All things Politics

[Markfs]

old men who arent going for re-election

Look, as a fortunate, well-educated and privileged Jew/Israeli/Australian I can assure you that real estate only makes up a small part of a well balanced asset/life portfolio.

We value our health, family and life above all material or aspirational possessions.

Gaza belongs to the Palestinians. We'll just have our people back thanks.

i'm not acquainted with the level of integration that you have had with israeli society. However, the existence of the Hannibal directive indicates that some things in israel are unique to israel. On the first day of this current war, israel targetted people leaving the scene of the hamas killings. In many cases, the IDF did not know whether or not the people that it was shooting at were palestinians or were hostages being taken away. The post-incident videos of the areas where hamas killed israelis and took hostages, showed houses that were destroyed by the IDF tanks, sometimes with people inside. Israelis there at the time complained that the IDF shot into houses without knowing who was inside.

There are other examples and I'm not an expert and you have access to mossad intelligence and i'm sure you're well aware of the hannibal directive. This directive indicates to me that the return of the hostages is not the sole reason why gaza has been levelled.

It would appear that Hamas has targetted the sole "weakness" in the israeli approach to the palestinians. Up until this stage, Israel has had every base covered. Greater weapons, alliances, propaganda, control of US representatives, use of the unhinged support of evangelicals.....the list goes on. The Israelis have the palestinians caught like a mouse by a cat. There is no escape. There is no chance to live outside the yoke of jewish israeli domination. However, hamas believed that if it could sacrifice palestinians, it could win a PR war. It took hostages for two reasons, I believe. First, it wanted a win against the israelis. Any sort of win. It wanted to do something that annoyed israel, where it could show israel to be powerless. And the associated reason was that this public powerlessness was not something the israelis could tolerate. It made a commitment post holocaust not to be powerless. It led Israelis into wanting to control everything. It was what hamas believed was a weakness. Coupled with that is the clearly demonstrated israeli need for revenge...also probably something established post holocaust or some might say it is longer term thing. The israeli intolerance of powerlessness and the need for revenge was seen by hamas as a weakness in the israelis that would effectively force them to do things that were strategically unsound in regards to maintaining their outside support base.

Now I'm not saying that hamas is keeping the hostages solely to maintain israeli rage so that it continues to obliterate all palestinians. Hamas also wants a win and hamas was also losing the support of the palestinians before oct 7th. It had to reestablish its relevance. Again, a sober Israel would have seen that. As the cat, it should have been able to counter Hamas without playing into its hands....but israel struck out...just like the US did post 911.... another society that doesnt tolerate powerlessness.

So would the return of the hostages end the war? Obviously not. Israeli need for retribution is still evident in israeli public life. The need to reestablish control wouldnt be sated by a ceasefire. On top of these two factors is the sober calcuated plan to reestablish the promiseland. This goal has become more central to israeli life as more european immigrants come to live as settlers and as the general israeli population has become more right wing. In fact, this trend is evident around the world and in israel, just as in the USA, this trend has brought with it a more "religious" society.

A statement from an israeli about gaza being for the palestinians, is either a strategic lie - dont take that personally - or it is a statement by someone who is increasingly in the minority in israel. I think that the release of the hostages wouldnt result in a ceasefire. If I was in Hamas now, I would think that the die has been caste and the fate of hamas and palestinians are locked in. I read somewhere - probably israeli propaganda - that hamas had budgetted for 200,000 deaths. I think both sides knew that there would be massive deaths subsequen to 7th Oct. I do think that hamas has chosen human sacrifice as the only way to escape its jail and israel has acted as it expected.

It might seem that I think hamas are master manipulators. However, I think it was their only choice and it will eventually end in failure. It will never get its state. For those in hamas who want the eventual destruction of israel, they wont see that either. The cat will eat the mouse in the end.

