https://news.sky.com/story/met-appeals-for-help-identifying-protesters-holding-hate-crime-placards-during-pro-palestinian-march-13006147
The Met want help identifying people holding hate crime placards.
One of the pictures in that link has a middle aged woman holding a placard proclaiming "No British politican should be a friend of Israel".
Is the bar for a "hate crime" THAT low these days?
https://news.sky.com/story/met-appeals-for-help-identifying-protesters-holding-hate-crime-placards-during-pro-palestinian-march-13006147
The Met want help identifying people holding hate crime placards.
One of the pictures in that link has a middle aged woman holding a placard proclaiming "No British politican should be a friend of Israel".
Is the bar for a "hate crime" THAT low these days?
https://news.sky.com/story/met-appeals-for-help-identifying-protesters-holding-hate-crime-placards-during-pro-palestinian-march-13006147
The Met want help identifying people holding hate crime placards.
One of the pictures in that link has a middle aged woman holding a placard proclaiming "No British politican should be a friend of Israel".
Is the bar for a "hate crime" THAT low these days?
https://news.sky.com/story/met-appeals-for-help-identifying-protesters-holding-hate-crime-placards-during-pro-palestinian-march-13006147
The Met want help identifying people holding hate crime placards.
One of the pictures in that link has a middle aged woman holding a placard proclaiming "No British politican should be a friend of Israel".
Is the bar for a "hate crime" THAT low these days?
On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 16:35:17 UTC, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
https://news.sky.com/story/met-appeals-for-help-identifying-protesters-holding-hate-crime-placards-during-pro-palestinian-march-13006147
The Met want help identifying people holding hate crime placards.
One of the pictures in that link has a middle aged woman holding a placard proclaiming "No British politican should be a friend of Israel".
Is the bar for a "hate crime" THAT low these days?
I suspect it's more about the swastika incorporated into the star of David, than the text.
On 12/11/2023 14:42, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
https://news.sky.com/story/met-appeals-for-help-identifying-protesters-holding-hate-crime-placards-during-pro-palestinian-march-13006147
The Met want help identifying people holding hate crime placards.
One of the pictures in that link has a middle aged woman holding a
placard proclaiming "No British politican should be a friend of Israel".
It's not necessarily that moment that the police are worried about. That
may just be a good photo.
It's also possible that the mixed swastika and Star of David emblem on
her placard is significant?
Some other ladies were arrested the other day, and will be in court
soon, merely for (allegedly) holding up a picture of a paraglider. Two
days has been allocated for the trial, and assuming it's only a S13
offence, there's a potential sentence of up to 6 months. If it's S12,
then the maximum is 14 years.
On 12/11/2023 17:49, GB wrote:
On 12/11/2023 14:42, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
https://news.sky.com/story/met-appeals-for-help-identifying-protesters-holding-hate-crime-placards-during-pro-palestinian-march-13006147
The Met want help identifying people holding hate crime placards.
One of the pictures in that link has a middle aged woman holding a
placard proclaiming "No British politican should be a friend of Israel".
It's not necessarily that moment that the police are worried about. That
may just be a good photo.
It's also possible that the mixed swastika and Star of David emblem on
her placard is significant?
Some other ladies were arrested the other day, and will be in court
soon, merely for (allegedly) holding up a picture of a paraglider. Two
days has been allocated for the trial, and assuming it's only a S13
offence, there's a potential sentence of up to 6 months. If it's S12,
then the maximum is 14 years.
I thought the alleged offence was to have a picture of a paraglider
pinned to their coats. I suppose the police are still under great
pressure from the Home Secretary to find people to prosecute. A
tasteless picture does not a terrorist offence make.
The picture is here (if this link still works) https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying that the Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
In fact, I'd be happy to carry such a placard if I go to the next pro-Palestinian demo.
However, there are people who say that a swastika means you hate Jews.
It's a facile misunderstanding. I am sure the many Jews who were part of
the demonstration would not read it that way. It would be interesting
to see what the CPS make of it.
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
On 12/11/2023 17:35, David McNeish wrote:
On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 16:35:17 UTC, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
https://news.sky.com/story/met-appeals-for-help-identifying-protesters-holding-hate-crime-placards-during-pro-palestinian-march-13006147
The Met want help identifying people holding hate crime placards.
One of the pictures in that link has a middle aged woman holding a
placard proclaiming "No British politican should be a friend of Israel". >>>
Is the bar for a "hate crime" THAT low these days?
I suspect it's more about the swastika incorporated into the star of
David, than the text.
The picture is here (if this link still works) https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying that the Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
In fact, I'd be happy to carry such a placard if I go to the next pro-Palestinian demo.
However, there are people who say that a swastika means you hate Jews.
It's a facile misunderstanding. I am sure the many Jews who were part of
the demonstration would not read it that way. It would be interesting
to see what the CPS make of it.
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
It would indeed be interesting to see what a jury makes of it. To me superimposing the symbol of a regime that killed 6 million Jews onto a
The picture is here (if this link still works)
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying that
the Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
In fact, I'd be happy to carry such a placard if I go to the next
pro-Palestinian demo.
However, there are people who say that a swastika means you hate Jews.
It's a facile misunderstanding. I am sure the many Jews who were part
of the demonstration would not read it that way. It would be
interesting to see what the CPS make of it.
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the
Nazis."
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
Jewish symbol does indeed imply hate, rather than your interpretation.
If she'd put the two side by side, with an equals sign, then I'd agree
with your interpretation.
Andy
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
On 12/11/2023 17:35, David McNeish wrote:I can not understand why anyone would attend such gatherings in any
On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 16:35:17 UTC, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote: >>>> https://news.sky.com/story/met-appeals-for-help-identifying-protesters-holding-hate-crime-placards-during-pro-palestinian-march-13006147
The Met want help identifying people holding hate crime placards.
One of the pictures in that link has a middle aged woman holding a
placard proclaiming "No British politican should be a friend of
Israel".
Is the bar for a "hate crime" THAT low these days?
I suspect it's more about the swastika incorporated into the star of
David, than the text.
The picture is here (if this link still works)
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying that
the Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
In fact, I'd be happy to carry such a placard if I go to the next
pro-Palestinian demo.
However, there are people who say that a swastika means you hate Jews.
It's a facile misunderstanding. I am sure the many Jews who were part
of the demonstration would not read it that way. It would be
interesting to see what the CPS make of it.
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the
Nazis."
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
case, unless there is some form of vicarious enjoyment taking place.
Such demos have as much chance of influencing the war as the stop oil
lot have of altering the climate.
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
It would indeed be interesting to see what a jury makes of it. To me superimposing the symbol of a regime that killed 6 million Jews onto a
The picture is here (if this link still works)
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying that the
Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
In fact, I'd be happy to carry such a placard if I go to the next
pro-Palestinian demo.
However, there are people who say that a swastika means you hate Jews.
It's a facile misunderstanding. I am sure the many Jews who were part of
the demonstration would not read it that way. It would be interesting
to see what the CPS make of it.
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." >>
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
Jewish symbol does indeed imply hate, rather than your interpretation.
If she'd put the two side by side, with an equals sign, then I'd agree
with your interpretation.
Andy
On 12 Nov 2023 at 21:52:08 GMT, "Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
It would indeed be interesting to see what a jury makes of it. To me
The picture is here (if this link still works)
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying that the >>> Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
In fact, I'd be happy to carry such a placard if I go to the next
pro-Palestinian demo.
However, there are people who say that a swastika means you hate Jews.
It's a facile misunderstanding. I am sure the many Jews who were part of >>> the demonstration would not read it that way. It would be interesting
to see what the CPS make of it.
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." >>>
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
superimposing the symbol of a regime that killed 6 million Jews onto a
Jewish symbol does indeed imply hate, rather than your interpretation.
If she'd put the two side by side, with an equals sign, then I'd agree
with your interpretation.
Andy
So you're interpreting it as supporting a Nazi-style revenge on Israel?
On 12/11/2023 21:45, Les. Hayward wrote:
I can not understand why anyone would attend such gatherings in any
case, unless there is some form of vicarious enjoyment taking place.
Such demos have as much chance of influencing the war as the stop oil
lot have of altering the climate.
Would you never go on any demonstration? Or would there be some demonstrations you'd consider taking part in?
When we went on the huge demonstration against Blair's plan to invade
Iraq, the mood was upbeat and friendly. People believed that there was strength in numbers and that the government would have to pay attention.
Or else, if it didn't pay attention Blair would at least be shamed by
the large expression of dissent.
I don't quite know what you mean by "vicarious enjoyment" but is it
something other than what I've described?
On 12/11/2023 14:42, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
https://news.sky.com/story/met-appeals-for-help-identifying-protesters-holding-hate-crime-placards-during-pro-palestinian-march-13006147
The Met want help identifying people holding hate crime placards.
One of the pictures in that link has a middle aged woman holding a
placard proclaiming "No British politican should be a friend of Israel".
Along with a swastika superimposed on the star of David.
On 12/11/2023 21:52, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn.It would indeed be interesting to see what a jury makes of it. To me
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the
Nazis."
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
superimposing the symbol of a regime that killed 6 million Jews onto a
Jewish symbol does indeed imply hate, rather than your interpretation.
Yes, but it's hate directed at Israel. Wouldn't you hate the government
that was bombing your friends or relatives in a foreign country? What
would be the right attitude instead of hate? Mild disapproval?
It wouldn't be hate directed at Jews. There is no good reason to equate Israel with all Jews. There were plenty of Jews marching with the other demonstrators on Saturday.
On 13/11/2023 00:33, The Todal wrote:
On 12/11/2023 21:52, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn.It would indeed be interesting to see what a jury makes of it. To me
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the
Nazis."
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
superimposing the symbol of a regime that killed 6 million Jews onto
a Jewish symbol does indeed imply hate, rather than your interpretation.
Yes, but it's hate directed at Israel. Wouldn't you hate the
government that was bombing your friends or relatives in a foreign
country? What would be the right attitude instead of hate? Mild
disapproval?
It wouldn't be hate directed at Jews. There is no good reason to
equate Israel with all Jews. There were plenty of Jews marching with
the other demonstrators on Saturday.
Well known British Jews get quite miffed if they are asked what they
think of Israeli actions, past and present. Are they saying it's nothing
to do with them, or do they secretly sympathise with their actions?
Perhaps they should be made to say what they think, or stop going on
about their Jewishness.
On 13/11/2023 00:30, The Todal wrote:
On 12/11/2023 21:45, Les. Hayward wrote:
I'd be with you on the Iraq one - simply because such a demo. did standI can not understand why anyone would attend such gatherings in any
case, unless there is some form of vicarious enjoyment taking place.
Such demos have as much chance of influencing the war as the stop oil
lot have of altering the climate.
Would you never go on any demonstration? Or would there be some
demonstrations you'd consider taking part in?
When we went on the huge demonstration against Blair's plan to invade
Iraq, the mood was upbeat and friendly. People believed that there was
strength in numbers and that the government would have to pay
attention. Or else, if it didn't pay attention Blair would at least be
shamed by the large expression of dissent.
I don't quite know what you mean by "vicarious enjoyment" but is it
something other than what I've described?
a chance of addressing the issue which OUR government was involved in. Clearly some people just enjoy the thrill of making a nuisance of
themselves for any 'cause' though.
On 12 Nov 2023 at 21:52:08 GMT, "Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
It would indeed be interesting to see what a jury makes of it. To me
The picture is here (if this link still works)
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying that the >>> Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
In fact, I'd be happy to carry such a placard if I go to the next
pro-Palestinian demo.
However, there are people who say that a swastika means you hate Jews.
It's a facile misunderstanding. I am sure the many Jews who were part of >>> the demonstration would not read it that way. It would be interesting
to see what the CPS make of it.
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." >>>
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
superimposing the symbol of a regime that killed 6 million Jews onto a
Jewish symbol does indeed imply hate, rather than your interpretation.
If she'd put the two side by side, with an equals sign, then I'd agree
with your interpretation.
Andy
So you're interpreting it as supporting a Nazi-style revenge on Israel? You are almost certainly wrong.
On 12/11/2023 17:15, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 12/11/2023 14:42, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
https://news.sky.com/story/met-appeals-for-help-identifying-protesters-holding-hate-crime-placards-during-pro-palestinian-march-13006147
The Met want help identifying people holding hate crime placards.
One of the pictures in that link has a middle aged woman holding a
placard proclaiming "No British politican should be a friend of Israel".
Along with a swastika superimposed on the star of David.
Netanyahu, and other Israel advocates, compare protestors to Nazis.
Perhaps you will explain why one is OK, and the other is not?
On 12/11/2023 21:52, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
It would indeed be interesting to see what a jury makes of it. To me
The picture is here (if this link still works)
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying that
the Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
In fact, I'd be happy to carry such a placard if I go to the next
pro-Palestinian demo.
However, there are people who say that a swastika means you hate
Jews. It's a facile misunderstanding. I am sure the many Jews who
were part of the demonstration would not read it that way. It would
be interesting to see what the CPS make of it.
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the
Nazis."
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
superimposing the symbol of a regime that killed 6 million Jews onto a
Jewish symbol does indeed imply hate, rather than your interpretation.
Yes, but it's hate directed at Israel. Wouldn't you hate the government
that was bombing your friends or relatives in a foreign country? What
would be the right attitude instead of hate? Mild disapproval?
It wouldn't be hate directed at Jews.
There is no good reason to equate
Israel with all Jews. There were plenty of Jews marching with the other demonstrators on Saturday.
On 12 Nov 2023 at 21:52:08 GMT, "Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
It would indeed be interesting to see what a jury makes of it. To me
The picture is here (if this link still works)
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying that the >>> Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
In fact, I'd be happy to carry such a placard if I go to the next
pro-Palestinian demo.
However, there are people who say that a swastika means you hate Jews.
It's a facile misunderstanding. I am sure the many Jews who were part of >>> the demonstration would not read it that way. It would be interesting
to see what the CPS make of it.
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." >>>
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
superimposing the symbol of a regime that killed 6 million Jews onto a
Jewish symbol does indeed imply hate, rather than your interpretation.
If she'd put the two side by side, with an equals sign, then I'd agree
with your interpretation.
Andy
So you're interpreting it as supporting a Nazi-style revenge on Israel? You are almost certainly wrong. Judging by what opponents of Israeli policy in this country say and what is therefore most likely, the intended implication is almost certainly that the Israelis are behaving like Nazis, as Todal suggests. Mind you, this is regarded by TPTB as essentially an anti-semitic comparison, and ITYWF this is interpretation assumed if it ever comes to court.
