish immigrants who were legally purchasing land. Maybe read up on the Peel commision? 1936? In 1936, the zionist congress voted not to partition. However, after over a decade, yes, they accepted the UN's partition and declared their independence. The Palestinians did not accept it; They wanted ALL the land including what was legally sold to the jewish immigrants. From the river to the sea means annihilating the jewish people and stealing their land.
Jewish immigrants also surrendered land during the partition, btw. It wasn't a one-sided zionist land-grab. Israel trades land for peace. Their priority is peace. Palestine has different priorities.
Last edited:
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
"... the rest of the world ... "
Yes, those who disagree have a different version of history. "The rest of the world" which is anti-zionist is a minority not unlike flat-earthers. The difference between zionism and holocaust denial is that zionism is strongly supported by evidence. Holocaust denial is not.
Just this morning on NPR, I heard an interview with a
Palestinian girl, Alma, who was buried under rubble
from an Israeli bomb for several hours. After her
rescue, she then found her 18 month old brother,
whom the IDF had just decapitated.
The article went on to say that Israeli news doesn't
cover such things. Only brave IDF soldiers fighting
Hamas. Israeli media employ propaganda & ignorance
to ease tolerance genocide & mass starvation.
Zionism is an agenda, as was Manifest Destiny.
Agendas exist because of desire, not evidence.
Israel desires Gaza & removal of Palestinians.
Now, there is evidence for that.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
This is false. Civil unrest is not a war. Protests are not a war. Sporadic violence is not a war.
Also an oversimplification. It wasn't exclusively against the Jewish purchase of land, but against the British mandate for Palestine.
Peel Commission - Wikipedia
Arab general strike (Mandatory Palestine) - Wikipedia
I don't support the reactionary violence against Jewish Palestinians or Israeli settlers, but I also don't support your lop-siding of history in order to paint Palestinians as a) the sole agitators and b) attempt to justify the continuing annexation and colonialism of the state of Israel.
No, they voted against a specific partition plan. There is a difference between rejecting a plan because you are against partition and rejecting a plan because you view the partition as particularly unfavourable to you. The moderate voices within the Zionist Congress argued in favour of the plan with the argument that it would provide "a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of all of Palestine".
SOURCE:
Chances for Peace
Drawing on a newly developed theoretical definition of “missed opportunity,” Chances for Peace uses extensive sources in English, Hebrew, and Arabic to systematically measure the potentiality levels of opportunity across some ninety years of attempted negotiations in the Arab-Israeli conflict...
books.google.co.uk
They never supported partition, and nor should they have to. Israeli settlers wouldn't accept their land being taken by force without their input, either.
Depends on who you speak to. I've heard Netanyahu himself use that phrase, so it's obviously not only got the one implication.
Can you provide me with any examples of land that was given to the Arabs (that wasn't also subsequently annexed by Israel)?
Seems to me that if you REALLY want peace, you wouldn't illegally militarily occupy land that doesn't belong to you.
Last edited:
As per the CBC article from earlier in the thread, the Canadian cut of the funding was not based on the evaluation of any evidence.
They themselves did not know 'precisely the reasons' for this decision, and could not muster a dutiful response to Canadian outrage after doing such. After reviewing the evidence at a later time, Canada reinstated funding. They denied funding for a considerable and crucial period of time and later decided it was the wrong call.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but the information required to evaluate the evidence against all 12 is not available to the public at this time.
If you mean to ask 'Do we agree that Israel has good strong evidence against these 12 that they are keeping from the public at this time for intelligence and case-building purposes?' my answer is that I simply cannot verify any details of the evidence, so any answer I could provide would simply be a reflection of my trust in Israel rather than a matter of record or quality of the evidence itself. I do think it is important to demarcate that which is known and publicly verifiable and that which is alleged by a party in this conflict that one might choose to trust for one reason or another.
I did see the video you shared which is being reported as Faisal Ali Mussalem Al Naami which seems quite damning.
On the other hand, if you were to ask me if it would be surprising that Hamas had operatives in UNRWA and other humanitarian organizations that participated in Oct 7th, I would say no. I'm doubtful that any sizable organization could function in Gaza without some hamas members or sympathizers being involved.
Last edited:
I don't understand why the actions of 0.04% of UNRWA employees should be used at this time to justify a change which affects hundreds of thousands at such a crucial time.
Could you provide your source on this? It conflicts with the impression that what I had read in the Guardian and CBC had left me with.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
This is the most recent example of over a decade of involvement and support for terrorism in direct opposition to their UN mandate.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Israel is tracking and reporting the amount of aid entering Gaza on a daily basis. COGAT Newsletter
Agreed. There is a conflict.