I must point out that this is an opinion piece. Shalom

 

[JB1975]

Haven't seen any links or news of this on Al Jazeera.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-troops-recover-body-hostage-gazas-khan-younis-military-says-2024-04-06/

I dare say you're not going to get a full version of events from Al Jazeera, and certainly not the version you prefer.

I'd appreciate more from the Palestinian perspective, but the ongoing murder of journalists in Gaza makes that difficult. We're all trying to put the pieces together as best we can.

Gaza belongs to the Palestinians. We'll just have our people back thanks.

Interesting quote. Given the relentless levelling of Gaza and the barbarous war on its children, my sense is that Israel's campaign was never about the hostages.

The family of hostages in Israel sometimes say the same thing.

There seems to be an increasing (if somewhat slow-moving) realisation that the indiscriminate and disproportionate nature of Israel's actions, most lately being its efforts to starve the Gazan people, are less about hostages and Hamas and more about genocide.

I feel like I've been watching a genocide almost from the outset.

Or to disentangle events from legal niceties, the world is witnessing a savage display of mass murder.

 

[sr36]

I feel like I've been watching a genocide almost from the outset.

They announced to the world and began denying an entire community food and water. And the world responded with: they have the right to defend themselves. Green light.

It's just been outrageous from the start.

 

[Markfs]

It amazes me - well it doesnt really - that apologists demand balanced reporting from media entities such as aljazeera, and yet they dont demand honesty from the israeli gov't or the IDF.

In further news I saw andrew bolt interview barnaby...... barnaby is asked about the demands of the PM following the murder of the aid worker. Barnaby says that an investigation wont bring her back.....LOL...go back to the footpath mate. Evidently that time off was to take the heat off and now everyone in north queensland has forgotten that he's a drunk, he can return to normal.

 

[Markfs]

The endless articles and discussions about terminology in the gaza war. Is it genocide? Is it this...is it that? Does it reach the level to meet some definition by some group of people that are mostly irrelevant.

The latest one is ....is the West complicit?.... The short answer is yes, of course. Will the leaders go to jail? Of course not. In fact, the effects on Western leaders will be the same whether or not some body says that they are complicit. Just another example where the media gets bored of the day to day deaths and turns it attention to something that can spark some clicks on the keyboard.

Here is the reality of joe biden. He has spoken a lot....endlessly. However, he gave $3.5 billion in arms to israel and wants to give $18 billion more. He has allowed for bombs to be transferred to israel and these bombs have been dropped on gaza. That is the reality. The definition and the terminology is irrelevant.

I saw it was jesus who once said, judge people not on what they say, but on what they do....i must admit that the world might be in a better place if people actually concentrated on what he reportedly said in his life.....but alas

 

[Markfs]

Instead of investigations, this is the method. BDS. boycotts. More powerful than anything that the UN can do. Get into a habit of looking for the israeli oranges in the supermarket....the spotless stores....

"The slump comes after customers in Muslim countries called for a boycott of McDonald’s in response to its Israeli franchisee donating thousands of free meals to the Israeli military.

Following the announcement by McDonald’s Israel, franchisees in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain and Turkey distanced themselves from the donations and collectively pledged millions of dollars in aid to Palestinians in Gaza."

McDonald’s buys 225 of Israel franchise restaurants after boycotts amid war

McDonald’s subject to boycotts since franchisee Alonyal announced it would give free meals to the Israeli military.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Markfs]

Report on Aljazeera about the hostage recovered by the IDF. I notice that Aljazeera chose to report the words of a Forum formed by Israelis....

 

[JB1975]

This post contains a thread by Lee Mordechai, an Israeli historian who does a good job in making it clear that his country is currently committing genocide.

 

[Markfs]

This post contains a thread by Lee Mordechai, an Israeli historian who does a good job in making it clear that his country is currently committing genocide.

I understand why you post stuff like this. Before the war, the only people "authorised" to comment negatively on israeli actions were jewish people. It had little effect then and it has little effect now.