The Nazi supporters have all gone over to Islamophobia as their main platform, and they were the ones trying to get at the pro-Palestinian demonstration and fighting the police, at Braverman's suggestion. While it is quite a logical position historically for traditional British fascists, I don't think you'll find any of them on the pro-Palestinian march at the moment. If any of the actual Palestinians support the Nazis they're going to be pretty quiet about it in this country at the moment. It would not be popular with the vast bulk of the pro-Palestinian marchers.
On 13/11/2023 12:12, Max Demian wrote:
On 13/11/2023 00:33, The Todal wrote:
On 12/11/2023 21:52, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn. >>>>>It would indeed be interesting to see what a jury makes of it. To me
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the
Nazis."
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
superimposing the symbol of a regime that killed 6 million Jews onto
a Jewish symbol does indeed imply hate, rather than your
interpretation.
Yes, but it's hate directed at Israel. Wouldn't you hate the
government that was bombing your friends or relatives in a foreign
country? What would be the right attitude instead of hate? Mild
disapproval?
It wouldn't be hate directed at Jews. There is no good reason to
equate Israel with all Jews. There were plenty of Jews marching with
the other demonstrators on Saturday.
Well known British Jews get quite miffed if they are asked what they
think of Israeli actions, past and present. Are they saying it's
nothing to do with them, or do they secretly sympathise with their
actions?
Perhaps they should be made to say what they think, or stop going on
about their Jewishness.
To be fair, there are quite a few prominent British Jews who support the Palestinians and oppose Israel's outrageous behaviour. It's just that
they don't get much publicity in our press. Not as much publicity as the dreadful Gideon Falter who regularly seems to be cited as a spokesman
for the entire Jewish community.
On 13/11/2023 09:56, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 13/11/2023 00:30, The Todal wrote:
On 12/11/2023 21:45, Les. Hayward wrote:I'd be with you on the Iraq one - simply because such a demo. did
I can not understand why anyone would attend such gatherings in any
case, unless there is some form of vicarious enjoyment taking place.
Such demos have as much chance of influencing the war as the stop
oil lot have of altering the climate.
Would you never go on any demonstration? Or would there be some
demonstrations you'd consider taking part in?
When we went on the huge demonstration against Blair's plan to invade
Iraq, the mood was upbeat and friendly. People believed that there
was strength in numbers and that the government would have to pay
attention. Or else, if it didn't pay attention Blair would at least
be shamed by the large expression of dissent.
I don't quite know what you mean by "vicarious enjoyment" but is it
something other than what I've described?
stand a chance of addressing the issue which OUR government was
involved in. Clearly some people just enjoy the thrill of making a
nuisance of themselves for any 'cause' though.
I think the UK government and also the US government very much are
involved in the current Gaza crisis.
The official statements from those governments have been to the effect
that Israel has the right to defend itself (stating the obvious) and
that it must be free to take whatever steps it thinks necessary.
We all remember the savage bombing of Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.
Israel has a track record of ruthless savagery towards Gaza. The IDF
will always say that massive civilian casualties are unavoidable and
that they do all that they possibly can to prevent such casualties -
which is a very obvious lie, but it serves its purpose for the purpose
of diplomacy.
Macron has been one of the few European leaders to condemn Israel's
bombing of innocent civilians. It is disgraceful that Sunak and Starmer
have not done likewise.
Israel relies heavily on our support not least
our veto of UN resolutions. We are supporting a vicious demagogue,
Netanyahu, who sees Palestinians as subhuman and undeserving of protection.
On 12/11/2023 17:35, David McNeish wrote:
On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 16:35:17 UTC, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
https://news.sky.com/story/met-appeals-for-help-identifying-protesters-holding-hate-crime-placards-during-pro-palestinian-march-13006147
The Met want help identifying people holding hate crime placards.
One of the pictures in that link has a middle aged woman holding a
placard proclaiming "No British politican should be a friend of Israel". >>>
Is the bar for a "hate crime" THAT low these days?
I suspect it's more about the swastika incorporated into the star of
David, than the text.
The picture is here (if this link still works) https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying that the Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
In fact, I'd be happy to carry such a placard if I go to the next pro-Palestinian demo.
However, there are people who say that a swastika means you hate Jews.
It's a facile misunderstanding. I am sure the many Jews who were part of
the demonstration would not read it that way.
It would be interesting
to see what the CPS make of it.
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
On 12/11/2023 21:45, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
On 12/11/2023 17:35, David McNeish wrote:I can not understand why anyone would attend such gatherings in any
On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 16:35:17 UTC, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote: >>>>> https://news.sky.com/story/met-appeals-for-help-identifying-protesters-holding-hate-crime-placards-during-pro-palestinian-march-13006147
The Met want help identifying people holding hate crime placards.
One of the pictures in that link has a middle aged woman holding a
placard proclaiming "No British politican should be a friend of
Israel".
Is the bar for a "hate crime" THAT low these days?
I suspect it's more about the swastika incorporated into the star of
David, than the text.
The picture is here (if this link still works)
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying that
the Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
In fact, I'd be happy to carry such a placard if I go to the next
pro-Palestinian demo.
However, there are people who say that a swastika means you hate
Jews. It's a facile misunderstanding. I am sure the many Jews who
were part of the demonstration would not read it that way. It would
be interesting to see what the CPS make of it.
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the
Nazis."
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
case, unless there is some form of vicarious enjoyment taking place.
Such demos have as much chance of influencing the war as the stop oil
lot have of altering the climate.
Would you never go on any demonstration? Or would there be some demonstrations you'd consider taking part in?
On 13/11/2023 00:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Nov 2023 at 21:52:08 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
It would indeed be interesting to see what a jury makes of it. To me
The picture is here (if this link still works)
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying that
the
Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
In fact, I'd be happy to carry such a placard if I go to the next
pro-Palestinian demo.
However, there are people who say that a swastika means you hate Jews. >>>> It's a facile misunderstanding. I am sure the many Jews who were
part of
the demonstration would not read it that way. It would be interesting >>>> to see what the CPS make of it.
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the
Nazis."
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
superimposing the symbol of a regime that killed 6 million Jews onto a
Jewish symbol does indeed imply hate, rather than your interpretation.
If she'd put the two side by side, with an equals sign, then I'd agree
with your interpretation.
Andy
So you're interpreting it as supporting a Nazi-style revenge on
Israel? You
are almost certainly wrong.
I was under the impression that it doesn't matter what you, or others -
if Andy, or any one else thinks that is the interpretion, it is (
possibly) a hate crime. In this case I suppose incitement to hatred or
even violence.
https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/hco/hate-crime/what-is-hate-crime/
"A hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else,
thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their
race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender."
But I guess a lot would depend on the individual opinions of the jury.
In fact, I'd be happy to carry such a placard if I go to the next pro-Palestinian demo.
I think the UK government and also the US government very much are
involved in the current Gaza crisis.
The official statements from those governments have been to the effect
that Israel has the right to defend itself (stating the obvious) and
that it must be free to take whatever steps it thinks necessary.
We all remember the savage bombing of Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.
Israel has a track record of ruthless savagery towards Gaza. The IDF
will always say that massive civilian casualties are unavoidable and
that they do all that they possibly can to prevent such casualties -
which is a very obvious lie, but it serves its purpose for the purpose
of diplomacy.
Macron has been one of the few European leaders to condemn Israel's
bombing of innocent civilians. It is disgraceful that Sunak and Starmer
have not done likewise. Israel relies heavily on our support not least
our veto of UN resolutions. We are supporting a vicious demagogue,
Netanyahu, who sees Palestinians as subhuman and undeserving of protection.
On 13/11/2023 00:33, The Todal wrote:
On 12/11/2023 21:52, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn.It would indeed be interesting to see what a jury makes of it. To me
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the
Nazis."
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
superimposing the symbol of a regime that killed 6 million Jews onto a
Jewish symbol does indeed imply hate, rather than your interpretation.
Yes, but it's hate directed at Israel. Wouldn't you hate the government
that was bombing your friends or relatives in a foreign country? What
would be the right attitude instead of hate? Mild disapproval?
It wouldn't be hate directed at Jews. There is no good reason to equate
Israel with all Jews. There were plenty of Jews marching with the other
demonstrators on Saturday.
Well known British Jews get quite miffed if they are asked what they
think of Israeli actions, past and present. Are they saying it's nothing
to do with them, or do they secretly sympathise with their actions?
Perhaps they should be made to say what they think, or stop going on
about their Jewishness.
On 13 Nov 2023 at 12:12:29 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 00:33, The Todal wrote:
On 12/11/2023 21:52, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn. >>>>>It would indeed be interesting to see what a jury makes of it. To me
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the
Nazis."
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
superimposing the symbol of a regime that killed 6 million Jews onto a >>>> Jewish symbol does indeed imply hate, rather than your interpretation.
Yes, but it's hate directed at Israel. Wouldn't you hate the government
that was bombing your friends or relatives in a foreign country? What
would be the right attitude instead of hate? Mild disapproval?
It wouldn't be hate directed at Jews. There is no good reason to equate
Israel with all Jews. There were plenty of Jews marching with the other
demonstrators on Saturday.
Well known British Jews get quite miffed if they are asked what they
think of Israeli actions, past and present. Are they saying it's nothing
to do with them, or do they secretly sympathise with their actions?
Perhaps they should be made to say what they think, or stop going on
about their Jewishness.
There are so many offensive presumptions and proposals in what you have written that I would not know where to start in rejecting every word of it. Would you use mediaeval torture techniques or just modern CIA-style interrogation to make them say what they think? How would you reliably identify British Jews? BTW, I am not sure I have seen many people "going on about their Jewishness".
On 12/11/2023 17:49, GB wrote:
On 12/11/2023 14:42, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
https://news.sky.com/story/met-appeals-for-help-identifying-protesters-holding-hate-crime-placards-during-pro-palestinian-march-13006147
The Met want help identifying people holding hate crime placards.
One of the pictures in that link has a middle aged woman holding a
placard proclaiming "No British politican should be a friend of Israel".
It's not necessarily that moment that the police are worried about.
That may just be a good photo.
It's also possible that the mixed swastika and Star of David emblem on
her placard is significant?
Some other ladies were arrested the other day, and will be in court
soon, merely for (allegedly) holding up a picture of a paraglider. Two
days has been allocated for the trial, and assuming it's only a S13
offence, there's a potential sentence of up to 6 months. If it's S12,
then the maximum is 14 years.
I thought the alleged offence was to have a picture of a paraglider
pinned to their coats. I suppose the police are still under great
pressure from the Home Secretary to find people to prosecute. A
tasteless picture does not a terrorist offence make.
Judging by what opponents of Israeli policy in this country say and what
is therefore most likely, the intended implication is almost certainly
that the Israelis are behaving like Nazis, as Todal suggests.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Judging by what opponents of Israeli policy in this country say and what
is therefore most likely, the intended implication is almost certainly
that the Israelis are behaving like Nazis, as Todal suggests.
Can one really equate ‘what opponents of Israeli policy say’ with ’what is
most likely’? Why would one trust the word of any one side?
On 13 Nov 2023 at 12:12:29 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Well known British Jews get quite miffed if they are asked what they
think of Israeli actions, past and present. Are they saying it's nothing
to do with them, or do they secretly sympathise with their actions?
Perhaps they should be made to say what they think, or stop going on
about their Jewishness.
There are so many offensive presumptions and proposals in what you have written that I would not know where to start in rejecting every word of it. Would you use mediaeval torture techniques or just modern CIA-style interrogation to make them say what they think? How would you reliably identify British Jews? BTW, I am not sure I have seen many people "going on about their Jewishness".
On 13/11/2023 15:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 13 Nov 2023 at 12:12:29 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
On 13/11/2023 00:33, The Todal wrote:
On 12/11/2023 21:52, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
Yes, but it's hate directed at Israel. Wouldn't you hate the government >>>> that was bombing your friends or relatives in a foreign country? WhatThe IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn. >>>>>>It would indeed be interesting to see what a jury makes of it. To me >>>>> superimposing the symbol of a regime that killed 6 million Jews onto a >>>>> Jewish symbol does indeed imply hate, rather than your interpretation. >>>>
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the >>>>>> Nazis."
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
would be the right attitude instead of hate? Mild disapproval?
It wouldn't be hate directed at Jews. There is no good reason to equate >>>> Israel with all Jews. There were plenty of Jews marching with the other >>>> demonstrators on Saturday.
Well known British Jews get quite miffed if they are asked what they
think of Israeli actions, past and present. Are they saying it's nothing >>> to do with them, or do they secretly sympathise with their actions?
Perhaps they should be made to say what they think, or stop going on
about their Jewishness.
There are so many offensive presumptions and proposals in what you have
written that I would not know where to start in rejecting every word of it. >> Would you use mediaeval torture techniques or just modern CIA-style
interrogation to make them say what they think? How would you reliably
identify British Jews? BTW, I am not sure I have seen many people "going on >> about their Jewishness".
I suppose the issue is that Israel is a country.
Some of the extreme supporters of that country, with the ethnic
cleansing the state carries out, are using their 'Jewishness' to justify
the extreme actions carried out by the state.
I can't speak for Max Demian but I'm of the opinion your argument does
not progress logically. Perhaps it's because you're offended by British
Jews being miffed when asked their opinion of recent Israeli actions?
On 12/11/2023 20:23, The Todal wrote:
On 12/11/2023 17:49, GB wrote:
On 12/11/2023 14:42, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
https://news.sky.com/story/met-appeals-for-help-identifying-protesters-holding-hate-crime-placards-during-pro-palestinian-march-13006147It's not necessarily that moment that the police are worried about.
The Met want help identifying people holding hate crime placards.
One of the pictures in that link has a middle aged woman holding a
placard proclaiming "No British politican should be a friend of Israel". >>>
That may just be a good photo.
It's also possible that the mixed swastika and Star of David emblem on
her placard is significant?
Some other ladies were arrested the other day, and will be in court
soon, merely for (allegedly) holding up a picture of a paraglider. Two
days has been allocated for the trial, and assuming it's only a S13
offence, there's a potential sentence of up to 6 months. If it's S12,
then the maximum is 14 years.
I thought the alleged offence was to have a picture of a paraglider
pinned to their coats. I suppose the police are still under great
pressure from the Home Secretary to find people to prosecute. A
tasteless picture does not a terrorist offence make.
The Met have quite manfully resisted Suella's interference, and in any
case the writing was on the wall for her a couple of days ago.
As to the ladies' alleged offence, that's obviously a matter for the
court, but the Act is curiously worded:
"(1)A person in a public place commits an offence if he—
(a)wears an item of clothing, or
(b)wears, carries or displays an article,in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.
