bartolomeo @ bartolomeo @suppo.fi

Posts

16

Comments

976

Joined

2 yr. ago

':D too soon

It's so vulgar to make fun of someone's English online. They might not be a native speaker and these kinds of comments can be hurtful and discouraging.

Update: it was rejected.

Again.

No doubt. Check their post history, it's a hasbara account. I was just trying to be diplomatic, although I did appreciate your comment that got removed by the mods. "I'm the calm one, but my crew is sorta sick" lol.

Alright, I understand that a lot of people have called you out on your logical inconsistencies in this thread so you must be confused about what I'm referring to. You used the argument I quoted as a reason why the U.S. should not stop funding Israel's genocide, because if they did then Iran and Qatar would commit genocide against Israel. When prole mentioned how wrong the idea of pre-emptive genocide is, you went off on a tangent. A pretty tasteless one. Are you going to address the pre-emptive genocide idea?

I think trying to pull gotchas online with people on the same side as you is doing nothing to help those people.

I don't disagree. I've seen on this thread that you try to change the subject whenever someone questions your idea so I hope you will finally address the pre-emptive genocide idea that was brought up some 10 comments ago. And it's ok to make mistakes and change your mind when you get new information or a new understanding. It's a good thing.

Iran and Qatar, who funds Hamas, would, without US Support of Israel, almost certainly carry out their "jihad" (a genocide of its own).

You must have gotten distracted during your fit but you forgot to address the pre-emptive genocide.

some anti-war protestor in 2003

It's weird how now the protests are labeled "pro-Palestinian" instead of "anti-war" as they always have before. In 2003 people were anti-war, not pro-Iraqi. In the '60s people were anti-war, not pro-South-Vietnamese. Some propaganda outlets are even calling today's anti-war protesters "pro-Hamas".

I dunno the question but the answer is more guns B-)

The charter of Likud says

Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

so let's see if Israel chooses security or expansion this time. Every other time they have chosen expansion and a Greater Israel, but hopefully they choose peace this time.

Not because, no. I think it's greed.

This is like the "there are some responsible assault rifle owners" argument. Although corporations are not required by law to maximize investor returns, CEO "compensation" is often tied to "performance" so the incentives of those with the most decision power make it de facto required to maximize returns to investors. That's why Musk needed to convince his board of directors (who are there to represent the best interests of the share holders) to approve some ridiculous pay package. His "performance" in their eyes is proportional to share holder profits so if they're happy, he gets his absurd pay package, which is why his incentive is to maximize profits for shareholders by any means necessary.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/14/former-treasury-secretary-mnuchin-is-putting-together-an-investor-group-to-buy-tiktok.html

It's a big club, and you ain't in it.

Don't you do some background checks on the sources you read & quote? Or do you tend to follow the herd? Here's some info from Wikipedia on the founder & president of NGO Monitor, Gerald Steinberg:

Yehudit Karp, a former Israeli deputy attorney general, charged that Steinberg published material he knew to be wrong "along with some manipulative interpretation".[21]

Reporter Uriel Heilman said that Steinberg played "fast and loose" with the facts by repeating comments about the New Israel Fund that Steinberg knew were untrue. In response, Steinberg acknowledged that some of his reports were poorly phrased and promised to correct them.[22]

In The Jerusalem Post, Kenneth Roth wrote that Steinberg shows a "disregard for basic facts" when writing about human rights.

Imagine how hateful and depraved you would have to be to pay tons of money to Google Ads to promote your page and agenda to deceptively block people from donating money to those in need. That's NGO Monitor and that's what you're supporting.

Edit: I'm sure you're also very interested to find out the facts behind Israel's accusations of UNRWA workers so here's the latest:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/22/israel-unrwa-staff-terrorist-links-yet-to-provide-evidence-colonna-report

Yes and check the page of the founder & president of NGO Monitor, Gerald Steinberg:

Yehudit Karp, a former Israeli deputy attorney general, charged that Steinberg published material he knew to be wrong "along with some manipulative interpretation".[21]

Reporter Uriel Heilman said that Steinberg played "fast and loose" with the facts by repeating comments about the New Israel Fund that Steinberg knew were untrue. In response, Steinberg acknowledged that some of his reports were poorly phrased and promised to correct them.[22]

In The Jerusalem Post, Kenneth Roth wrote that Steinberg shows a "disregard for basic facts" when writing about human rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acre,_Israel

Before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War broke out, the Carmeli Brigade's 21 Battalion commander had repeatedly damaged the Al-Kabri aqueduct that furnished Acre with water, and when Arab repairs managed to restore water supply, then resorted to pouring flasks of typhoid and dysentery bacteria into the aqueduct, as part of a biological warfare programme. At some time in late April or early May 1948, - Jewish forces had cut the town's electricity supply responsible for pumping water - a typhoid epidemic broke out. Israeli officials later credited the facility with which they conquered the town in part to the effects of the demoralization induced by the epidemic.[50]

Israel's Carmeli forces attacked on May 16 and, after an ultimatum was delivered that, unless the inhabitants surrendered, 'we will destroy you to the last man and utterly,'[51] the town notables signed an instrument of surrender on the night between 17–18 May 1948.

No, war doesn't count. Someone please tell Putin while we're at it.

Critical thinking is not your forté my man.

The double standard is that in this case, they say "calls for violence and physical intimidation targeting Jewish students and the Jewish community are blatantly antisemitic, unconscionable, and dangerous”, while in this case

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/12/business/harvard-doxxing-truck-israel-hamas-statement/index.html

no action was taken, and later Claudine Gay resigned. What's ironic though is that with the doxxing truck

The University’s Hillel, its Jewish student organization, condemned the billboard truck and attempts to intimidate signatories.

“Harvard Hillel strongly condemns any attempts to threaten and intimidate co-signatories of the Palestine Solidarity Committee’s statement, including the bus on campus displaying the names and faces of students affiliated with the groups who have signed it,” the organization said in a statement posted on its website.

The OP article is about antisemitism and it looks like Zionists use of Jews as human shields is working.

It's crazy because all these people saying that "genocide is bad" is antisemitic are really saying that Jews have a genetic predisposition toward commiting genocide, which is actually really fucking antisemitic.

In case anyone's still unclear:

Disliking someone because they are Jewish is antisemitic.

Disliking someone because they are commiting genocide is actually a good thing.

No, it was part of the mission to use mass starvation as a weapon of war.

That still doesn't answer the question. The second sentence in the Wikipedia article about the partition plan for Palestine is

On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted the Plan as Resolution 181 (II).

so I'm not really sure how you got the idea that this was "just a proposal".

The article you linked says

The United States says an independent Palestinian state should be established through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and not through UN action.

which makes it even more unclear. Was Israel created through UN action or did they just steal the land and expel the Palestinians? Did they negotiate directly with the Palestinians in 1948 and arrive on the agreement to share the land according to the borders that existed before 1967?

If you (or anyone) actually have an answer, I'd be happy to hear it.