The other aspect is the importance of whether it is within the bounds of genocide. I've seen quite a few people like bernie sanders argue that it's an irrelevant question. Its a diversion.

A final aspect is whether quoting a jewish historian is going to convince anyone from the israeli side of things. It hasnt happened and it wont happen. I dont think this is an argument that can be won. It's not a question of what is right or wrong. It's a question about whether israel can be forced in some way to allow the palestinians to be fed....I think threats of boycott etc are the only way.

Having said all of that, i do acknowledge the importance of convincing people new to the palestinian question and the resultant pressure that their pressure brings to the situation.

 

[JB1975]

I understand why you post stuff like this. Before the war, the only people "authorised" to comment negatively on israeli actions were jewish people. It had little effect then and it has little effect now.

The other aspect is the importance of whether it is within the bounds of genocide. I've seen quite a few people like bernie sanders argue that it's an irrelevant question. Its a diversion.

A final aspect is whether quoting a jewish historian is going to convince anyone from the israeli side of things. It hasnt happened and it wont happen. I dont think this is an argument that can be won. It's not a question of what is right or wrong. It's a question about whether israel can be forced in some way to allow the palestinians to be fed....I think threats of boycott etc are the only way.

Having said all of that, i do acknowledge the importance of convincing people new to the palestinian question and the resultant pressure that their pressure brings to the situation.

I do think it's important for people to see that Jewish citizens of Israel are not incapable of seeing what other people see, not least because there are many people --including me-- who have traditionally been rather shy about criticising Israel.

In relation to the charge of genocide, I know that the term has little political clout, and I also appreciate that mass murder called by any other name is still mass murder.

But I believe it has a value beyond these things. While it doesn't much help to describe the effect of what Israel is doing, it does a better job of capturing the intention of Israel and its larger aims. It speaks to cold calculation and moves away from any explanation based upon simple revenge.

 

[Markfs]

I do think it's important for people to see that Jewish citizens of Israel are not incapable of seeing what other people see, not least because there are many people --including me-- who have traditionally been rather shy about criticising Israel.

In relation to the charge of genocide, I know that the term has little political clout, and I also appreciate that mass murder called by any other name is still mass murder.

But I believe it has a value beyond these things. While it doesn't much help to describe the effect of what Israel is doing, it does a better job of capturing the intention of Israel and its larger aims. It speaks to cold calculation and moves away from any explanation based upon simple revenge.

You make good points. I'm just over all this discussion about terminology.

 

[NMBB]

It amazes me - well it doesnt really - that apologists demand balanced reporting from media entities such as aljazeera, and yet they dont demand honesty from the israeli gov't or the IDF.

In further news I saw andrew bolt interview barnaby...... barnaby is asked about the demands of the PM following the murder of the aid worker. Barnaby says that an investigation wont bring her back.....LOL...go back to the footpath mate. Evidently that time off was to take the heat off and now everyone in north queensland has forgotten that he's a drunk, he can return to normal.

Andrew Bolt and Barnaby Joyce - would you really bother watching?

 

[Markfs]

Andrew Bolt and Barnaby Joyce - would you really bother watching?

well it was a pop-up and bolt asked barns for his reaction to albo's finger wagging against the israelis so i didnt close the window down until i heard that barns said the whole thing wasnt worth an investigation and that the parents had lost their daughter and nothing would bring her back.....you have to wonder whether barns would be so casual if someone broke into his home and stole his piss...I dont make a habit but i was curious about how far up his tongue would go up and the simple answer is....as far as possible..

 

[sr36]

I do think it's important for people to see that Jewish citizens of Israel are not incapable of seeing what other people see, not least because there are many people --including me-- who have traditionally been rather shy about criticising Israel.

In relation to the charge of genocide, I know that the term has little political clout, and I also appreciate that mass murder called by any other name is still mass murder.

But I believe it has a value beyond these things. While it doesn't much help to describe the effect of what Israel is doing, it does a better job of capturing the intention of Israel and its larger aims. It speaks to cold calculation and moves away from any explanation based upon simple revenge.