[F2(1A)A person commits an offence if the person publishes an image of— (a)an item of clothing, or
(b)any other article,in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of a
proscribed organisation."
Am I correct that the offence is proved if the perps merely "arouse reasonable suspicion"? That seems a remarkably low threshold.
It's also curious that such a long act doesn't spare a few words to
explain what it means by 'support' and 'supporter'. My children are all Arsenal supporters, for example, but that doesn't mean that they do
anything to promote Arsenal. I suppose that 'support' just means are 'in favour of'.
Given the low threshold of proof, and no clear definition of supporter,
it will be difficult for those three ladies to defend the charges.
On 13/11/2023 00:33, The Todal wrote:
It wouldn't be hate directed at Jews. There is no good reason to equate
Israel with all Jews. There were plenty of Jews marching with the other
demonstrators on Saturday.
Well known British Jews get quite miffed if they are asked what they
think of Israeli actions, past and present. Are they saying it's nothing
to do with them, or do they secretly sympathise with their actions?
Perhaps they should be made to say what they think, or stop going on
about their Jewishness.
The picture is here (if this link still works) >https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying that the >Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
On 12/11/2023 08:22 pm, The Todal wrote:
The picture is here (if this link still works)
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying that
the Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
Displaying a swastika as part of one's emblematic banner has always
(well, ever since 1933) meant support for the NSDAP. That support
necessarily imports a hatred of Jewish people.
Even if it wasn't meant that way (far from being obvious), it must be
just about the most insensitive and insulting thing to display in a
public demonstration.
Well known British Jews get quite miffed if they are asked what
they think of Israeli actions, past and present. Are they saying
it's nothing to do with them, or do they secretly sympathise
with their actions?
On 13/11/2023 12:33 am, The Todal wrote:
On 12/11/2023 21:52, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
It would indeed be interesting to see what a jury makes of it. To me
The picture is here (if this link still works)
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying that
the Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
In fact, I'd be happy to carry such a placard if I go to the next
pro-Palestinian demo.
However, there are people who say that a swastika means you hate
Jews. It's a facile misunderstanding. I am sure the many Jews who
were part of the demonstration would not read it that way. It would
be interesting to see what the CPS make of it.
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the
Nazis."
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
superimposing the symbol of a regime that killed 6 million Jews onto
a Jewish symbol does indeed imply hate, rather than your interpretation.
Yes, but it's hate directed at Israel. Wouldn't you hate the
government that was bombing your friends or relatives in a foreign
country? What would be the right attitude instead of hate? Mild
disapproval?
So it's hate.
It wouldn't be hate directed at Jews.
Are the Israelis in question not Jews?
There is no good reason to equate Israel with all Jews. There were
plenty of Jews marching with the other demonstrators on Saturday.
Easy to say, hard to disprove. Equally hard to actually prove.
On 13/11/2023 12:27, The Todal wrote:
I think the UK government and also the US government very much are
involved in the current Gaza crisis.
The official statements from those governments have been to the effect
that Israel has the right to defend itself (stating the obvious) and
that it must be free to take whatever steps it thinks necessary.
We all remember the savage bombing of Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.
Israel has a track record of ruthless savagery towards Gaza. The IDF
will always say that massive civilian casualties are unavoidable and
that they do all that they possibly can to prevent such casualties -
which is a very obvious lie, but it serves its purpose for the purpose
of diplomacy.
Macron has been one of the few European leaders to condemn Israel's
bombing of innocent civilians. It is disgraceful that Sunak and
Starmer have not done likewise. Israel relies heavily on our support
not least our veto of UN resolutions. We are supporting a vicious
demagogue, Netanyahu, who sees Palestinians as subhuman and
undeserving of protection.
AIUI Hamas are still firing rockets over the border into Israel, and are still holding Israeli citizens as hostages.
What is your solution to the problem? I don't have one.
On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 20:22:12 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The picture is here (if this link still works)
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying that the
Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
If it is, then it's clearly absurd, and an expression of hate. However bad Israel's actions in Gaza are, they are several orders of magnitude less bad than the actions of Nazi Germany. On the one hand you had a major Western European nation intent on invading and subjugating the whole of Europe while engaging in deliberate genocide in the process, and on the other you have a small Middle Eastern country which primarily wants to be able to live at peace within its own borders. Even if it's making a monumental hash of that ambition (and I think even the majority of Israelis would agree that
Benjamin Netanyahu has spectacularly screwed up as prime minister, even if they don't think now is the right moment to eject him), that doesn't equate to the actions of Nazi Germany.
Anyway, as well as being a hate crime, that placard is a clear and obvious example of Godwin's Law. Unfortunately, you won't find Godwin's law in the statute books or referenced in a precedent-setting court judgment, so the police, not unreasonably, have to disregard it. But every well-informed, right-thinking person will automatically dissociate themselves from anything which invokes it.
Mark
On 13/11/2023 12:55 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Nov 2023 at 21:52:08 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
It would indeed be interesting to see what a jury makes of it. To me
The picture is here (if this link still works)
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying that
the
Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
In fact, I'd be happy to carry such a placard if I go to the next
pro-Palestinian demo.
However, there are people who say that a swastika means you hate Jews. >>>> It's a facile misunderstanding. I am sure the many Jews who were
part of
the demonstration would not read it that way. It would be interesting >>>> to see what the CPS make of it.
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the
Nazis."
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
superimposing the symbol of a regime that killed 6 million Jews onto a
Jewish symbol does indeed imply hate, rather than your interpretation.
If she'd put the two side by side, with an equals sign, then I'd agree
with your interpretation.
Andy
So you're interpreting it as supporting a Nazi-style revenge on
Israel? You
are almost certainly wrong. Judging by what opponents of Israeli
policy in
this country say and what is therefore most likely, the intended
implication
is almost certainly that the Israelis are behaving like Nazis, as Todal
suggests. Mind you, this is regarded by TPTB as essentially an
anti-semitic
comparison, and ITYWF this is interpretation assumed if it ever comes to
court.
Isn't it also what Livingstone was guilty of, when he called a Jewish journalist a Nazi?
The Nazi supporters have all gone over to Islamophobia as their main
platform, and they were the ones trying to get at the pro-Palestinian
demonstration and fighting the police, at Braverman's suggestion.
While it is
quite a logical position historically for traditional British fascists, I
don't think you'll find any of them on the pro-Palestinian march at the
moment. If any of the actual Palestinians support the Nazis they're
going to
be pretty quiet about it in this country at the moment. It would not be
popular with the vast bulk of the pro-Palestinian marchers.
On 13/11/2023 00:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
So you're interpreting it as supporting a Nazi-style revenge on
Israel? You
are almost certainly wrong.
I was under the impression that it doesn't matter what you, or others -
if Andy, or any one else thinks that is the interpretion, it is (
possibly) a hate crime. In this case I suppose incitement to hatred or
even violence.
https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/hco/hate-crime/what-is-hate-crime/
"A hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else,
thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their
race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender."
On 13/11/2023 11:40 am, kat wrote:
I was under the impression that it doesn't matter what you, or others
- if Andy, or any one else thinks that is the interpretion, it is (
possibly) a hate crime. In this case I suppose incitement to hatred or
even violence.
https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/hco/hate-crime/what-is-hate-crime/
"A hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else,
thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their
race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are
transgender."
But I guess a lot would depend on the individual opinions of the jury.
On the basis of the definition given, it shouldn't.
How could a jury - or anyone else - come to the conclusion that the
victim didn't believe that which they put forward in evidence?
On 13/11/2023 15:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 13 Nov 2023 at 12:12:29 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Well known British Jews get quite miffed if they are asked what they
think of Israeli actions, past and present. Are they saying it's nothing >>> to do with them, or do they secretly sympathise with their actions?
Perhaps they should be made to say what they think, or stop going on
about their Jewishness.
There are so many offensive presumptions and proposals in what you have
written that I would not know where to start in rejecting every word of it. >> Would you use mediaeval torture techniques or just modern CIA-style
interrogation to make them say what they think? How would you reliably
identify British Jews? BTW, I am not sure I have seen many people "going on >> about their Jewishness".
You can be as offended as you like. This is Usenet. You don't have to
use torture, mediaeval or CIA-style to determine if someone British
regards him or herself as Jewish, they proclaim the fact themselves if
they please.
(e) in the manner of Goebbels, tells lies to the world about
how Hamas has strongholds under hospitals
We all remember the savage bombing of Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.
Israel has a track record of ruthless savagery towards Gaza. The IDF
will always say that massive civilian casualties are unavoidable and
that they do all that they possibly can to prevent such casualties -
which is a very obvious lie,
On 13/11/2023 12:27, The Todal wrote:
We all remember the savage bombing of Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.
Israel has a track record of ruthless savagery towards Gaza. The IDF
will always say that massive civilian casualties are unavoidable and
that they do all that they possibly can to prevent such casualties -
which is a very obvious lie,
Maybe they could do more, but I don't know why you feel the need to exaggerate like this?
If you have a worthwhile point to make, surely
simply making it is more effective?
On 13/11/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
(e) in the manner of Goebbels, tells lies to the world about how Hamas
has strongholds under hospitals
I may be naive, but I am inclined to believe that that is not a lie.
What makes you so sure it is?
On 13/11/2023 12:27, The Todal wrote:
We all remember the savage bombing of Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.
Israel has a track record of ruthless savagery towards Gaza. The IDF
will always say that massive civilian casualties are unavoidable and
that they do all that they possibly can to prevent such casualties -
which is a very obvious lie,
Maybe they could do more, but I don't know why you feel the need to exaggerate like this? If you have a worthwhile point to make, surely simply making it is more effective?
On 13/11/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
(e) in the manner of Goebbels, tells lies to the world about how Hamas
has strongholds under hospitals
I may be naive, but I am inclined to believe that that is not a lie.
What makes you so sure it is?
On 13 Nov 2023 at 16:23:51 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Judging by what opponents of Israeli policy in this country say and what >>> is therefore most likely, the intended implication is almost certainly
that the Israelis are behaving like Nazis, as Todal suggests.
Can one really equate ‘what opponents of Israeli policy say’ with ’what is
most likely’? Why would one trust the word of any one side?
Because in this context it is the point of their symbolism that is being discussed! They are in the best position to know what they mean by it.
On 13/11/2023 20:06, GB wrote:
On 13/11/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
(e) in the manner of Goebbels, tells lies to the world about how
Hamas has strongholds under hospitals
I may be naive, but I am inclined to believe that that is not a lie.
What makes you so sure it is?
It's no more reliable as the Weapons of Mass Destruction reports that justified the invasion of Iraq.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/8/investigation-disproves-israel-claim-of-hamas-tunnel-under-gaza-hospital
Sanad, Al Jazeera’s digital investigation agency, has disproved the
latest claim by Israeli authorities that there is a tunnel for Hamas
fighters under the Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Hospital for Rehabilitation
and Prosthetic Hospital, commonly known as the Qatari Hospital.
Israeli authorities have often claimed that there are command bunkers
and main tunnels running under Gaza hospitals as a justification for targeting health facilities, which are protected in war by international
law. A video released by Israel’s military showed a hatch in the
hospital courtyard, right next to an exterior wall, that they alleged
leads to a Hamas tunnel.
However, Sanad’s investigation shows that this is simply the access
hatch for a water reservoir that the hospital uses to fill therapeutic
pools for amputees, water the grounds, and a reserve water source in
case of emergency.
On 13/11/2023 20:23, GB wrote:
On 13/11/2023 12:27, The Todal wrote:
We all remember the savage bombing of Gaza during Operation Cast
Lead. Israel has a track record of ruthless savagery towards Gaza.
The IDF will always say that massive civilian casualties are
unavoidable and that they do all that they possibly can to prevent
such casualties - which is a very obvious lie,
Maybe they could do more, but I don't know why you feel the need to
exaggerate like this? If you have a worthwhile point to make, surely
simply making it is more effective?
I have not exaggerated and I have of course made my point, even if you
are unable to see it. Israel is a delinquent state.
Here's an article by award-winning Israeli journalist Gideon Levy: https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/israel-palestine-war-gaza-world-slaughter-stand-watch
And, down memory lane...
Operation Cast Lead
February 2009
NEW YORK - UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appointed yesterday a board
of inquiry into incidents that caused deaths and destruction at UN
compounds in the Gaza Strip during the recent Israel-Hamas conflict.
The UN agency caring for Palestinian refugees in the Middle East
maintains several offices and schools throughout Gaza, which have been
used to shelter thousands of people who fled the fighting. The Israel
Defense Forces launched airstrikes against one school in January,
killing dozens of people and claiming that Hamas used the site to fire rockets into Israel.
The intense three weeks of fighting, which erupted on December 27,
killed more than 1,300 people and injured thousands in Gaza. A shaky cease-fire has been implemented by both sides.
The high number of civilian deaths in Gaza has prompted demands for an international investigation, which are supported by the Geneva-based UN
Human Rights Council and the UN in New York.
On 13/11/2023 13:57, JNugent wrote:
On 13/11/2023 12:55 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Nov 2023 at 21:52:08 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
It would indeed be interesting to see what a jury makes of it. To me
The picture is here (if this link still works)
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying
that the
Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
In fact, I'd be happy to carry such a placard if I go to the next
pro-Palestinian demo.
However, there are people who say that a swastika means you hate Jews. >>>>> It's a facile misunderstanding. I am sure the many Jews who were
part of
the demonstration would not read it that way. It would be interesting >>>>> to see what the CPS make of it.
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn. >>>>>
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the
Nazis."
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
superimposing the symbol of a regime that killed 6 million Jews onto a >>>> Jewish symbol does indeed imply hate, rather than your interpretation. >>>>
If she'd put the two side by side, with an equals sign, then I'd agree >>>> with your interpretation.
Andy
So you're interpreting it as supporting a Nazi-style revenge on
Israel? You
are almost certainly wrong. Judging by what opponents of Israeli
policy in
this country say and what is therefore most likely, the intended
implication
is almost certainly that the Israelis are behaving like Nazis, as Todal
suggests. Mind you, this is regarded by TPTB as essentially an
anti-semitic
comparison, and ITYWF this is interpretation assumed if it ever comes to >>> court.
Isn't it also what Livingstone was guilty of, when he called a Jewish
journalist a Nazi?
He didn't call a Jewish journalist a Nazi.
The journalist accosted Livingstone when he was leaving a social event,
probably somewhat the worse for wear. Livingstone told him to go away
and the journalist said "I'm just doing my job" or similar.
On learning that Mr Finegold is Jewish, the mayor apparently said: "You
are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because
you are paid to, aren't you?"
