Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[Kaos]

So watched that Norm Finklestein segment on Piers and feck me that's not an interview, it's an interrogation.

Firstly, this guy is older than Old Spice, he needs more than the measly 20 or so minutes allocated to him.

Piers introduces him as a controversial voice. He is one but let the audience decide. The lower third ticker also said things like "critics describe him as a self-hating Jew". The picture they painted before he even got to speak a word was disgusting.

Piers normally tries to bully his pro-Palestinian guests for the first half about something they may have said/done controversial (as he did with the first Hijab interview, the Piker interview etc) then has a handful of set topics which he asks his guests but here, the interview was very different. He just kept trying to character assassinate without actually ever discussing the Israel-Palestine talking points beyond "would you condemn Hamas?".

It's clear that Piers had no intention of interviewing this dude. A few posters alerted me to Norm on this thread and I have been looking into him a fair bit and he has dedicated his life to this conflict. He is the perfect person to ask all the questions Piers normally asks his guests but here, he just wants to talk about a statement Norm put out prematurely. He had zero interest in hearing anything Norm had to say on the real issues that affect the conflict and the discourse around them.

And if that wasn't enough, he then lets Douglas Murray unload on Norm uninterrupted and unchallenged for five minutes straight to finish out the show. I wonder why...

Piers said he wants Norm back on the show so hopefully we get a proper debate that's at least an hour long if it does happen because the one yesterday was a mockery of a "debate".

Yeah agreed on all fronts. Finkelstein is definitely a voice worth listening to on this conflict considering his decades of scholastic dedication to the issue, as well as his unique perspective of being the son of holocaust survivors.

And yeah it was clear what Piers set out to do from the onset. Its why the first Bassem Youssef interview was such a masterclass. Youssef countered his predictable traps with dark humour and sarcasm, and reversed the dynamic of the interview where Piers couldn't simply corner him with the usual 'do you agree Hamas are to blame for all this suffering' shtick. The second face to face interview that followed was then more of an organic discussion that really started to address the underlying issues and context surrounding the wider conflict.

I do sincerely hope Finkelstein is interviewed again and is actually questioned on the wider issues instead of cornered regarding of a premature statement he's made. Though I suspect TalkTV won't be happy with the facts that Finkelstein would illuminate.

 

[Mike Smalling]

So watched that Norm Finklestein segment on Piers and feck me that's not an interview, it's an interrogation.

Firstly, this guy is older than Old Spice, he needs more than the measly 20 or so minutes allocated to him.

Piers introduces him as a controversial voice. He is one but let the audience decide. The lower third ticker also said things like "critics describe him as a self-hating Jew". The picture they painted before he even got to speak a word was disgusting.

Piers normally tries to bully his pro-Palestinian guests for the first half about something they may have said/done controversial (as he did with the first Hijab interview, the Piker interview etc) then has a handful of set topics which he asks his guests but here, the interview was very different. He just kept trying to character assassinate without actually ever discussing the Israel-Palestine talking points beyond "would you condemn Hamas?".

It's clear that Piers had no intention of interviewing this dude. A few posters alerted me to Norm on this thread and I have been looking into him a fair bit and he has dedicated his life to this conflict. He is the perfect person to ask all the questions Piers normally asks his guests but here, he just wants to talk about a statement Norm put out prematurely. He had zero interest in hearing anything Norm had to say on the real issues that affect the conflict and the discourse around them.

And if that wasn't enough, he then lets Douglas Murray unload on Norm uninterrupted and unchallenged for five minutes straight to finish out the show. I wonder why...

Piers said he wants Norm back on the show so hopefully we get a proper debate that's at least an hour long if it does happen because the one yesterday was a mockery of a "debate".

I don't think it was that bad. I agree more time would have been beneficial, but it would also have been weird not to have Finkelstein comment on the statement he made shortly after the October 7th attacks. I haven't read the statement, but the parts that were read aloud during the interview would obviously be seen as quite controversial. By Piers Morgan standards, I don't think there was a lot of unnecessary interruption, and Finkelstein even ended the interview with an acknowledgement of that (although that could be tactics to appear more sympathetic to the audience).

I've only really been superficially introduced to Finkelstein as part of the debate since October 7th, and I can't quite place him yet. Some seem to have him down as a crackpot, but a lot of what I've seen so far, is not that unreasonable to me. Interesting character.

 

[Giggsyking]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

explicitly targeted by................, nobody knows.

We know your tricks western media. I would say it is not working as intended like before. Social media broke media agencies.