I do think it's important for people to see that Jewish citizens of Israel are not incapable of seeing what other people see, not least because there are many people --including me-- who have traditionally been rather shy about criticising Israel.

In relation to the charge of genocide, I know that the term has little political clout, and I also appreciate that mass murder called by any other name is still mass murder.

But I believe it has a value beyond these things. While it doesn't much help to describe the effect of what Israel is doing, it does a better job of capturing the intention of Israel and its larger aims. It speaks to cold calculation and moves away from any explanation based upon simple revenge.

I think there's a couple of issues with focusing too much on whether it's genocide.

A) They haven't killed enough to meet the layman's definition of genocide. The percentages don't match with what the general public view, so focus too much on it can undermine the message that Israels behaviour is atrocious and inhumane.

B) It sets up an argument where Israel are a chance of winning. Strip the term genocide and just say that Israel's behaviour is atrocious and inhumane and that's an argument they can't win

 

[JB1975]

I think there's a couple of issues with focusing too much on whether it's genocide.

A) They haven't killed enough to meet the layman's definition of genocide. The percentages don't match with what the general public view, so focus too much on it can undermine the message that Israels behaviour is atrocious and inhumane.

B) It sets up an argument where Israel are a chance of winning. Strip the term genocide and just say that Israel's behaviour is atrocious and inhumane and that's an argument they can't win

I'm not hellbent on inserting 'genocide' into every account of Israel's actions, and I'm sure there are dangers to harping on it too much, but 'atrocious and inhumane is a fair description of Australia's policy towards asylum seekers. In other words, I'm not sure it quite captures the magnitude of what we're seeing.

Call it Israel's 'final solution'. Call it ethnic cleansing. Or mass murder. Or a war on children.

It's not a matter of focusing on genocide or establishing a legal case; it's an effort to communicate that Israel's actions are designed to destroy the possibility and very idea of Palestine itself.

This is the difference between Rome defeating Carthage in a war and Rome levelling and salting the earth to ensure that nothing could ever grow again.

 

[sr36]

I'm not hellbent on inserting 'genocide' into every account of Israel's actions, and I'm sure there are dangers to harping on it too much, but 'atrocious and inhumane is a fair description of Australia's policy towards asylum seekers. In other words, I'm not sure it quite captures the magnitude of what we're seeing.

Call it Israel's 'final solution'. Call it ethnic cleansing. Or mass murder. Or a war on children.

It's not a matter of focusing on genocide or establishing a legal case; it's an effort to communicate that Israel's actions are designed to destroy the possibility and very idea of Palestine itself.

This is the difference between Rome defeating Carthage in a war and Rome levelling and salting the earth to ensure that nothing could ever grow again.

I understand. It's just that whether or not it is genocide is debateable and that shouldn't be the question except in a courtroom. There shouldn't be a question - just condemnation - as that's unquestionable.

 

[Markfs]

I understand. It's just that whether or not it is genocide is debateable and that shouldn't be the question except in a courtroom. There shouldn't be a question - just condemnation - as that's unquestionable.

Just to restate my point, I think the arguments about genocide is a means to sidetrack the overall issue. It also gives israeli apologists a topic that they can put forward an "acceptable" view, in contrast to having debates about whether children should be killed in war.

For for the genocide thing, there has to be a motive. Even if we keep it non-biblical, then I believe most israelis want the palestinian presence out of the middle east. The polls that I have seen reflect that. But as I have argued previously, the religious reasons provide a significant dynamic to get palestinians out of gaza and the west bank, and these reasons aren't totally jewish-related. In fact, I would argue that evangelical christians are supporting israel in re-establishing the "historical israel" solely for their biblical reasons. I saw something recently on the net that referred to the paradoxical situation where many evangelicals love israel but hate jews. I'm not saying this applies across the board, but even the bible story in revelation about the end of the world reflects a schizophrenic attitude to jewish people. Whatever your view of what I am saying, I would argue that there are religious aspects in this war which go beyond the need for security or even revenge, and provide a basis of a reason for extermination.