With the furore growing around him, Mr Livingstone has steadfastly
refused to apologise to Mr Finegold. In his only public comments since
the incident, he said: "Absolutely not. If he isn't happy he shouldn't
be working for a paper like that. You can't expect to work for the Daily
Mail group and have the rest of society treat with you respect as a
useful member of society, because you are not."
On 13/11/2023 13:59, JNugent wrote:
On 13/11/2023 11:40 am, kat wrote:
I was under the impression that it doesn't matter what you, or others
- if Andy, or any one else thinks that is the interpretion, it is (
possibly) a hate crime. In this case I suppose incitement to hatred
or even violence.
https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/hco/hate-crime/what-is-hate-crime/
"A hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else,
thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their
race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are
transgender."
But I guess a lot would depend on the individual opinions of the jury.
On the basis of the definition given, it shouldn't.
How could a jury - or anyone else - come to the conclusion that the
victim didn't believe that which they put forward in evidence?
They could decide that victim is deserving of hatred.
On 13/11/2023 13:55, JNugent wrote:
On 13/11/2023 12:33 am, The Todal wrote:
On 12/11/2023 21:52, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/11/2023 20:22, The Todal wrote:
It would indeed be interesting to see what a jury makes of it. To me
The picture is here (if this link still works)
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/12/08/77700937-12739659-image-m-9_1699777693220.jpg
The placard is not antisemitic. It is anti-Israel. It is saying
that the Israelis are behaving like Nazis.
In fact, I'd be happy to carry such a placard if I go to the next
pro-Palestinian demo.
However, there are people who say that a swastika means you hate
Jews. It's a facile misunderstanding. I am sure the many Jews who
were part of the demonstration would not read it that way. It
would be interesting to see what the CPS make of it.
The IHRA definition is acceptable, the examples are too widely drawn. >>>>>
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the
Nazis."
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
superimposing the symbol of a regime that killed 6 million Jews onto
a Jewish symbol does indeed imply hate, rather than your
interpretation.
Yes, but it's hate directed at Israel. Wouldn't you hate the
government that was bombing your friends or relatives in a foreign
country? What would be the right attitude instead of hate? Mild
disapproval?
So it's hate.
Does that bother you?
Is it wrong to hate Hamas? Or to hate antisemites?
If that's acceptable, then it must also be okay to hate Suella
Braverman. Or the government of Israel. Or Donald Trump.
It wouldn't be hate directed at Jews.
Are the Israelis in question not Jews?
Mark Regev has patiently spread the lie, to our journalists and
politicians, that opposition to Israel and the BDS movement are
motivated by antisemitism.
It's nonsense of course, but you're free to believe it.
There is no good reason to equate Israel with all Jews. There were
plenty of Jews marching with the other demonstrators on Saturday.
Easy to say, hard to disprove. Equally hard to actually prove.
Well, I know many of the Jews who were marching on the demonstration.
You could watch this video, which was broadcast on the BBC during the afternoon.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1723708905933488590
On 13/11/2023 20:06, GB wrote:
On 13/11/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
(e) in the manner of Goebbels, tells lies to the world about how
Hamas has strongholds under hospitals
I may be naive, but I am inclined to believe that that is not a lie.
What makes you so sure it is?
It's very convenient to make and propagate such unsubstantiated claims
so extremists will think it's ok to bomb hospitals.
On 13/11/2023 20:23, GB wrote:
On 13/11/2023 12:27, The Todal wrote:
We all remember the savage bombing of Gaza during Operation Cast
Lead. Israel has a track record of ruthless savagery towards Gaza.
The IDF will always say that massive civilian casualties are
unavoidable and that they do all that they possibly can to prevent
such casualties - which is a very obvious lie,
Maybe they could do more, but I don't know why you feel the need to
exaggerate like this? If you have a worthwhile point to make, surely
simply making it is more effective?
I have not exaggerated and I have of course made my point, even if you
are unable to see it. Israel is a delinquent state.
On 13/11/2023 14:51, Vir Campestris wrote:
AIUI Hamas are still firing rockets over the border into Israel, and
are still holding Israeli citizens as hostages.
AIUI the IDF are still killing Palestinian civilians and holding
thousands of Palestinian activists in their prisons.
What is your solution to the problem? I don't have one.
Neither Israel, the US, nor, apparently, the UK want a solution.
British Jews - or to put it another way, Jewish Britons - are not obliged to have any opinion on any country other than their own. That is, the UK. The idea that Jewish people with British citizenship living in the UK are
somehow more attached to Israel than they are to the UK is exactly the same form of racism, either conscious or subconscious, as that which assumes that people of, say, South Asian or African ancestry are more attached to those parts of the world than they are to the UK. It's practically a textbook illustration of racism, or, in this case, antisemitism (which is just a subset of racism).
[snip]
With the furore growing around him, Mr Livingstone has steadfastly
refused to apologise to Mr Finegold. In his only public comments
since the incident, he said: "Absolutely not. If he isn't happy he
shouldn't be working for a paper like that.
You can't expect to work for the Daily Mail group and have the rest
of society treat with you respect as a useful member of society,
because you are not."
On 18:39 13 Nov 2023, The Todal said:
[snip]
With the furore growing around him, Mr Livingstone has steadfastly
refused to apologise to Mr Finegold. In his only public comments
since the incident, he said: "Absolutely not. If he isn't happy he
shouldn't be working for a paper like that.
You can't expect to work for the Daily Mail group and have the rest
of society treat with you respect as a useful member of society,
because you are not."
Doesn't that come perilously close to castigating someone and
justifying their unequal treatment based on the subject's legitimate
work and beliefs which they are inferred to have?
On 13/11/2023 21:47, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/11/2023 20:06, GB wrote:
On 13/11/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
(e) in the manner of Goebbels, tells lies to the world about how
Hamas has strongholds under hospitals
I may be naive, but I am inclined to believe that that is not a lie.
What makes you so sure it is?
It's very convenient to make and propagate such unsubstantiated claims
so extremists will think it's ok to bomb hospitals.
It's also convenient to hide bunkers under hospitals. Clearly, we don't
know either way. It is, therefore, inappropriate for Todal to have made
the claim he did.
BTW, "in the manner of Goebbels" is pure rhetoric. It's a pretty tired
cliche that in times of war truth goes out of the window, and I can see
no need to invoke the Nazis.
On 18:39 13 Nov 2023, The Todal said:
[snip]
With the furore growing around him, Mr Livingstone has steadfastly
refused to apologise to Mr Finegold. In his only public comments
since the incident, he said: "Absolutely not. If he isn't happy he
shouldn't be working for a paper like that.
You can't expect to work for the Daily Mail group and have the rest
of society treat with you respect as a useful member of society,
because you are not."
Doesn't that come perilously close to castigating someone and
justifying their unequal treatment based on the subject's legitimate
work and beliefs which they are inferred to have?
On 13/11/2023 06:35 pm, The Todal wrote:
Well, I know many of the Jews who were marching on the demonstration.
I dare say. Does that mean that there were "plenty of Jews" on that march?
You could watch this video, which was broadcast on the BBC during the
afternoon.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1723708905933488590
No, thanks. Life is too short.
You'll be citing a 700 page book next and telling me that if I read it thoroughly, I shan't have any difficulty in agreeing with you.
That isn't the way that argument works (as you know).
On 13/11/2023 22:01, The Todal wrote:
On 13/11/2023 20:23, GB wrote:
On 13/11/2023 12:27, The Todal wrote:
We all remember the savage bombing of Gaza during Operation Cast
Lead. Israel has a track record of ruthless savagery towards Gaza.
The IDF will always say that massive civilian casualties are
unavoidable and that they do all that they possibly can to prevent
such casualties - which is a very obvious lie,
Maybe they could do more, but I don't know why you feel the need to
exaggerate like this? If you have a worthwhile point to make, surely
simply making it is more effective?
I have not exaggerated and I have of course made my point, even if you
are unable to see it. Israel is a delinquent state.
You clearly have exaggerated. There are a claimed 10,000 deaths in Gaza
as a result so far of the present military action. You claim that that
is avoidable. Yet, as far as I know, you have no basis for doing that.
It is perfectly obvious that a modern army fighting in a populated area
is bound to inflict civilian casualties. You need to have some basis for
your claim that the IDF is not doing what it can to minimise those.
Here are some comparisons of recent campaigns that have been at least 10 times more deadly:
Yet, over the period 2003-2006, after we invaded Iraq, there were 650k 'excess deaths' according to the Lancet.
In Afghanistan: "For Afghans, the statistics are nearly unimaginable:
70,000 Afghan military and police deaths, 46,319 Afghan civilians
(although that is likely a significant underestimation) and some 53,000 opposition fighters killed. Almost 67,000 other people were killed in Pakistan in relation to the Afghan war."
In Syria: 'between 503,064 and about 613,407 as of March 2023.[1] In
late September 2021, the United Nations stated it had documented the
deaths of at least 350,209 "identified individuals" in the conflict
between March 2011 and March 2021, but cautioned the figure was
"certainly an under-count" that specified only a "minimum verifiable
number"'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/11/afghanistan-was-loss-better-peace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war
On 13/11/2023 22:01, The Todal wrote:
On 13/11/2023 20:23, GB wrote:
On 13/11/2023 12:27, The Todal wrote:
We all remember the savage bombing of Gaza during Operation Cast
Lead. Israel has a track record of ruthless savagery towards Gaza.
The IDF will always say that massive civilian casualties are
unavoidable and that they do all that they possibly can to prevent
such casualties - which is a very obvious lie,
Maybe they could do more, but I don't know why you feel the need to
exaggerate like this? If you have a worthwhile point to make,
surely simply making it is more effective?
I have not exaggerated and I have of course made my point, even if you
are unable to see it. Israel is a delinquent state.
You clearly have exaggerated. There are a claimed 10,000 deaths in Gaza
as a result so far of the present military action. You claim that that
is avoidable. Yet, as far as I know, you have no basis for doing that.
It is perfectly obvious that a modern army fighting in a populated area
is bound to inflict civilian casualties. You need to have some basis for
your claim that the IDF is not doing what it can to minimise those.
Now, you can pretend that Israeli forces are up against tanks and
artillery manned by Hamas soldiers, the equivalent of the Iraq army. But
that would, of course, be a brazen lie.
They are up against small
pockets of terrorists. Perhaps slightly better equipped terrorists than
the IRA.
This is all true, and I don't seek to justify our countries' atrocities. But these countries all have twenty plus times the population of Gaza
On 14/11/2023 11:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
This is all true, and I don't seek to justify our countries' atrocities. But >> these countries all have twenty plus times the population of Gaza
Perhaps, you should check your statistics.
On 13/11/2023 18:48, Max Demian wrote:
On 13/11/2023 14:51, Vir Campestris wrote:AFAICT nor do Hamas.
AIUI Hamas are still firing rockets over the border into Israel, and
are still holding Israeli citizens as hostages.
AIUI the IDF are still killing Palestinian civilians and holding
thousands of Palestinian activists in their prisons.
What is your solution to the problem? I don't have one.
Neither Israel, the US, nor, apparently, the UK want a solution.
Again I ask - what is your solution?
On 13 Nov 2023 at 18:27:08 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 15:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 13 Nov 2023 at 12:12:29 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Well known British Jews get quite miffed if they are asked what they
think of Israeli actions, past and present. Are they saying it's nothing >>>> to do with them, or do they secretly sympathise with their actions?
Perhaps they should be made to say what they think, or stop going on
about their Jewishness.
There are so many offensive presumptions and proposals in what you have
written that I would not know where to start in rejecting every word of it. >>> Would you use mediaeval torture techniques or just modern CIA-style
interrogation to make them say what they think? How would you reliably
identify British Jews? BTW, I am not sure I have seen many people "going on
about their Jewishness".
You can be as offended as you like. This is Usenet. You don't have to
use torture, mediaeval or CIA-style to determine if someone British
regards him or herself as Jewish, they proclaim the fact themselves if
they please.
And don't if the don't.
On 14/11/2023 11:16, The Todal wrote:
Now, you can pretend that Israeli forces are up against tanks and
artillery manned by Hamas soldiers, the equivalent of the Iraq army. But
that would, of course, be a brazen lie.
You are accusing me of a brazen lie. Couldn't you at least find
something to disagree with that I have actually said?
Nearly all the deaths in Iraq occurred long after the Iraqi army packed
up and went home, so yours is an extraordinarily poor point, anyway.
They are up against small
pockets of terrorists. Perhaps slightly better equipped terrorists than
the IRA.
The Afghans had similar weaponry to Hamas - even so, 200,000 - 300,000
were killed by us (and other Nato countries).
That's better than the Soviet-Afghan war, with 0.5-2 million Afghan deaths.
The provos had a peak membership of 1500, so not in any way comparable
to Hamas. Even so, it took a large part of the British army to contain
them somewhat.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 12:12:29 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 00:33, The Todal wrote:
It wouldn't be hate directed at Jews. There is no good reason to equate
Israel with all Jews. There were plenty of Jews marching with the other
demonstrators on Saturday.
Well known British Jews get quite miffed if they are asked what they
think of Israeli actions, past and present. Are they saying it's nothing
to do with them, or do they secretly sympathise with their actions?
Perhaps they should be made to say what they think, or stop going on
about their Jewishness.
British Jews - or to put it another way, Jewish Britons - are not obliged to have any opinion on any country other than their own. That is, the UK. The idea that Jewish people with British citizenship living in the UK are
somehow more attached to Israel than they are to the UK is exactly the same form of racism, either conscious or subconscious, as that which assumes that people of, say, South Asian or African ancestry are more attached to those parts of the world than they are to the UK. It's practically a textbook illustration of racism, or, in this case, antisemitism (which is just a subset of racism).
On 14/11/2023 10:24, GB wrote:
On 13/11/2023 21:47, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/11/2023 20:06, GB wrote:
On 13/11/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
(e) in the manner of Goebbels, tells lies to the world about how
Hamas has strongholds under hospitals
I may be naive, but I am inclined to believe that that is not a lie.
What makes you so sure it is?
It's very convenient to make and propagate such unsubstantiated
claims so extremists will think it's ok to bomb hospitals.
It's also convenient to hide bunkers under hospitals. Clearly, we
don't know either way. It is, therefore, inappropriate for Todal to
have made the claim he did.
BTW, "in the manner of Goebbels" is pure rhetoric. It's a pretty tired
cliche that in times of war truth goes out of the window, and I can
see no need to invoke the Nazis.
It's the best possible way of demonstrating the dishonesty of Israel.