 

[Dirty Schwein]

I don't think it was that bad. I agree more time would have been beneficial, but it would also have been weird not to have Finkelstein comment on the statement he made shortly after the October 7th attacks. I haven't read the statement, but the parts that were read aloud during the interview would obviously be seen as quite controversial. By Piers Morgan standards, I don't think there was a lot of unnecessary interruption, and Finkelstein even ended the interview with an acknowledgement of that (although that could be tactics to appear more sympathetic to the audience).

I've only really been superficially introduced to Finkelstein as part of the debate since October 7th, and I can't quite place him yet. Some seem to have him down as a crackpot, but a lot of what I've seen so far, is not that unreasonable to me. Interesting character.

I completely agree, it should have been discussed but here, Piers spent the most part of a short interview talking solely about this. Piers actually asked a good question at one point but instead of letting Norm answer, he went to an ad break and then returned and carried on talking about that statement when the conversation had already moved on.

It should have been "here is a statement you made straight after the Hamas attack. Do you stand by this? If not, why is it still up on the Internet?"

Then that topic is addressed and moved on from straight away.

 

[That_Bloke]

His explanation for why he posted what he posted was fair. Whether he should have deleted it after or not is a fair conversation to have as well.

His point regarding Nat Turner's rebellion is a fair one as well as his response to Pier's question regarding what his parents would think of what he posted. Its an uncomfortable discussion point for people because it puts them in a moral quandary. Nat Turner's rebellion killed loads of innocent people including women and children, yet to a large number of people he is seen as a hero and an example of resistance. If Jews within the concentration camps had been given the opportunity to break out of their camps and take revenge on the Nazi soldiers and their families, there is a high likelihood that they would have.

If say for example in 50 years time Gaza and the West bank are unified as 1 Palestine, the people there have been restored their rights and they are able to live their lives to the fullest, how would actions like October 7th be seen to those future Palestinian people? There would be a good chance that Oct 7th would be viewed to them as Nat Turner's rebellion is viewed now. Alternatively, if there is no Palestine in 50 years Oct 7th would be viewed as one of the greatest terror attacks ever because at that stage history will be written by Israel.

Now that is not to endorse Oct 7th or what Israel is doing, however it highlights the silliness of the stance of people like Piers. Piers knows full well that if he was born in Gaza, living under those conditions, treated like animals then most likely he would have been one of those breaking through into Israel.

It's entirely fair to disagree with what he posted even with the limited informations he had. He didn't want to delete for it because it was something he thought at a given time and it's a part of him, for the better or the worse. He sees himself not only as a chronicler who tries to document as accurately as possible everything that happened in Palestine in general and Gaza in particular, but also as a part of the story. Deleting the tweet would distort the future perception of who he is/was and harm the historical accuracy. In consequence, he stood for what he posted and admitted that it was perfectly justified that people wouldn't agree with that and call him out on it.

You can't say that. No one knows. True despair is something that pushes the human mind to its limits and beyond, but not everyone is going to react to it the same way. And I saw something similar first hand. In my opinion, all what Finkelstein did is introducing an element of reasonable doubt to knock people off their moral perch, comfortably judging from their sofa an oppressed people living in awful conditions for decades, who lost any kind of hope. Put the events back into their historical context and force people to look at something they're unconsciously very uncomfortable with and would rather turn a blind eye to. After that, it's up to the person.

Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky (who was his mentor) are two brilliant intellectuals whose voices are well worth listening when it comes to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Finkelstein has been absolutely demonized and ostracized in the US for his views, especially after his debate with Dershowitz in 2005, a brilliant advocate and a morally questionable human being, some even calling Finkelstein a Holocaust denier.

 

[nickm]

Well said. I'd argue that it's very important to distinguish whether we are talking about what's happening currently from a legal or a moral/ethical perspective. Words like "genocide" or "war crime" have a very specific meaning in international law, which not always matches how these terms are used in everyday language.

I am currently taking a class in University on the law of armed conflict, so we talk a lot about things like Targeting Law and things like that. The big take-away for me so far has been that it seems pretty much impossible to tell whether war crimes (in a legal sense) are being committed in an ongoing conflict. You'd need access to a lot intelligence/classified information in order to properly determine the military importance of an object.

Now, this obviously does not mean that someone cannot find it morally reprehensible to target a hospital. But such an attack does not necessarily have to be in conflict with international law.

I think we could avoid a lot confusion and talking past one another in this thread and in society in general if people make it clear from what position they are arguing and using the correct terminology.

Agreed, good points. In war, things can be both morally reprehensible yet tactically (and legally) justified.

Morality and war do not make easy bedfellows.

 

[Mike Smalling]

I completely agree, it should have been discussed but here, Piers spent the most part of a short interview talking solely about this. Piers actually asked a good question at one point but instead of letting Norm answer, he went to an ad break and then returned and carried on talking about that statement when the conversation had already moved on.