I reflected on what I've said in the context of the Khmer Rouge. Their's was a ideological destruction of cambodian traditions. The "religious" dynamic was communism. The Khmer Rouge was supported by the chinese because it shared the same "religion". Interestingly, the UK and the USA supported the Khmer Rouge because they saw them as an opponent to the soviet-based Vietnamese. Isn't this strangely familiar to the current situation?

So much for this morning's thoughts. Shalom to all....

 

[sr36]

I reflected on what I've said in the context of the Khmer Rouge. Their's was a ideological destruction of cambodian traditions. The "religious" dynamic was communism. The Khmer Rouge was supported by the chinese because it shared the same "religion". Interestingly, the UK and the USA supported the Khmer Rouge because they saw them as an opponent to the soviet-based Vietnamese. Isn't this strangely familiar to the current situation?

The US, Chinese and thus UN support for the Khmer Rouge after the Khmer Rouge had been ousted was just so disgusting.

 

[ZEV]

Report on Aljazeera about the hostage recovered by the IDF. I notice that Aljazeera chose to report the words of a Forum formed by Israelis....

View attachment 1952661

How do you feel about this?

A man kidnapped, held hostage by PIJ terrorists for three months and then executed.

 

[Markfs]

How do you feel about this?

A man kidnapped, held hostage by PIJ terrorists for three months and then executed.

well i suppose I would strongly demand a report on what happened from the jihadists and i would like to see the commanders responsible for his death to be stood down...

 

[Markfs]

well i suppose I would strongly demand a report on what happened from the jihadists and i would like to see the commanders responsible for his death to be stood down...

While I stick with this post, I would also have to take into account Barnaby Joyce's opinion, that investigations wont bring the israeli hostage back ....and might be worthless to his family.

Regarding the incident, the ABC report is says

"Palestinian factions have said some (hostages) were killed in Israeli strikes. While confirming this in several cases, Israel says that in others, hostages whose bodies were recovered bore signs of execution."

So his death might have been caused by the israeli strikes. 33,000 people have largely died through this process. Buildings collapsing on whole families have been commonplace. I dont think the israelis can be surgical with the use of 2000lb bombs provided by the US, but I'm not an expert.

 

[ZEV]

well i suppose I would strongly demand a report on what happened from the jihadists and i would like to see the commanders responsible for his death to be stood down...

While I stick with this post, I would also have to take into account Barnaby Joyce's opinion, that investigations wont bring the israeli hostage back ....and might be worthless to his family.

You use a lot of words to say I don't care and find it amusing.

 

[vindaloo]

You use a lot of words to say I don't care and find it amusing.

I'm sorry about the behavior of most in this thread. I had to put one poster on ignore, and I don't put anyone on ignore but this guy was stalking/gaslighting destructive, and my bigfooty experience is already immeasurably better for it.

 

[JB1975]

I'm sorry about the behavior of most in this thread. I had to put one poster on ignore, and I don't put anyone on ignore but this guy was stalking/gaslighting destructive, and my bigfooty experience is already immeasurably better for it.

It's really cool, that the guy who's been suspended from the thread for abuse on a number of occasions assures us all that he's the biggest victim.

 

[vindaloo]

It's really cool, that the guy who's been suspended from the thread for abuse on a number of occasions assures us all that he's the biggest victim.

Not you JB. I do enjoy your views and the good thing of not being politically aligned is I'm open to having my mind changed. For your cause I would say a 'War on Children' is most effective. I'll still argue that Australia is irrelevant to this conflict. Israel have a justified means to go to war, it's just its been predictably despicable how their government and it's army has conducted itself which I've acknowledged from the outset of the War.

It would be nice if people acknowledged what it's up against a bit more in here.

'War on Children' is very affective for your cause.