Did you manage to read the UN report from 2009 which trenchantly
criticises Israel's actions in Gaza at that time? Israel is now doing
exactly the same thing. When you're dealing with a nation which is
committing war crimes, what better comparison than with Nazi Germany?
https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48_ADVANCE2.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0k4cbX3AoZZbIzQLT5C8oXd2XgxLsJC9XNVILlfHdcbqm2UeewAOz4Zhk
On 14/11/2023 00:35, JNugent wrote:
On 13/11/2023 06:35 pm, The Todal wrote:
Well, I know many of the Jews who were marching on the demonstration.
I dare say. Does that mean that there were "plenty of Jews" on that
march?
Yes.
You could watch this video, which was broadcast on the BBC during the
afternoon.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1723708905933488590
No, thanks. Life is too short.
Life is too short to educate yourself and become better informed. Fair enough. Others can watch it. You can say that my statements are
unproven, on the basis that you choose not to look at the proof.
You'll be citing a 700 page book next and telling me that if I read it
thoroughly, I shan't have any difficulty in agreeing with you.
That isn't the way that argument works (as you know).
How about you accompany me on the next pro-Palestinian demonstration? Or isn't that how the argument works either?
On 13/11/2023 22:01, The Todal wrote:
On 13/11/2023 20:23, GB wrote:
On 13/11/2023 12:27, The Todal wrote:
We all remember the savage bombing of Gaza during Operation Cast
Lead. Israel has a track record of ruthless savagery towards Gaza.
The IDF will always say that massive civilian casualties are
unavoidable and that they do all that they possibly can to prevent
such casualties - which is a very obvious lie,
Maybe they could do more, but I don't know why you feel the need to
exaggerate like this? If you have a worthwhile point to make,
surely simply making it is more effective?
I have not exaggerated and I have of course made my point, even if
you are unable to see it. Israel is a delinquent state.
You clearly have exaggerated. There are a claimed 10,000 deaths in
Gaza as a result so far of the present military action. You claim
that that is avoidable. Yet, as far as I know, you have no basis for
doing that.
[SNIP]
On 14/11/2023 11:16, The Todal wrote:
Now, you can pretend that Israeli forces are up against tanks and
artillery manned by Hamas soldiers, the equivalent of the Iraq army.
But that would, of course, be a brazen lie.
You are accusing me of a brazen lie. Couldn't you at least find
something to disagree with that I have actually said?
Nearly all the deaths in Iraq occurred long after the Iraqi army packed
up and went home, so yours is an extraordinarily poor point, anyway.
They are up against small pockets of terrorists. Perhaps slightly
better equipped terrorists than the IRA.
The Afghans had similar weaponry to Hamas - even so, 200,000 - 300,000
were killed by us (and other Nato countries).
That's better than the Soviet-Afghan war, with 0.5-2 million Afghan deaths.
The provos had a peak membership of 1500, so not in any way comparable
to Hamas. Even so, it took a large part of the British army to contain
them somewhat.
On 14/11/2023 12:21, GB wrote:
On 14/11/2023 11:16, The Todal wrote:
Now, you can pretend that Israeli forces are up against tanks and
artillery manned by Hamas soldiers, the equivalent of the Iraq army.
But that would, of course, be a brazen lie.
You are accusing me of a brazen lie. Couldn't you at least find
something to disagree with that I have actually said?
I think you're taking this too personally.
On 14 Nov 2023 at 12:21:03 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 11:16, The Todal wrote:
Now, you can pretend that Israeli forces are up against tanks and
artillery manned by Hamas soldiers, the equivalent of the Iraq army. But >>> that would, of course, be a brazen lie.
You are accusing me of a brazen lie. Couldn't you at least find
something to disagree with that I have actually said?
Nearly all the deaths in Iraq occurred long after the Iraqi army packed
up and went home, so yours is an extraordinarily poor point, anyway.
Indeed, we only know the death toll in Gaza due to direct military action of the occupying forces. How many have died or will die because of lack of water,
food, shelter, family support or medical care is unknown. And perhaps never will be if the Israeli forces continue to systematically kill journalists and anyone from the outside world trying to help the population.
On 14/11/2023 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Nov 2023 at 12:21:03 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 14/11/2023 11:16, The Todal wrote:
Now, you can pretend that Israeli forces are up against tanks and
artillery manned by Hamas soldiers, the equivalent of the Iraq army.
But
that would, of course, be a brazen lie.
You are accusing me of a brazen lie. Couldn't you at least find
something to disagree with that I have actually said?
Nearly all the deaths in Iraq occurred long after the Iraqi army packed
up and went home, so yours is an extraordinarily poor point, anyway.
Indeed, we only know the death toll in Gaza due to direct military
action of
the occupying forces. How many have died or will die because of lack
of water,
food, shelter, family support or medical care is unknown. And perhaps
never
will be if the Israeli forces continue to systematically kill
journalists and
anyone from the outside world trying to help the population.
I was going to stop replying to these comments, but can I just check
what you mean by "Israeli forces continue to systematically kill journalists"?
Are they perhaps rounding up journalists? Clearly, nobody has suggested
that. So, is it just pure hyperbole? And, if so, why?
On 10:43 14 Nov 2023, GB said:
On 13/11/2023 22:01, The Todal wrote:
On 13/11/2023 20:23, GB wrote:
On 13/11/2023 12:27, The Todal wrote:
We all remember the savage bombing of Gaza during Operation Cast
Lead. Israel has a track record of ruthless savagery towards Gaza.
The IDF will always say that massive civilian casualties are
unavoidable and that they do all that they possibly can to prevent
such casualties - which is a very obvious lie,
Maybe they could do more, but I don't know why you feel the need to
exaggerate like this? If you have a worthwhile point to make,
surely simply making it is more effective?
I have not exaggerated and I have of course made my point, even if
you are unable to see it. Israel is a delinquent state.
You clearly have exaggerated. There are a claimed 10,000 deaths in
Gaza as a result so far of the present military action. You claim
that that is avoidable. Yet, as far as I know, you have no basis for
doing that.
[SNIP]
Accepting casualty figures from a Hamas-run group (the Gaza Health
Ministry) seems little different to accepting partisan casualty figures
from ISIS in Iraq or Syria. Terrorist claims are not known for probity.
One sees this in the incorrect death figure given for the AL-Ahli
hospital hit by a rocket, which had to be subsequently revised
significantly.
The Gaza Health Ministry does not explain how it arrives at its
figures.
It does not distinguish between civilians and Hamas combatants
(some of which could technically be called child soldiers as they are
under 18 years of age).
Nor does it separate out people who are assumed
to have died from the conditions brought about by war (such as the
refusal of Hamas to distribute fuel it wants for military pruposes)
rather than by military action. Furthermore it does not provide "blue
on blue" self inflicted deaths from Hamas military action.
The first casualty of war is the truth, etc.
I take their figure with a large pinch of salt.
On 14/11/2023 11:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
This is all true, and I don't seek to justify our countries'
atrocities. But
these countries all have twenty plus times the population of Gaza
Perhaps, you should check your statistics.
On 13/11/2023 17:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 12:12:29 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 13/11/2023 00:33, The Todal wrote:
It wouldn't be hate directed at Jews. There is no good reason to equate >>>> Israel with all Jews. There were plenty of Jews marching with the other >>>> demonstrators on Saturday.
Well known British Jews get quite miffed if they are asked what they
think of Israeli actions, past and present. Are they saying it's nothing >>> to do with them, or do they secretly sympathise with their actions?
Perhaps they should be made to say what they think, or stop going on
about their Jewishness.
British Jews - or to put it another way, Jewish Britons - are not
obliged to
have any opinion on any country other than their own. That is, the UK.
The
idea that Jewish people with British citizenship living in the UK are
somehow more attached to Israel than they are to the UK is exactly the
same
form of racism, either conscious or subconscious, as that which
assumes that
people of, say, South Asian or African ancestry are more attached to
those
parts of the world than they are to the UK. It's practically a textbook
illustration of racism, or, in this case, antisemitism (which is just a
subset of racism).
I don't see why known Jews in public positions (e.g. broadcasters)
shouldn't be asked whether (and to what extent) they support the Israeli government (or the IDF). They can plead that they have relatives or
friends in Israel if they like.
On 13/11/2023 17:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 12:12:29 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 13/11/2023 00:33, The Todal wrote:
It wouldn't be hate directed at Jews. There is no good reason to equate >>>> Israel with all Jews. There were plenty of Jews marching with the other >>>> demonstrators on Saturday.
Well known British Jews get quite miffed if they are asked what they
think of Israeli actions, past and present. Are they saying it's nothing >>> to do with them, or do they secretly sympathise with their actions?
Perhaps they should be made to say what they think, or stop going on
about their Jewishness.
British Jews - or to put it another way, Jewish Britons - are not
obliged to
have any opinion on any country other than their own. That is, the UK.
The
idea that Jewish people with British citizenship living in the UK are
somehow more attached to Israel than they are to the UK is exactly the
same
form of racism, either conscious or subconscious, as that which
assumes that
people of, say, South Asian or African ancestry are more attached to
those
parts of the world than they are to the UK. It's practically a textbook
illustration of racism, or, in this case, antisemitism (which is just a
subset of racism).
I don't see why known Jews in public positions (e.g. broadcasters)
shouldn't be asked whether (and to what extent) they support the Israeli government (or the IDF). They can plead that they have relatives or
friends in Israel if they like.
On 13/11/2023 17:19, Mark Goodge wrote:
Anyway, as well as being a hate crime, that placard is a clear and obvious >> example of Godwin's Law. Unfortunately, you won't find Godwin's law in the >> statute books or referenced in a precedent-setting court judgment, so the
police, not unreasonably, have to disregard it. But every well-informed,
right-thinking person will automatically dissociate themselves from anything >> which invokes it.
To say the Israelis are behaving like Nazis is not, of course, to say
that they are rounding up people, putting them in extermination camps, >gassing them, lining them up next to ditches and opening fire, gassing >disabled people, invading Poland, sending aircraft to bomb the London
docks, need I continue?
On 13/11/2023 17:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
British Jews - or to put it another way, Jewish Britons - are not obliged to >> have any opinion on any country other than their own. That is, the UK. The >> idea that Jewish people with British citizenship living in the UK are
somehow more attached to Israel than they are to the UK is exactly the same >> form of racism, either conscious or subconscious, as that which assumes that >> people of, say, South Asian or African ancestry are more attached to those >> parts of the world than they are to the UK. It's practically a textbook
illustration of racism, or, in this case, antisemitism (which is just a
subset of racism).
I don't see why known Jews in public positions (e.g. broadcasters)
shouldn't be asked whether (and to what extent) they support the Israeli >government (or the IDF). They can plead that they have relatives or
friends in Israel if they like.
On 13/11/2023 17:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
British Jews - or to put it another way, Jewish Britons - are not obliged to >> have any opinion on any country other than their own. That is, the UK. The >> idea that Jewish people with British citizenship living in the UK are
somehow more attached to Israel than they are to the UK is exactly the same >> form of racism, either conscious or subconscious, as that which assumes that >> people of, say, South Asian or African ancestry are more attached to those >> parts of the world than they are to the UK. It's practically a textbook
illustration of racism, or, in this case, antisemitism (which is just a
subset of racism).
There's a difference between Jewish ancestry, and Jewish faith here.
In Judaism Israel is the promised land, the land of milk and honey.
I don't see why known Jews in public positions (e.g. broadcasters)
shouldn't be asked whether (and to what extent) they support the
Israeli government (or the IDF). They can plead that they have
relatives or friends in Israel if they like.
Indeed, we only know the death toll in Gaza due to direct military action of the occupying forces. How many have died or will die because of lack of water,
food, shelter, family support or medical care is unknown. And perhaps never will be if the Israeli forces continue to systematically kill journalists and anyone from the outside world trying to help the population.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:uivrdu$181fo$2@dont-email.me...
I don't see why known Jews in public positions (e.g. broadcasters)
shouldn't be asked whether (and to what extent) they support the
Israeli government (or the IDF). They can plead that they have
relatives or friends in Israel if they like.
Equally, I don't see why anyone requiring public pronouncements by
"known Jews" in public positions (e.g. broadcasters) on any topic
whatsoever, shouldn't themselves be asked their exact motives for
doing so.
bb
On 14/11/2023 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed, we only know the death toll in Gaza due to direct military action of >> the occupying forces. How many have died or will die because of lack of water,
food, shelter, family support or medical care is unknown. And perhaps never >> will be if the Israeli forces continue to systematically kill journalists and
anyone from the outside world trying to help the population.
I don't think we even know the death toll. All I've heard is Hamas's
claim of the death toll, which is undoubtedly exaggerated. By how much I
have no idea.
Andy.
On 14/11/2023 01:07 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 13/11/2023 17:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 12:12:29 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 13/11/2023 00:33, The Todal wrote:
It wouldn't be hate directed at Jews. There is no good reason to equate >>>>> Israel with all Jews. There were plenty of Jews marching with the other >>>>> demonstrators on Saturday.
Well known British Jews get quite miffed if they are asked what they
think of Israeli actions, past and present. Are they saying it's nothing >>>> to do with them, or do they secretly sympathise with their actions?
Perhaps they should be made to say what they think, or stop going on
about their Jewishness.
British Jews - or to put it another way, Jewish Britons - are not
obliged to
have any opinion on any country other than their own. That is, the UK.
The
idea that Jewish people with British citizenship living in the UK are
somehow more attached to Israel than they are to the UK is exactly the
same
form of racism, either conscious or subconscious, as that which
assumes that
people of, say, South Asian or African ancestry are more attached to
those
parts of the world than they are to the UK. It's practically a textbook
illustration of racism, or, in this case, antisemitism (which is just a
subset of racism).
I don't see why known Jews in public positions (e.g. broadcasters)
shouldn't be asked whether (and to what extent) they support the Israeli
government (or the IDF). They can plead that they have relatives or
friends in Israel if they like.
Why?
And should it be extended to other religions in analogous cases?
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:55:42 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 17:19, Mark Goodge wrote:
Anyway, as well as being a hate crime, that placard is a clear and obvious >>> example of Godwin's Law. Unfortunately, you won't find Godwin's law in the >>> statute books or referenced in a precedent-setting court judgment, so the >>> police, not unreasonably, have to disregard it. But every well-informed, >>> right-thinking person will automatically dissociate themselves from anything
which invokes it.
To say the Israelis are behaving like Nazis is not, of course, to say
that they are rounding up people, putting them in extermination camps,
gassing them, lining them up next to ditches and opening fire, gassing
disabled people, invading Poland, sending aircraft to bomb the London
docks, need I continue?