It should have been "here is a statement you made straight after the Hamas attack. Do you stand by this? If not, why is it still up on the Internet?"

Then that topic is addressed and moved on from straight away.

Yeah, no doubt Piers is overly focused on 1) Past controversial statements and 2) Whether someone that is anti-Israel / pro-Palestinian will condemn Hamas and call them a terror group. On the second part, I don't think I have heard a better response than what Yanis Varoufakis said early in the conflict.

But let's see if he has him on again. I think he will, because it will get views.

 

[That_Bloke]

I completely agree, it should have been discussed but here, Piers spent the most part of a short interview talking solely about this. Piers actually asked a good question at one point but instead of letting Norm answer, he went to an ad break and then returned and carried on talking about that statement when the conversation had already moved on.

It should have been "here is a statement you made straight after the Hamas attack. Do you stand by this? If not, why is it still up on the Internet?"

Then that topic is addressed and moved on from straight away.

I think that he will host him again, face to face, just like he did with Bassam Youssef. Finkelstein has decided to go on the offensive since 10/7 to reach the maximal amount of people he can and Morgan is giving him a big platform.

 

[Dirty Schwein]

I think that he will host him again, face to face, just like he did with Bassam Youssef.

I hope so. Or better yet, get Ben Shapiro on and let the two have an Oxford style debate.

 

[That_Bloke]

I hope so. Or better yet, get Ben Shapiro on and let the two have an Oxford style debate.

Nah, Ben Shapiro doesn't deal with facts and Finkelstein is someone you'd rather interview alone.

 

[Dirty Schwein]

Nah, Ben Shapiro doesn't deal with facts and Finkelstein is someone you'd rather interview alone.

I was asking more for the purposes of my entertainment

But yes, I agree.

 

[Beachryan]

As we finally see a cease-fire, has there actually been any sensible thoughts on what things look like after this offensive from Isreal? Obviously that was the large pushback from the US even before it began, but I still see no real potential outcomes here.

Even with the eventual (hopefully soon) breakup of the Netanyahu/far-right coalition, I still don't believe any near-term Isreali government would take 'negotiations' with Hamas seriously. So even after all this devastation and unnecessary loss, who will be in charge and representing Gaza this time next year?

Listened to a couple podcasts (https://www.jordanharbinger.com/mosab-hassan-yousef-the-green-prince-of-hamas-redux/) with Mosab Hassan Yousef and while he's probably too extreme for most, it is another interesting view of Hamas from the inside. Not sure if others have listened, or their takes. Regardless, he makes the point quite vociferously that Hamas will never, ever be a 'partner' with Israel regardless of conditions.

I still just get stuck as to how you remove Hamas and create a platform for a better, more benevolent leadership in Gaza, without massive military action.

 

[Kaos]

I hope so. Or better yet, get Ben Shapiro on and let the two have an Oxford style debate.

No chance Shapiro agrees to that. He's built his faux intellectual reputation on debating college kids, and on the rare occasion his views are put to proper scrutiny by a capable professional he crumbles. The interview he did with Andrew Neil where he hilariously accused him of all people of harbouring 'leftist sentiments' and then proceeding to storm off with his tail between his legs was testament to that.

 

[Giggsyking]

Agreed, good points. In war, things can be both morally reprehensible yet tactically (and legally) justified.

Morality and war do not make easy bedfellows.

It is not difficult to see in this case

Take the Russian invasion of Ukraine and compare it to the war in Gaza. The numbers are staggering in Gaza, the amount of destruction and the count of death in Gaza in proportion to Ukraine is unbelievable. Targeting whole families was very easy to prove. The numbers in Gaza equals 30m Ukrainian displaced, 300,000 dead, 100,000 children in only 1 month while in reality it has been 2 years war in Ukraine and the death count is 14000. It was not difficult to call out war crimes on Putin and an arrest have already been issued in his name based on the reports of NGOs like Amnesty. Going in circles around because Israel is a US ally is distortion of the truth.

Now Amnesty have already reported reports calling it damning evidens of war crimes, feel free to check their website. I have no doubt about what they did is crimes against humanity and a very good case for genocide intent.

 

[Kaos]

It is not difficult to see in this case

Take the Russian invasion of Ukraine and compare it to the war in Gaza. The numbers are staggering in Gaza, the amount of destruction and the count of death in Gaza in proportion to Ukraine is unbelievable. Targeting whole families was very easy to prove. The numbers in Gaza equals 30m Ukrainian displaced, 300,000 dead, 100,000 children in only 1 month while in reality it has been 2 years war in Ukraine and the death count is 14000. It was not difficult to call out war crimes on Putin and an arrest have already been issued in his name based on the reports of NGOs like Amnesty. Going in circles around because Israel is a US ally is distortion of the truth.

Now Amnesty have already reported reports calling it damning evidens of war crimes, feel free to check their website. I have no doubt about what they did is crimes against humanity and a very good case for genocide intent.

I always find it quite peculiar how this conflict has invited disproportionate doubt and scrutiny of the claims of war crimes being committed (despite the overwhelming evidence), to the point we spend an excessive amount of time debating pedantic terminology, or rather diluting them as the usual horrors of war. Contrast that to the war in Ukraine where no such benefit is afforded for Putin's warcrimes, which are accepted as objective, open and shut cases.

 

[That_Bloke]

This picture somehow shook me way more than I would've thought.

 

[Dirty Schwein]

No chance Shapiro agrees to that. He's built his faux intellectual reputation on debating college kids, and on the rare occasion his views are put to proper scrutiny by a capable professional he crumbles. The interview he did with Andrew Neil where he hilariously accused him of all people of harbouring 'leftist sentiments' and then proceeding to storm off with his tail between his legs was testament to that.

Yes, this was very embarrassing. You stay and defend your position, not walk out on it.

 

[That_Bloke]

That wasn't a dig at you because I've enjoyed and agreed with your posts throughout (so apologies as reading it back it is brash), but I'd say to be so dismissive of the human element and suffering can only mean you're ignorant or in denial (the royal you). You're obviously not ignorant. On your latter point... This thread is 571 pages long, with the same churn of arguments. We're week 6? 7? of this current round of hostilities, and the same will just recirculate. No one participating here is changing their mind, agree on that.

But this thread is being viewed by many more that aren't au fait with Palestine, that aren't aware of the history, or the injustice, where a grieving father is enough to prompt someone to read up and educate themselves. In fact, it's what worked on me many years ago. This conflict I've followed for most of my adult life and if I can make even a 1% difference then I'm happy with that.

It's all good, mate.

 

[The Corinthian]

You are one of the most often reported posters in this thread and one the modmins have almost unanimously noticed as being biased and quite inflammatory in your postings at times. Far from the only one of course.

@gfactor86 by contrast has been thread banned from both the Israel/Palestine thread, the Islamophobia/Anti-Semitism thread, and now the stabbing in Ireland thread for his input on the issues. Plus warnings and numerous posts deleted. He is now on thin ground entirely of his own making. It may just be that the pro-Israeli posters push the boundaries even further than the pro-Palestinian posters, but I also suspect that we moderate pro-Palestinian posters more sympathetically as they are usually mainly protesting the civilian deaths/suffering aspect of the whole thing - which is as it should be I'd say.

I've pushed for him to be dealt with in the scouts thread but that has nothing to do with your continuous abrasive behavior, don't deflect because there's no double standard. At least you have apologized to @That_Bloke. I have defended you in the past because of your posting historial pre October 7 and contribution to the the thread but I insist on you following thread guidelines since you keep getting signaled or called out. You have been afforded far more chances than posters usually do.

Ok - well thank you for the feedback. I do try and follow the rules of the site. I hope you can see in my posting history that I'm not trying to get a reaction, but I can be condescending and sarcastic, so will try and cut that out.

I'll be honest, I never envisaged I'd join a Man Utd forum and spend this much time debating Palestine, but hey ho.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

I've only really been superficially introduced to Finkelstein as part of the debate since October 7th, and I can't quite place him yet. Some seem to have him down as a crackpot, but a lot of what I've seen so far, is not that unreasonable to me. Interesting character.

Finkelstein has always been abrasive. But he was a well-known academic until his career was derailed by Alan Dershowitz, who lobbied DePaul University to deny him tenure after they got into heavy arguing over Dershowitz's book The Case for Israel. It's an infamous case of "cancellation."

 

[Kaos]

Ok - well thank you for the feedback. I do try and follow the rules of the site. I hope you can see in my posting history that I'm not trying to get a reaction, but I can be condescending and sarcastic, so will try and cut that out.

I'll be honest, I never envisaged I'd join a Man Utd forum and spend this much time debating Palestine, but hey ho.

Welcome to the club, I'm pretty sure the bulk of my 30k+ posts are concentrated on this subforum

 

[Giggsyking]

I always find it quite peculiar how this conflict has invited disproportionate doubt and scrutiny of the claims of war crimes being committed (despite the overwhelming evidence), to the point we spend an excessive amount of time debating pedantic terminology, or rather diluting them as the usual horrors of war. Contrast that to the war in Ukraine where no such benefit is afforded for Putin's warcrimes, which are accepted as objective, open and shut cases.

Agreed.