Then they're not really behaving like the Nazis, in any meaningful sense.
Use of the term "Nazi" to mean "someone who is doing things I strongly disapprove of" is linguistic bollocks.
Mark
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:55:42 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 17:19, Mark Goodge wrote:
Anyway, as well as being a hate crime, that placard is a clear and obvious >>> example of Godwin's Law. Unfortunately, you won't find Godwin's law in the >>> statute books or referenced in a precedent-setting court judgment, so the >>> police, not unreasonably, have to disregard it. But every well-informed, >>> right-thinking person will automatically dissociate themselves from anything
which invokes it.
To say the Israelis are behaving like Nazis is not, of course, to say
that they are rounding up people, putting them in extermination camps,
gassing them, lining them up next to ditches and opening fire, gassing
disabled people, invading Poland, sending aircraft to bomb the London
docks, need I continue?
Then they're not really behaving like the Nazis, in any meaningful sense.
Use of the term "Nazi" to mean "someone who is doing things I strongly disapprove of" is linguistic bollocks.
On 14 Nov 2023 at 13:51:02 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 01:07 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 13/11/2023 17:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 12:12:29 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 00:33, The Todal wrote:
It wouldn't be hate directed at Jews. There is no good reason to equate >>>>>> Israel with all Jews. There were plenty of Jews marching with the other >>>>>> demonstrators on Saturday.
Well known British Jews get quite miffed if they are asked what they >>>>> think of Israeli actions, past and present. Are they saying it's nothing >>>>> to do with them, or do they secretly sympathise with their actions?
Perhaps they should be made to say what they think, or stop going on >>>>> about their Jewishness.
British Jews - or to put it another way, Jewish Britons - are not
obliged to
have any opinion on any country other than their own. That is, the UK. >>>> The
idea that Jewish people with British citizenship living in the UK are
somehow more attached to Israel than they are to the UK is exactly the >>>> same
form of racism, either conscious or subconscious, as that which
assumes that
people of, say, South Asian or African ancestry are more attached to
those
parts of the world than they are to the UK. It's practically a textbook >>>> illustration of racism, or, in this case, antisemitism (which is just a >>>> subset of racism).
I don't see why known Jews in public positions (e.g. broadcasters)
shouldn't be asked whether (and to what extent) they support the Israeli >>> government (or the IDF). They can plead that they have relatives or
friends in Israel if they like.
Why?
And should it be extended to other religions in analogous cases?
And us atheists are presumably responsible for all the ostensibly non-religious conflicts? That's a bit worrying!
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 11:03:39 +0000, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 17:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
British Jews - or to put it another way, Jewish Britons - are not obliged to
have any opinion on any country other than their own. That is, the UK. The >>> idea that Jewish people with British citizenship living in the UK are
somehow more attached to Israel than they are to the UK is exactly the same >>> form of racism, either conscious or subconscious, as that which assumes that
people of, say, South Asian or African ancestry are more attached to those >>> parts of the world than they are to the UK. It's practically a textbook
illustration of racism, or, in this case, antisemitism (which is just a
subset of racism).
There's a difference between Jewish ancestry, and Jewish faith here.
In Judaism Israel is the promised land, the land of milk and honey.
And making assumptions about a particular religion's beliefs, when not actually having any connection to that religion, is another form of racism.
Mark
There clearly are civilian deaths, which is the tragic price paid to
save Gaza's Palestinians from Hamas.
unexpected when we recall other conflicts, such as the Battle for
Normandy in WW2 in which 20,000 French civilians died. More recently
the battle for Mosul cost 10,000 (genuine) civilian lives.
It's very sad and Hamas would have predicted this outcome when it
attacked Israel on October 7th.
On 14/11/2023 12:05, Pamela wrote:
On 10:43 14 Nov 2023, GB said:
On 13/11/2023 22:01, The Todal wrote:
On 13/11/2023 20:23, GB wrote:
On 13/11/2023 12:27, The Todal wrote:
We all remember the savage bombing of Gaza during Operation Cast
Lead. Israel has a track record of ruthless savagery towards
Gaza. The IDF will always say that massive civilian casualties
are unavoidable and that they do all that they possibly can to
prevent such casualties - which is a very obvious lie,
Maybe they could do more, but I don't know why you feel the need
to exaggerate like this? If you have a worthwhile point to
make, surely simply making it is more effective?
I have not exaggerated and I have of course made my point, even if
you are unable to see it. Israel is a delinquent state.
You clearly have exaggerated. There are a claimed 10,000 deaths in
Gaza as a result so far of the present military action. You claim
that that is avoidable. Yet, as far as I know, you have no basis
for doing that.
[SNIP]
Accepting casualty figures from a Hamas-run group (the Gaza Health
Ministry) seems little different to accepting partisan casualty
figures from ISIS in Iraq or Syria. Terrorist claims are not known
for probity.
You seem to has missed my earlier post. Up to now the numbers
provided by Hamas in earlier conflicts have been accurate according
to third party verification. There is no reason why that should
change.
https://news.sky.com/story/what-do-we-know-about-the-number-of- palestinians-killed-in-gaza-13006290
On 15/11/2023 10:37, Pamela wrote:
There clearly are civilian deaths, which is the tragic price paid to
save Gaza's Palestinians from Hamas.
Saving them by exterminating them, indiscriminately.
Maybe you should step up to the plate yourself - offer yourself as a
human sacrifice in order to save the Palestinians from Hamas.
However such losses are not
unexpected when we recall other conflicts, such as the Battle for
Normandy in WW2 in which 20,000 French civilians died. More recently
the battle for Mosul cost 10,000 (genuine) civilian lives.
It's very sad and Hamas would have predicted this outcome when it
attacked Israel on October 7th.
Certainly the UK and the USA would have predicted this outcome - the
mass slaughter of innocent people - which is why it is disgraceful that
they did nothing to restrain Israel. Except maybe secretly, behind the
scenes encouraging them to show some mercy to the babies and civilian
women. To which Israel would have replied, thank you but go fuck
yourselves, this is our war not yours.
On 15/11/2023 11:01 am, The Todal wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:37, Pamela wrote:
There clearly are civilian deaths, which is the tragic price paid to
save Gaza's Palestinians from Hamas.
Saving them by exterminating them, indiscriminately.
Maybe you should step up to the plate yourself - offer yourself as a
human sacrifice in order to save the Palestinians from Hamas.
Is that even SUPPOSED to make sense?
However such losses are not
unexpected when we recall other conflicts, such as the Battle for
Normandy in WW2 in which 20,000 French civilians died. More recently
the battle for Mosul cost 10,000 (genuine) civilian lives.
It's very sad and Hamas would have predicted this outcome when it
attacked Israel on October 7th.
Certainly the UK and the USA would have predicted this outcome - the
mass slaughter of innocent people - which is why it is disgraceful
that they did nothing to restrain Israel. Except maybe secretly,
behind the scenes encouraging them to show some mercy to the babies
and civilian women. To which Israel would have replied, thank you but
go fuck yourselves, this is our war not yours.
Perhaps.
Israel does the same to the Palestinians. It behaves like the Nazis. Not quite to the same extent as the Nazis. But like the Nazis. That
comparison will no doubt offend many Jews. Is that a good reason to ban
any such comparison? I don't think so.
On 14/11/2023 13:16, GB wrote:
On 14/11/2023 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Nov 2023 at 12:21:03 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 14/11/2023 11:16, The Todal wrote:
Now, you can pretend that Israeli forces are up against tanks and
artillery manned by Hamas soldiers, the equivalent of the Iraq
army. But
that would, of course, be a brazen lie.
You are accusing me of a brazen lie. Couldn't you at least find
something to disagree with that I have actually said?
Nearly all the deaths in Iraq occurred long after the Iraqi army packed >>>> up and went home, so yours is an extraordinarily poor point, anyway.
Indeed, we only know the death toll in Gaza due to direct military
action of
the occupying forces. How many have died or will die because of lack
of water,
food, shelter, family support or medical care is unknown. And perhaps
never
will be if the Israeli forces continue to systematically kill
journalists and
anyone from the outside world trying to help the population.
I was going to stop replying to these comments, but can I just check
what you mean by "Israeli forces continue to systematically kill
journalists"?
Are they perhaps rounding up journalists? Clearly, nobody has
suggested that. So, is it just pure hyperbole? And, if so, why?
So far just 13 rounded up and arrested.
I guess blatantly killing them
too would be too embarrassing?
42 journalists and media workers were confirmed dead: 37
Palestinian, 4 Israeli, and 1 Lebanese.
9 journalists were reported injured.
3 journalists were reported missing.
13 journalists were reported arrested.
Multiple assaults, threats, cyberattacks, censorship, and killings
of family members.
On 14 Nov 2023 at 21:43:36 GMT, "Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed, we only know the death toll in Gaza due to direct military action of
the occupying forces. How many have died or will die because of lack of water,
food, shelter, family support or medical care is unknown. And perhaps never >>> will be if the Israeli forces continue to systematically kill journalists and
anyone from the outside world trying to help the population.
I don't think we even know the death toll. All I've heard is Hamas's
claim of the death toll, which is undoubtedly exaggerated. By how much I
have no idea.
Andy.
My understanding is that they've given all the names. Have you any evidence it
is exaggerated?
Most broadcasters would simply say their opinions were private on
account of their employment. I don't have an issue with that.
On 14/11/2023 14:18, Fredxx wrote:
Most broadcasters would simply say their opinions were private on
account of their employment. I don't have an issue with that.
Do broadcasters' policies more or less force staff to be silent?
On 14/11/2023 21:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Nov 2023 at 21:43:36 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed, we only know the death toll in Gaza due to direct military
action of
the occupying forces. How many have died or will die because of lack
of water,
food, shelter, family support or medical care is unknown. And
perhaps never
will be if the Israeli forces continue to systematically kill
journalists and
anyone from the outside world trying to help the population.
I don't think we even know the death toll. All I've heard is Hamas's
claim of the death toll, which is undoubtedly exaggerated. By how much I >>> have no idea.
Andy.
My understanding is that they've given all the names. Have you any
evidence it
is exaggerated?
Why the sudden interest in evidence? :)
On 14/11/2023 23:23, The Todal wrote:
Israel does the same to the Palestinians. It behaves like the Nazis.
Not quite to the same extent as the Nazis. But like the Nazis. That
comparison will no doubt offend many Jews. Is that a good reason to
ban any such comparison? I don't think so.
Germany vilified the Jews, so would it be fair to say that you are quite literally behaving like the Nazis? You may say that vilifying Israel is
not the same as vilifying Jews, but that's just the sort of argument
Goebbels would have come up with.
FWIW, I don't think you are behaving like a Nazi, and my point is just
that they are best left out of this altogether.
On 14/11/2023 13:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/11/2023 13:16, GB wrote:
On 14/11/2023 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Nov 2023 at 12:21:03 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 14/11/2023 11:16, The Todal wrote:
Now, you can pretend that Israeli forces are up against tanks and
artillery manned by Hamas soldiers, the equivalent of the Iraq
army. But
that would, of course, be a brazen lie.
You are accusing me of a brazen lie. Couldn't you at least find
something to disagree with that I have actually said?
Nearly all the deaths in Iraq occurred long after the Iraqi army
packed
up and went home, so yours is an extraordinarily poor point, anyway. >>>>>
Indeed, we only know the death toll in Gaza due to direct military
action of
the occupying forces. How many have died or will die because of lack
of water,
food, shelter, family support or medical care is unknown. And
perhaps never
will be if the Israeli forces continue to systematically kill
journalists and
anyone from the outside world trying to help the population.
I was going to stop replying to these comments, but can I just check
what you mean by "Israeli forces continue to systematically kill
journalists"?
Are they perhaps rounding up journalists? Clearly, nobody has
suggested that. So, is it just pure hyperbole? And, if so, why?
So far just 13 rounded up and arrested.
It's obviously hyperbole. So, my question stands: Why did Roger say it?
He obviously feels strongly about this, but what is the point of going
way OTT?
I guess blatantly killing them too would be too embarrassing?
42 journalists and media workers were confirmed dead: 37
Palestinian, 4 Israeli, and 1 Lebanese.
9 journalists were reported injured.
3 journalists were reported missing.
13 journalists were reported arrested.
Multiple assaults, threats, cyberattacks, censorship, and
killings of family members.
Those are fairly meaningless figures without knowing how many
journalists there are in Gaza. At the moment, I would guess thousands, perhaps tens of thousands.
On 14/11/2023 23:23, The Todal wrote:
Israel does the same to the Palestinians. It behaves like the Nazis.
Not quite to the same extent as the Nazis. But like the Nazis. That
comparison will no doubt offend many Jews. Is that a good reason to
ban any such comparison? I don't think so.
Germany vilified the Jews, so would it be fair to say that you are quite literally behaving like the Nazis?
not the same as vilifying Jews, but that's just the sort of argument
Goebbels would have come up with.
FWIW, I don't think you are behaving like a Nazi, and my point is just
that they are best left out of this altogether.
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 11:03:39 +0000, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
In Judaism Israel is the promised land, the land of milk and honey.
And making assumptions about a particular religion's beliefs, when not
actually having any connection to that religion, is another form of racism.
I have no connection with Islam, but I have always assumed that Moslems believe
there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. This assumption of mine makes me >a racist under your definition, which does not seem to accord with the any of >the usual usages of the word despite its extreme elasticity.
Israel does the same to the Palestinians. It behaves like the Nazis. Not >quite to the same extent as the Nazis. But like the Nazis. That
comparison will no doubt offend many Jews. Is that a good reason to ban
any such comparison? I don't think so.
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 23:23:44 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Israel does the same to the Palestinians. It behaves like the Nazis. Not
quite to the same extent as the Nazis. But like the Nazis. That
comparison will no doubt offend many Jews. Is that a good reason to ban
any such comparison? I don't think so.
I'm not suggesting banning it. In many respects, the use of objectively unjustified hyperbole by one group of people to describe a different group
of people serves a very useful purpose.
Mark
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:34:54 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com (Handsome Jack) wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 11:03:39 +0000, Vir CampestrisI have no connection with Islam, but I have always assumed that Moslems believe
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
In Judaism Israel is the promised land, the land of milk and honey.
And making assumptions about a particular religion's beliefs, when not
actually having any connection to that religion, is another form of racism. >>
there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. This assumption of mine makes me
a racist under your definition, which does not seem to accord with the any of
the usual usages of the word despite its extreme elasticity.
There are different levels of assumptions, obviously. It is true to say that the vast majority of people who would call themselves Muslims believe that there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. But it would be wrong to
assume that they all have the same beliefs in everything. There are quite significant differences between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, for example, just
as there are between Catholic and protestant Christians.