 

[Giggsyking]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Some of them have been in prison for years and still are teenagers.

 

[Super Hans]

I don't think it was that bad. I agree more time would have been beneficial, but it would also have been weird not to have Finkelstein comment on the statement he made shortly after the October 7th attacks. I haven't read the statement, but the parts that were read aloud during the interview would obviously be seen as quite controversial. By Piers Morgan standards, I don't think there was a lot of unnecessary interruption, and Finkelstein even ended the interview with an acknowledgement of that (although that could be tactics to appear more sympathetic to the audience).

Yes but that was essentially the topic of the ENTIRE interview. Piers was clearly not going to let Finkelstein get onto a track where he could debunk Israel’s talking points which is his specialty.

 

[2cents]

I've only really been superficially introduced to Finkelstein as part of the debate since October 7th, and I can't quite place him yet.

He’s first and foremost an academic of the old-school variety - an absolutely meticulous and devastating fact-checker. Nobody better at chasing down footnotes to expose academic fraud which he’s done most famously to Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz. He’s also shown he’s an independent thinker on this issue. Firmly in the anti-Zionist camp, but unafraid to chart his own path. He’s paid the price in terms of his career (last time I checked a few years ago he was teaching in a random college in the middle of Turkey). He has his issues and is open to criticism, but he is intellectually honest, which is more than you can say for many engaged in this issue.

 

[Giggsyking]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

FFS. Children in prison for many years, not even convicted of anything.

 

[The Corinthian]

Welcome to the club, I'm pretty sure the bulk of my 30k+ posts are concentrated on this subforum

He’s first and foremost an academic of the old-school variety - an absolutely meticulous and devastating fact-checker. Nobody better at chasing down footnotes to expose academic fraud which he’s done most famously to Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz. He’s also shown he’s an independent thinker on this issue. Firmly in the anti-Zionist camp, but unafraid to chart his own path. He’s paid the price in terms of his career (last time I checked a few years ago he was teaching in a random college in the middle of Turkey). He has his issues and is open to criticism, but he is intellectually honest, which is more than you can say for many engaged in this issue.

Yea, it's a shame that his career suffered given he's probably the most forthright and scholarly person on the conflict - he really should be front and centre of most of these discussions on various networks. The fact that he's not given airtime show what agenda the media has (or more accurately, what narrative they want to portray), and secondly how they prefer the type of debate where people (from both sides) are shouting at each other. The scholars and academics should be brought forward, not media personalities.

 

[Giggsyking]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[jadaba]

Another FT article detailing the very specific warnings to Israeli intelligence before 7th October including about Hamas training to blow up border posts and take over Kibbutzim. (Unpaywalled article if that's allowed, if not please take it down).

It seems extraordinary that this, alongside other warnings, were so readily dismissed, but then again it adds up when the overall assessment from the Israeli perspective was that Hamas had been successfully deterred. That's exactly what makes this a conceptual failure, rather than a security or intelligence failure: Israel had become convinced of the view that a blockade coupled with previous devastating wars had effectively resulted in the Palestinians succumbing.

Again it shows the need for a whole new approach because after so many decades of non-peace surely it is obvious that Palestinians will not be defeated through occupation or war. And yet the strategy taken throughout this war indicates that not a single lesson has been learned. Without overwhelming international pressure from Israel's allies, future 'solutions' will always be more military might, a taller fence, and a more suffocating occupation in the pursuit of total Palestinian submission.

 

[Sly]

Ok - well thank you for the feedback. I do try and follow the rules of the site. I hope you can see in my posting history that I'm not trying to get a reaction, but I can be condescending and sarcastic, so will try and cut that out.

I'll be honest, I never envisaged I'd join a Man Utd forum and spend this much time debating Palestine, but hey ho.

All good. Like I said I'm glad you apologized to @That_Bloke so that's settled. It's good that you will try to moderate some of the outbursts. You will see that the debate will be more engaging and enlightening.

This thread has been an excellent source of information. I barely follow mainstream media thanks to that. I'd like to see this keep going. We can only achieve that by following guidelines, carefully picking reliable sources and respecting fellow users. Disagree the points and report when you think it crosses the line. Mods have been doing a great job in this thread and have dealt with bad faith actors accordingly. Let's keep it going.

 

[Kaos]

Another FT article detailing the very specific warnings to Israeli intelligence before 7th October including about Hamas training to blow up border posts and take over Kibbutzim. (Unpaywalled article if that's allowed, if not please take it down).

It seems extraordinary that this, alongside other warnings, were so readily dismissed, but then again it adds up when the overall assessment from the Israeli perspective was that Hamas had been successfully deterred. That's exactly what makes this a conceptual failure, rather than a security or intelligence failure: Israel had become convinced of the view that a blockade coupled with previous devastating wars had effectively resulted in the Palestinians succumbing.