In particular, the statement that "In Judaism Israel is the promised land"
is an example of a very over-wide assumption. It is true that the majority
of religious Jews would agree that Israel was, historically, the promised land (but even that would not necessarily be shared by people who consider themselves to be simply ethnic Jews). But it is certainly not true that all Jews, and not even all religious Jews, would state that it still is the promised land, in the sense of having a divine right to occupy it. Even
among those Jews (which is almost certainly the majority) who support Israel's right to exist, many of them support it on the basis of self-determination and/or as justifiable compensation for the centuries of discrimination which ultimately led to the Holocaust, rather than because it is the will of God.
On 15/11/2023 11:11, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2023 11:01 am, The Todal wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:37, Pamela wrote:
There clearly are civilian deaths, which is the tragic price paid to
save Gaza's Palestinians from Hamas.
Saving them by exterminating them, indiscriminately.
Maybe you should step up to the plate yourself - offer yourself as a
human sacrifice in order to save the Palestinians from Hamas.
Is that even SUPPOSED to make sense?
Yes, it is supposed by me to make sense.
If you say that innocent civilians are a necessary sacrifice in order to destroy a terrorist organisation,
why not volunteer yourself to be one
of the innocent civilians? Easy for you to write them off while you sit
in your armchair chewing your popcorn.
However such losses are not
unexpected when we recall other conflicts, such as the Battle for
Normandy in WW2 in which 20,000 French civilians died. More recently
the battle for Mosul cost 10,000 (genuine) civilian lives.
It's very sad and Hamas would have predicted this outcome when it
attacked Israel on October 7th.
Certainly the UK and the USA would have predicted this outcome - the
mass slaughter of innocent people - which is why it is disgraceful
that they did nothing to restrain Israel. Except maybe secretly,
behind the scenes encouraging them to show some mercy to the babies
and civilian women. To which Israel would have replied, thank you but
go fuck yourselves, this is our war not yours.
Perhaps.
On 15/11/2023 13:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:34:54 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com (Handsome
Jack)
wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 11:03:39 +0000, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
In Judaism Israel is the promised land, the land of milk and honey.
And making assumptions about a particular religion's beliefs, when not >>>> actually having any connection to that religion, is another form of
racism.
I have no connection with Islam, but I have always assumed that
Moslems believe
there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. This assumption of mine
makes me
a racist under your definition, which does not seem to accord with
the any of
the usual usages of the word despite its extreme elasticity.
There are different levels of assumptions, obviously. It is true to
say that
the vast majority of people who would call themselves Muslims believe
that
there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. But it would be wrong to
assume that they all have the same beliefs in everything. There are quite
significant differences between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, for example,
just
as there are between Catholic and protestant Christians.
In particular, the statement that "In Judaism Israel is the promised
land"
is an example of a very over-wide assumption. It is true that the
majority
of religious Jews would agree that Israel was, historically, the promised
land (but even that would not necessarily be shared by people who
consider
themselves to be simply ethnic Jews). But it is certainly not true
that all
Jews, and not even all religious Jews, would state that it still is the
promised land, in the sense of having a divine right to occupy it. Even
among those Jews (which is almost certainly the majority) who support
Israel's right to exist, many of them support it on the basis of
self-determination and/or as justifiable compensation for the
centuries of
discrimination which ultimately led to the Holocaust, rather than
because it
is the will of God.
That's an interesting take. Does this mean many muslims, certainly Palestinians, could describe themselves racially as a Jew?
On 15/11/2023 03:34 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/11/2023 13:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:34:54 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com (Handsome
Jack)
wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 11:03:39 +0000, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
In Judaism Israel is the promised land, the land of milk and honey. >>>>>And making assumptions about a particular religion's beliefs, when not >>>>> actually having any connection to that religion, is another form of
racism.
I have no connection with Islam, but I have always assumed that
Moslems believe
there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. This assumption of
mine makes me
a racist under your definition, which does not seem to accord with
the any of
the usual usages of the word despite its extreme elasticity.
There are different levels of assumptions, obviously. It is true to
say that
the vast majority of people who would call themselves Muslims believe
that
there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. But it would be wrong to
assume that they all have the same beliefs in everything. There are
quite
significant differences between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, for example,
just
as there are between Catholic and protestant Christians.
In particular, the statement that "In Judaism Israel is the promised
land"
is an example of a very over-wide assumption. It is true that the
majority
of religious Jews would agree that Israel was, historically, the
promised
land (but even that would not necessarily be shared by people who
consider
themselves to be simply ethnic Jews). But it is certainly not true
that all
Jews, and not even all religious Jews, would state that it still is the
promised land, in the sense of having a divine right to occupy it. Even
among those Jews (which is almost certainly the majority) who support
Israel's right to exist, many of them support it on the basis of
self-determination and/or as justifiable compensation for the
centuries of
discrimination which ultimately led to the Holocaust, rather than
because it
is the will of God.
That's an interesting take. Does this mean many muslims, certainly
Palestinians, could describe themselves racially as a Jew?
The racial (ethnic) term is surely "semitic"?
On 14/11/2023 13:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/11/2023 13:16, GB wrote:
On 14/11/2023 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed, we only know the death toll in Gaza due to direct military
action of the occupying forces. How many have died or will die
because of lack of water, food, shelter, family support or medical
care is unknown. And perhaps never will be if the Israeli forces
continue to systematically kill journalists and anyone from the
outside world trying to help the population.
I was going to stop replying to these comments, but can I just check
what you mean by "Israeli forces continue to systematically kill
journalists"?
Are they perhaps rounding up journalists? Clearly, nobody has
suggested that. So, is it just pure hyperbole? And, if so, why?
So far just 13 rounded up and arrested.
It's obviously hyperbole. So, my question stands: Why did Roger say it?
He obviously feels strongly about this, but what is the point of going
way OTT?
I guess blatantly killing them
too would be too embarrassing?
42 journalists and media workers were confirmed dead: 37
Palestinian, 4 Israeli, and 1 Lebanese.
9 journalists were reported injured.
3 journalists were reported missing.
13 journalists were reported arrested.
Multiple assaults, threats, cyberattacks, censorship, and killings >> of family members.
Those are fairly meaningless figures without knowing how many
journalists there are in Gaza. At the moment, I would guess thousands, perhaps tens of thousands.
Why the need for proof and then claiming, without any evidence, there
are perhaps tens of thousands of journalists in Gaza. I can only see bias.
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 11:03:39 +0000, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 17:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
British Jews - or to put it another way, Jewish Britons - are not obliged to
have any opinion on any country other than their own. That is, the UK. The >>> idea that Jewish people with British citizenship living in the UK are
somehow more attached to Israel than they are to the UK is exactly the same >>> form of racism, either conscious or subconscious, as that which assumes that
people of, say, South Asian or African ancestry are more attached to those >>> parts of the world than they are to the UK. It's practically a textbook
illustration of racism, or, in this case, antisemitism (which is just a
subset of racism).
There's a difference between Jewish ancestry, and Jewish faith here.
In Judaism Israel is the promised land, the land of milk and honey.
And making assumptions about a particular religion's beliefs, when not actually having any connection to that religion, is another form of racism.
On 15/11/2023 13:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
In particular, the statement that "In Judaism Israel is the promised land" >> is an example of a very over-wide assumption. It is true that the majority >> of religious Jews would agree that Israel was, historically, the promised
land (but even that would not necessarily be shared by people who consider >> themselves to be simply ethnic Jews). But it is certainly not true that all >> Jews, and not even all religious Jews, would state that it still is the
promised land, in the sense of having a divine right to occupy it. Even
among those Jews (which is almost certainly the majority) who support
Israel's right to exist, many of them support it on the basis of
self-determination and/or as justifiable compensation for the centuries of >> discrimination which ultimately led to the Holocaust, rather than because it >> is the will of God.
That's an interesting take. Does this mean many muslims, certainly >Palestinians, could describe themselves racially as a Jew?
On 15/11/2023 17:11, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2023 03:34 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/11/2023 13:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:34:54 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com (Handsome
Jack)
wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 11:03:39 +0000, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
In Judaism Israel is the promised land, the land of milk and honey. >>>>>>And making assumptions about a particular religion's beliefs, when not >>>>>> actually having any connection to that religion, is another form of >>>>>> racism.
I have no connection with Islam, but I have always assumed that
Moslems believe
there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. This assumption of
mine makes me
a racist under your definition, which does not seem to accord with
the any of
the usual usages of the word despite its extreme elasticity.
There are different levels of assumptions, obviously. It is true to
say that
the vast majority of people who would call themselves Muslims believe
that
there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. But it would be wrong to >>>> assume that they all have the same beliefs in everything. There are
quite
significant differences between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, for example,
just
as there are between Catholic and protestant Christians.
In particular, the statement that "In Judaism Israel is the promised
land"
is an example of a very over-wide assumption. It is true that the
majority
of religious Jews would agree that Israel was, historically, the
promised
land (but even that would not necessarily be shared by people who
consider
themselves to be simply ethnic Jews). But it is certainly not true
that all
Jews, and not even all religious Jews, would state that it still is the >>>> promised land, in the sense of having a divine right to occupy it. Even >>>> among those Jews (which is almost certainly the majority) who support
Israel's right to exist, many of them support it on the basis of
self-determination and/or as justifiable compensation for the
centuries of
discrimination which ultimately led to the Holocaust, rather than
because it
is the will of God.
That's an interesting take. Does this mean many muslims, certainly
Palestinians, could describe themselves racially as a Jew?
The racial (ethnic) term is surely "semitic"?
Which means anyone from that area of the Middle East, although I see Wikipedia says this definition is conveniently obsolete.
So how can anyone who supports the Palestinians be called an antisemite?
On 15/11/2023 17:11, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2023 03:34 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/11/2023 13:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:34:54 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com
(Handsome Jack)
wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 11:03:39 +0000, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
In Judaism Israel is the promised land, the land of milk and honey. >>>>>>And making assumptions about a particular religion's beliefs, when >>>>>> not
actually having any connection to that religion, is another form
of racism.
I have no connection with Islam, but I have always assumed that
Moslems believe
there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. This assumption of
mine makes me
a racist under your definition, which does not seem to accord with
the any of
the usual usages of the word despite its extreme elasticity.
There are different levels of assumptions, obviously. It is true to
say that
the vast majority of people who would call themselves Muslims
believe that
there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. But it would be wrong to >>>> assume that they all have the same beliefs in everything. There are
quite
significant differences between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, for
example, just
as there are between Catholic and protestant Christians.
In particular, the statement that "In Judaism Israel is the promised
land"
is an example of a very over-wide assumption. It is true that the
majority
of religious Jews would agree that Israel was, historically, the
promised
land (but even that would not necessarily be shared by people who
consider
themselves to be simply ethnic Jews). But it is certainly not true
that all
Jews, and not even all religious Jews, would state that it still is the >>>> promised land, in the sense of having a divine right to occupy it. Even >>>> among those Jews (which is almost certainly the majority) who support
Israel's right to exist, many of them support it on the basis of
self-determination and/or as justifiable compensation for the
centuries of
discrimination which ultimately led to the Holocaust, rather than
because it
is the will of God.
That's an interesting take. Does this mean many muslims, certainly
Palestinians, could describe themselves racially as a Jew?
The racial (ethnic) term is surely "semitic"?
Which means anyone from that area of the Middle East, although I see Wikipedia says this definition is conveniently obsolete.
So how can anyone who supports the Palestinians be called an antisemite?
On 15/11/2023 11:45 am, The Todal wrote:
On 15/11/2023 11:11, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2023 11:01 am, The Todal wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:37, Pamela wrote:
There clearly are civilian deaths, which is the tragic price paid to >>>>> save Gaza's Palestinians from Hamas.
Saving them by exterminating them, indiscriminately.
Maybe you should step up to the plate yourself - offer yourself as a
human sacrifice in order to save the Palestinians from Hamas.
Is that even SUPPOSED to make sense?
Yes, it is supposed by me to make sense.
So what does it mean and why is it couched in those odd terms which are
not frequently encountered either in normal conversation or political discourse?
If you say that innocent civilians are a necessary sacrifice in order
to destroy a terrorist organisation,
Did anyone sayt that?
why not volunteer yourself to be one of the innocent civilians? Easy
for you to write them off while you sit in your armchair chewing your
popcorn.
Do you think that that was what was another poster meant when he pointed
out that collateral civilian deaths in a modern war (especially in an
urban setting) are probably unavoidable?
And what effect do you say an additional and quite unnecessary death
would have?
On 15/11/2023 16:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2023 11:45 am, The Todal wrote:
On 15/11/2023 11:11, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2023 11:01 am, The Todal wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:37, Pamela wrote:
There clearly are civilian deaths, which is the tragic price paid to >>>>>> save Gaza's Palestinians from Hamas.
Saving them by exterminating them, indiscriminately.
Maybe you should step up to the plate yourself - offer yourself as
a human sacrifice in order to save the Palestinians from Hamas.
Is that even SUPPOSED to make sense?
Yes, it is supposed by me to make sense.
So what does it mean and why is it couched in those odd terms which
are not frequently encountered either in normal conversation or
political discourse?
I think somehow you have experienced a difficulty that the average
reader does not have.
If you say that innocent civilians are a necessary sacrifice in order
to destroy a terrorist organisation,
Did anyone sayt that?
Yes, that was the clear implication of what was said.
What else can it mean?
why not volunteer yourself to be one of the innocent civilians? Easy
for you to write them off while you sit in your armchair chewing your
popcorn.
Do you think that that was what was another poster meant when he
pointed out that collateral civilian deaths in a modern war
(especially in an urban setting) are probably unavoidable?
I think that comment was idiotic for various reasons, notably that it
isn't actually a "war" when you attack a captive civilian population
which has no army, air force, tanks, artillery etc.
It's a massacre, not a war.
The Israelis pretend that it is a war in order to justify slaughtering civilians.
And what effect do you say an additional and quite unnecessary death
would have?
Those who are happy to see human lives thrown away are fully deserving
of the death that they are willing to wish on others. But that's obvious
from what I have said. Are you over-thinking it perhaps?
You have already said it. Because the original meaning of semitic, based on centuries-old discredited linguistic classifications, is totally obsolete. For some reason, people who are accused of anti-semitism often trot out the idea of arabs being semites, as though it actually made any difference to whether they themselves were really anti-Jewish or not.
On 15/11/2023 14:06, Fredxx wrote:
Why the need for proof and then claiming, without any evidence, there
are perhaps tens of thousands of journalists in Gaza. I can only see
bias.