Again it shows the need for a whole new approach because after so many decades of non-peace surely it is obvious that Palestinians will not be defeated through occupation or war. And yet the strategy taken throughout this war indicates that not a single lesson has been learned. Without overwhelming international pressure from Israel's allies, future 'solutions' will always be more military might, a taller fence, and a more suffocating occupation in the pursuit of total Palestinian submission.

The cynic in me believes the goal isn't complete subjugation, but rather forcing them out through suffocation and desperation. Its why it hasn't surprised me that certain voices from the Israeli side have called for neighbouring nations to take them in under 'humanitarian' guises. Its why I also believe the Israelis have no sincere intention to wipe out Hamas, a viewpoint bolstered by Netanyahu's own admission that its in his camps interest to bolster them. Since it allows Israel to prolong their casus belli against the Palestinian people, essentially quashing any plan for Palestinian statehood, and in their eyes hopefully kickstarting another Nakba, allowing their settlers to swallow up the abandoned land. This of course is happening in parallel to the events in the West Bank, where settlers under the indirect blessing of the government and Israeli security forces are essentially colonising patches of territory in a way thats uncannily cutting off Palestinian territories on a daily basis.

Obviously a flat out genocide is terrible optics for Israel, so stepping short of that and inflicting a carnage-filled campaign with the hope that ethnic cleansing serves as an alternative 'kindness' allows them to achieve their goals of homogenising the land without resorting to violently purging Palestinians with the eyes of the world watching. Its also why I believe its no coincidence they've caused the amount of structural damage they have, destroying huge blocks of homes, hospitals, educational institutions and essential civilian apparatus, deeming the region completely inhospitable for years to come.

Now the conspiracy theorists might indulge the idea that Israel knew such an attack was forthcoming and perhaps allowed it to play out to give them carte blanche to - and I quote Jordan Peterson - 'give em hell'. Personally I'm reluctant to entertain such theories, but its an interesting thought to ponder nonetheless considering the increasingly convincing evidence that these warnings were plentiful and timely, coupled to Israeli's sophisticated intelligence network who you'd feel would be privy to such plans well ahead of time.

 

[Donaldo]

I hope Biden and the Democrats eat shit in every election henceforth until he kicks the bucket and some sane voices emerge from that shitshow of a political system they have there. Unfortunately all this will be too late for the majority of the Palestinian population.

 

[Kaos]

I hope Biden and the Democrats eat shit in every election henceforth until he kicks the bucket and some sane voices emerge from that shitshow of a political system they have there. Unfortunately all this will be too late for the majority of the Palestinian population.

I don't think the outlook is particularly positive regardless of who's at the white house. A Sanders type character would be their best shot of seeing some form of balanced mediation, but its almost impossible for someone of that profile to be elected. Not when its considered political suicide to convey a semblance of sympathy or solidarity for Palestinian suffering within the US political system. Perhaps that might change in years to come with Gen Z being predominantly more sympathetic to the Palestinians, but like you say by then I fear it might have been too late.

 

[Mike Smalling]

I hope Biden and the Democrats eat shit in every election henceforth until he kicks the bucket and some sane voices emerge from that shitshow of a political system they have there. Unfortunately all this will be too late for the majority of the Palestinian population.

The Israeli-Palestinian problem deciding the Presidential election in the US would be the height of insanity, though. Criticize Biden all day long for how he has handled it, but don't kid yourself into believing that it would be any different under a Republican president. They would just encourage Israel even more.

Biden and his administration has been handed a lose-lose situation with this, and it might end up costing the US and the world a lot of progress on many fronts, if it means another Trump term.

 

[That_Bloke]

Another FT article detailing the very specific warnings to Israeli intelligence before 7th October including about Hamas training to blow up border posts and take over Kibbutzim. (Unpaywalled article if that's allowed, if not please take it down).

It seems extraordinary that this, alongside other warnings, were so readily dismissed, but then again it adds up when the overall assessment from the Israeli perspective was that Hamas had been successfully deterred. That's exactly what makes this a conceptual failure, rather than a security or intelligence failure: Israel had become convinced of the view that a blockade coupled with previous devastating wars had effectively resulted in the Palestinians succumbing.

Again it shows the need for a whole new approach because after so many decades of non-peace surely it is obvious that Palestinians will not be defeated through occupation or war. And yet the strategy taken throughout this war indicates that not a single lesson has been learned. Without overwhelming international pressure from Israel's allies, future 'solutions' will always be more military might, a taller fence, and a more suffocating occupation in the pursuit of total Palestinian submission.

10/7 is a textbook example of "pride comes before the fall".

It partly explains why the military retaliation is so disproportionate, even by Israeli standards. Israel's reputation of invincibility that's been carefully crafted for decades has been utterly shattered in an instant. By as small group of inmates with limited means, operating from the most watched prison in the world. It has to be restored and a message to all the inmates has to be sent. Except it won't and all what Israel has managed is to create even more angry and desperate people while dragging their own image through the mud.

It would also never have been so "successful" if Netanyahu didn't send most of his army in the West Bank to protect and help the settlers do settler shit.

It never worked in the past and never will. History is full of cautionary tales and Israel is on the wrong side of it at the moment.

 

[RedSky]

The Israeli-Palestinian problem deciding the Presidential election in the US would be the height of insanity, though. Criticize Biden all day long for how he has handled it, but don't kid yourself into believing that it would be any different under a Republican president. They would just encourage Israel even more.

Biden and his administration has been handed a lose-lose situation with this, and it might end up costing the US and the world a lot of progress on many fronts, if it means another Trump term.

Kiss goodbye to any Ukraine assistance if Trump gets in. He's a significantly worse prospect as we all know.

Its no surprise that our Government has been very quiet about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Its a lose/lose discussion.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

So watched that Norm Finklestein segment on Piers and feck me that's not an interview, it's an interrogation.

Firstly, this guy is older than Old Spice, he needs more than the measly 20 or so minutes allocated to him.

Piers introduces him as a controversial voice. He is one but let the audience decide. The lower third ticker also said things like "critics describe him as a self-hating Jew". The picture they painted before he even got to speak a word was disgusting.

Piers normally tries to bully his pro-Palestinian guests for the first half about something they may have said/done controversial (as he did with the first Hijab interview, the Piker interview etc) then has a handful of set topics which he asks his guests but here, the interview was very different. He just kept trying to character assassinate without actually ever discussing the Israel-Palestine talking points beyond "would you condemn Hamas?".

It's clear that Piers had no intention of interviewing this dude. A few posters alerted me to Norm on this thread and I have been looking into him a fair bit and he has dedicated his life to this conflict. He is the perfect person to ask all the questions Piers normally asks his guests but here, he just wants to talk about a statement Norm put out prematurely. He had zero interest in hearing anything Norm had to say on the real issues that affect the conflict and the discourse around them.

And if that wasn't enough, he then lets Douglas Murray unload on Norm uninterrupted and unchallenged for five minutes straight to finish out the show. I wonder why...

Piers said he wants Norm back on the show so hopefully we get a proper debate that's at least an hour long if it does happen because the one yesterday was a mockery of a "debate".

The way Piers leans (in this conflict) has been crystal clear from Day.1, which is his right… though I disagree with him. To me, good is good, bad is bad regardless of who does it.

But what I hate is he’s using this conflict for likes and ego… the guy‘s still got the Ronaldo interview pinned on his Twitter account. He‘s jumped on this conflict to try and stay relevant and look to be giving all sides an equal voice (*he hasn’t). I can picture him rubbing his hands with glee when this escalated.

He ignored the abuse he got in early/mid Oct because he’s an egotistical d**k and think he’s always right. Then when public opinion changed (or in reality, just got louder/more vocal), he tried to look balanced. He’s not, as his interviews and questioning shows.

He‘s a dinosaur, a spoiled child, a ghoul… basically a w***er.

It is not difficult to see in this case

Take the Russian invasion of Ukraine and compare it to the war in Gaza. The numbers are staggering in Gaza, the amount of destruction and the count of death in Gaza in proportion to Ukraine is unbelievable. Targeting whole families was very easy to prove. The numbers in Gaza equals 30m Ukrainian displaced, 300,000 dead, 100,000 children in only 1 month while in reality it has been 2 years war in Ukraine and the death count is 14000. It was not difficult to call out war crimes on Putin and an arrest have already been issued in his name based on the reports of NGOs like Amnesty. Going in circles around because Israel is a US ally is distortion of the truth.

Now Amnesty have already reported reports calling it damning evidens of war crimes, feel free to check their website. I have no doubt about what they did is crimes against humanity and a very good case for genocide intent.

Absolutely right and I’ve made this point to plenty of people (incl one on this site) before now. The pre-standing bias of most of the Western world is absolutely clear in these two conflicts - pro Israel, anti Russia, nothing to do with “right” - but good is good, bad is bad.. to me. But to be so hypocritical when we’re talking about mass murders, war crimes and (in my opinion) genocide is just abhorrent.

I hope every politician‘s comments and stance are remembered come election days… but the alternative may be worse because we live in a time of completely useless politicians, worst in my lifetime.

Grim times.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

It is not difficult to see in this case

Take the Russian invasion of Ukraine and compare it to the war in Gaza. The numbers are staggering in Gaza, the amount of destruction and the count of death in Gaza in proportion to Ukraine is unbelievable. Targeting whole families was very easy to prove. The numbers in Gaza equals 30m Ukrainian displaced, 300,000 dead, 100,000 children in only 1 month while in reality it has been 2 years war in Ukraine and the death count is 14000. It was not difficult to call out war crimes on Putin and an arrest have already been issued in his name based on the reports of NGOs like Amnesty. Going in circles around because Israel is a US ally is distortion of the truth.

Now Amnesty have already reported reports calling it damning evidens of war crimes, feel free to check their website. I have no doubt about what they did is crimes against humanity and a very good case for genocide intent.

The bolded does not reflect the reality. Figures for areas which are under Russian control remain mostly uncounted. 25,000 civilians + may have died in Mariupol alone. The level of destruction Israel has unleashed in Gaza is horrific. That fact can be very adequately demonstrated without folk diminishing the level of destruction Russia has visited on Ukraine.

 

[Goldfiessli]

I always find it quite peculiar how this conflict has invited disproportionate doubt and scrutiny of the claims of war crimes being committed (despite the overwhelming evidence), to the point we spend an excessive amount of time debating pedantic terminology, or rather diluting them as the usual horrors of war. Contrast that to the war in Ukraine where no such benefit is afforded for Putin's warcrimes, which are accepted as objective, open and shut cases.

I think what we see is also something different. We see that the law of armed conflicts has not kept up with the evolution of war. It is not sufficiently equipped to deal with urban or cyber warfare for example. A lot of the law in this field goes back to 1907. This is also not the first time this has happened. The Geneva Convention was expanded after 1945 to include some form of civilian protection which was not in the law before. It is an unfortunate reality that international law often lags behind reality and has to be adapted ex post.

 

[Giggsy PO]

What exactly is the defined standard for what constitutes an accepted statement, or something that warrants a huge backlash leading to losing your job? Because it feels like there's no objective benchmark for what is or isn't ok to say. Do you think if the shoe was on the other foot and Amy Schumer had instead equated support for this war as an endorsement for genocide and child-killing that she'd be as easily off the hook? Because some of her peers in the industry have faced repercussions for saying a lot less.

I agree, there is no objective benchmark. I am not sure there is any path to agree on one. The polarization is so huge and the topic is so sensitive, and so many actors, with different goals, feelings of injustice etc. Therefor any discussion will neccesarilly ends in clash what is the standard. I mean, there are for sure legal definitions. But as demonstrated in this thread in everyday use the same word can carry many different definitions.

Don't you think it sets a dangerous precedence by giving a country essential immunity from condemnation of crimes they may well have committed on the grounds that it risks some historical insensitivity? All it does is set the threshold much higher for what we'd constitute as an unacceptable exercise of war crimes. And yes Israel does have precedence in this, its called the Nakba where they ethnically cleansed 750,000 Palestinians in 1948, condemning them to be refugees and not allowing them to return to their homes.

Look, Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years by many different entities because of ethnicity. No other people suffered so much and at such intensity, culminated in soa. Therefore it is extremely sensitive to compare/accuse them of a such behavior. I hope there is no need to point out it is not exclusive. Any people should not be unjustifiably compare/accused of such actions.

Does it give them freepass/immunity to do whatever they want. Of course not. The same applies to Bosnian Muslims, Armenians, Ukrainians (Stalin or Putin) and so on.

But it also does not give anybody free pass to use label genocide/ethnic cleansing etc. just as they see fit. I mean, of course, free speech. But do not be suprised by the reaction in return (I dont mean you personally).

I fundamentally disagree with the precedent you pointed out. I don't want to say it is complicated, because nothing in the world politics is easy. But it is complex. I am not sure I would like to turn this into historical exercise. I will now say Israel was attacked by Arab countries. Israel was victim of attack and successfully defended itself. Arab countries were aggressors and their goal was to destroy Israel. And they lost. You will then mention Plan D, Deir Yassin, and so on. Then we will start to talk about refugees, where again are strong differences. I will start asking why all world refugees belong to UNHCR and Palestinians have special organization. I will ask if Jews have right to return to Gaza settlements, that were there for hundrets of years before 1948. I will ask if 3rd generation of Sudeten Germans descendants have right to return to the Czech cities, and if Czech Republic is obliged to give these territories back to Germany.

I don't want to cut off the debate like this, to usurp the right of the last word. I will gladly read your response (no sarcasm). But I don't want to get into long historical debates. At least not now. So I apologize in advance if I wont make any further comment to your reply.