I'm afraid I am biased against Hamas.
I think that comment was idiotic for various reasons, notably that it
isn't actually a "war" when you attack a captive civilian population
which has no army, air force, tanks, artillery etc.
It's a massacre, not a war.
The Israelis pretend that it is a war in order to justify slaughtering civilians.
On 15/11/2023 12:33, GB wrote:
On 14/11/2023 21:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Nov 2023 at 21:43:36 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed, we only know the death toll in Gaza due to direct military
action of
the occupying forces. How many have died or will die because of
lack of water,
food, shelter, family support or medical care is unknown. And
perhaps never
will be if the Israeli forces continue to systematically kill
journalists and
anyone from the outside world trying to help the population.
I don't think we even know the death toll. All I've heard is Hamas's
claim of the death toll, which is undoubtedly exaggerated. By how
much I
have no idea.
Andy.
My understanding is that they've given all the names. Have you any
evidence it
is exaggerated?
Why the sudden interest in evidence? :)
Why the need for proof and then claiming, without any evidence, there
are perhaps tens of thousands of journalists in Gaza. I can only see bias.
On 15/11/2023 12:28, GB wrote:
On 14/11/2023 13:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/11/2023 13:16, GB wrote:
On 14/11/2023 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Nov 2023 at 12:21:03 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 14/11/2023 11:16, The Todal wrote:
Now, you can pretend that Israeli forces are up against tanks and >>>>>>> artillery manned by Hamas soldiers, the equivalent of the Iraq
army. But
that would, of course, be a brazen lie.
You are accusing me of a brazen lie. Couldn't you at least find
something to disagree with that I have actually said?
Nearly all the deaths in Iraq occurred long after the Iraqi army
packed
up and went home, so yours is an extraordinarily poor point, anyway. >>>>>>
Indeed, we only know the death toll in Gaza due to direct military
action of
the occupying forces. How many have died or will die because of
lack of water,
food, shelter, family support or medical care is unknown. And
perhaps never
will be if the Israeli forces continue to systematically kill
journalists and
anyone from the outside world trying to help the population.
I was going to stop replying to these comments, but can I just check
what you mean by "Israeli forces continue to systematically kill
journalists"?
Are they perhaps rounding up journalists? Clearly, nobody has
suggested that. So, is it just pure hyperbole? And, if so, why?
So far just 13 rounded up and arrested.
It's obviously hyperbole. So, my question stands: Why did Roger say
it? He obviously feels strongly about this, but what is the point of
going way OTT?
I don't see any hyperbole above?
On 16/11/2023 01:43, Fredxx wrote:
And who said terrorism isn't successful?
I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but there are reasons why Hamas is
supported in Gaza. Who else will take on the Palestinian struggle? Or do
you think the Gazans should acquiesce and accept their position in the
world order?
You keep arguing in support of Netanyahu's actions!
On 15/11/2023 14:06, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/11/2023 12:33, GB wrote:
On 14/11/2023 21:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Nov 2023 at 21:43:36 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed, we only know the death toll in Gaza due to direct military >>>>>> action of
the occupying forces. How many have died or will die because of
lack of water,
food, shelter, family support or medical care is unknown. And
perhaps never
will be if the Israeli forces continue to systematically kill
journalists and
anyone from the outside world trying to help the population.
I don't think we even know the death toll. All I've heard is Hamas's >>>>> claim of the death toll, which is undoubtedly exaggerated. By how
much I
have no idea.
Andy.
My understanding is that they've given all the names. Have you any
evidence it
is exaggerated?
Why the sudden interest in evidence? :)
Why the need for proof and then claiming, without any evidence, there
are perhaps tens of thousands of journalists in Gaza. I can only see
bias.
You were welcome to research the number yourself.
On 15/11/2023 14:06, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/11/2023 12:33, GB wrote:
On 14/11/2023 21:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Nov 2023 at 21:43:36 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed, we only know the death toll in Gaza due to direct military >>>>>> action of
the occupying forces. How many have died or will die because of
lack of water,
food, shelter, family support or medical care is unknown. And
perhaps never
will be if the Israeli forces continue to systematically kill
journalists and
anyone from the outside world trying to help the population.
I don't think we even know the death toll. All I've heard is Hamas's >>>>> claim of the death toll, which is undoubtedly exaggerated. By how
much I
have no idea.
Andy.
My understanding is that they've given all the names. Have you any
evidence it
is exaggerated?
Why the sudden interest in evidence? :)
Why the need for proof and then claiming, without any evidence, there
are perhaps tens of thousands of journalists in Gaza. I can only see bias.
You were welcome to research the number yourself.
In terms of 'systematically killing journalists' it makes no difference whether there are tens of thousands, or the actual figure, which is
reported as 'around 1000'. 37 out of 1000 is not systematic killing.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I think that comment was idiotic for various reasons, notably that it
isn't actually a "war" when you attack a captive civilian population
which has no army, air force, tanks, artillery etc.
I’m afraid that you seem to be out of touch with the current situation in the Hamas-Israeli conflict.
On 2023-11-15, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 13:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/11/2023 13:16, GB wrote:
On 14/11/2023 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed, we only know the death toll in Gaza due to direct military
action of the occupying forces. How many have died or will die
because of lack of water, food, shelter, family support or medical
care is unknown. And perhaps never will be if the Israeli forces
continue to systematically kill journalists and anyone from the
outside world trying to help the population.
I was going to stop replying to these comments, but can I just check
what you mean by "Israeli forces continue to systematically kill
journalists"?
Are they perhaps rounding up journalists? Clearly, nobody has
suggested that. So, is it just pure hyperbole? And, if so, why?
So far just 13 rounded up and arrested.
It's obviously hyperbole. So, my question stands: Why did Roger say it?
He obviously feels strongly about this, but what is the point of going
way OTT?
Because it's not "obviously hyperbole" - it appears to be true?
Those are fairly meaningless figures without knowing how many
journalists there are in Gaza. At the moment, I would guess thousands,
perhaps tens of thousands.
You think 1 in every 100 people in Gaza is a journalist?
That seems *spectacularly* unlikely.
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 15:34:30 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 13:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
In particular, the statement that "In Judaism Israel is the promised land" >>> is an example of a very over-wide assumption. It is true that the majority >>> of religious Jews would agree that Israel was, historically, the promised >>> land (but even that would not necessarily be shared by people who consider >>> themselves to be simply ethnic Jews). But it is certainly not true that all >>> Jews, and not even all religious Jews, would state that it still is the
promised land, in the sense of having a divine right to occupy it. Even
among those Jews (which is almost certainly the majority) who support
Israel's right to exist, many of them support it on the basis of
self-determination and/or as justifiable compensation for the centuries of >>> discrimination which ultimately led to the Holocaust, rather than because it
is the will of God.
That's an interesting take. Does this mean many muslims, certainly >>Palestinians, could describe themselves racially as a Jew?
Judaism is complicated, because it's both an ethnic group and a religion. I >think that makes it unique, at least among major religions and ethnic
groups. Islam, on the other hand, is solely a religion, and people of any
and every ethnic groups can be - and are - Muslims.
So, at least in theory, it's entirely possible for there to be people who
are ethnically Jewish but religiously Muslim. It's certainly true that there >are people who are ethnically Jewish but religiously Christian, and it's
also true that there are people who are ethnically Jewish but consider >themselves atheist or agnostic as far as religion is concerned. I know
people who fall into both those categories.
So a Jewish Muslim is not in any way implausible, although I suspect it's a >bit less likely than some of the others. I don't think that many
Palestinians would consider themselves ethnically Jewish, although of course >they're all part of the same underlying Levantine ethnicity.
Mark
As a matter of interest, can someone not ethnically Jewish "convert"
to Judaism? Would he be accepted by other Jews?
On 15/11/2023 20:14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-15, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 13:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/11/2023 13:16, GB wrote:
On 14/11/2023 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed, we only know the death toll in Gaza due to direct military >>>>>> action of the occupying forces. How many have died or will die
because of lack of water, food, shelter, family support or medical >>>>>> care is unknown. And perhaps never will be if the Israeli forces
continue to systematically kill journalists and anyone from the
outside world trying to help the population.
I was going to stop replying to these comments, but can I just check >>>>> what you mean by "Israeli forces continue to systematically kill
journalists"?
Are they perhaps rounding up journalists? Clearly, nobody has
suggested that. So, is it just pure hyperbole? And, if so, why?
So far just 13 rounded up and arrested.
It's obviously hyperbole. So, my question stands: Why did Roger say it?
He obviously feels strongly about this, but what is the point of going
way OTT?
Because it's not "obviously hyperbole" - it appears to be true?
Do you have some basis for dismissing all alternative theories, such as
that journalists go where the action is, and put themselves at risk?
I suggested that there might be thousands of journalists, but that got dismissed by Todal as absolutely absurd and then he impugned my motives
for saying it.
And who said terrorism isn't successful?
I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but there are reasons why Hamas is supported in Gaza. Who else will take on the Palestinian struggle? Or do
you think the Gazans should acquiesce and accept their position in the
world order?
Eh? When did I ever say that? Please don't attribute inaccurate words to
me.
On 16/11/2023 12:02, The Todal wrote:
Eh? When did I ever say that? Please don't attribute inaccurate words
to me.
I am perplexed, too, as I can't find the post. If I maligned you, I apologise, of course.
In article <n91alitevnabado5vri838f2g7qpr2pcgf@4ax.com>, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 15:34:30 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:As a matter of interest, can someone not ethnically Jewish "convert"
On 15/11/2023 13:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
In particular, the statement that "In Judaism Israel is the promised land" >>>> is an example of a very over-wide assumption. It is true that the majority >>>> of religious Jews would agree that Israel was, historically, the promised >>>> land (but even that would not necessarily be shared by people who consider >>>> themselves to be simply ethnic Jews). But it is certainly not true that all
Jews, and not even all religious Jews, would state that it still is the >>>> promised land, in the sense of having a divine right to occupy it. Even >>>> among those Jews (which is almost certainly the majority) who support
Israel's right to exist, many of them support it on the basis of
self-determination and/or as justifiable compensation for the centuries of >>>> discrimination which ultimately led to the Holocaust, rather than because it
is the will of God.
That's an interesting take. Does this mean many muslims, certainly
Palestinians, could describe themselves racially as a Jew?
Judaism is complicated, because it's both an ethnic group and a religion. I >> think that makes it unique, at least among major religions and ethnic
groups. Islam, on the other hand, is solely a religion, and people of any
and every ethnic groups can be - and are - Muslims.
So, at least in theory, it's entirely possible for there to be people who
are ethnically Jewish but religiously Muslim. It's certainly true that there >> are people who are ethnically Jewish but religiously Christian, and it's
also true that there are people who are ethnically Jewish but consider
themselves atheist or agnostic as far as religion is concerned. I know
people who fall into both those categories.
So a Jewish Muslim is not in any way implausible, although I suspect it's a >> bit less likely than some of the others. I don't think that many
Palestinians would consider themselves ethnically Jewish, although of course >> they're all part of the same underlying Levantine ethnicity.
Mark
to Judaism? Would he be accepted by other Jews?
On 15/11/2023 20:14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-15, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 13:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/11/2023 13:16, GB wrote:
On 14/11/2023 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed, we only know the death toll in Gaza due to direct military >>>>>> action of the occupying forces. How many have died or will die
because of lack of water, food, shelter, family support or medical >>>>>> care is unknown. And perhaps never will be if the Israeli forces
continue to systematically kill journalists and anyone from the
outside world trying to help the population.
I was going to stop replying to these comments, but can I just check >>>>> what you mean by "Israeli forces continue to systematically kill
journalists"?
Are they perhaps rounding up journalists? Clearly, nobody has
suggested that. So, is it just pure hyperbole? And, if so, why?
So far just 13 rounded up and arrested.
It's obviously hyperbole. So, my question stands: Why did Roger say it?
He obviously feels strongly about this, but what is the point of going
way OTT?
Because it's not "obviously hyperbole" - it appears to be true?
Do you have some basis for dismissing all alternative theories, such as
that journalists go where the action is, and put themselves at risk?
I suggested that there might be thousands of journalists, but that got dismissed by Todal as absolutely absurd and then he impugned my motives
for saying it.
However, my rough guess was at least in the right direction:
"Tim Dawson, the deputy general secretary at International Federation of Journalists, told ABC News there are about 1,000 journalists in Gaza"
https://abcnews.go.com/International/israel-hamas-war-deadliest-conflict-journalists-1992-cpj/story?id=104718365
In article <n91alitevnabado5vri838f2g7qpr2pcgf@4ax.com>, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 15:34:30 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:As a matter of interest, can someone not ethnically Jewish "convert"
On 15/11/2023 13:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
In particular, the statement that "In Judaism Israel is the promised land" >>>> is an example of a very over-wide assumption. It is true that the majority >>>> of religious Jews would agree that Israel was, historically, the promised >>>> land (but even that would not necessarily be shared by people who consider >>>> themselves to be simply ethnic Jews). But it is certainly not true that all
Jews, and not even all religious Jews, would state that it still is the >>>> promised land, in the sense of having a divine right to occupy it. Even >>>> among those Jews (which is almost certainly the majority) who support
Israel's right to exist, many of them support it on the basis of
self-determination and/or as justifiable compensation for the centuries of >>>> discrimination which ultimately led to the Holocaust, rather than because it
is the will of God.
That's an interesting take. Does this mean many muslims, certainly
Palestinians, could describe themselves racially as a Jew?
Judaism is complicated, because it's both an ethnic group and a religion. I >> think that makes it unique, at least among major religions and ethnic
groups. Islam, on the other hand, is solely a religion, and people of any
and every ethnic groups can be - and are - Muslims.
So, at least in theory, it's entirely possible for there to be people who
are ethnically Jewish but religiously Muslim. It's certainly true that there >> are people who are ethnically Jewish but religiously Christian, and it's
also true that there are people who are ethnically Jewish but consider
themselves atheist or agnostic as far as religion is concerned. I know
people who fall into both those categories.
So a Jewish Muslim is not in any way implausible, although I suspect it's a >> bit less likely than some of the others. I don't think that many
Palestinians would consider themselves ethnically Jewish, although of course >> they're all part of the same underlying Levantine ethnicity.
Mark
to Judaism? Would he be accepted by other Jews?
On 16/11/2023 09:43, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I think that comment was idiotic for various reasons, notably that it
isn't actually a "war" when you attack a captive civilian population
which has no army, air force, tanks, artillery etc.
Im afraid that you seem to be out of touch with the current situation in
the Hamas-Israeli conflict.
Or you are. I think it's you who is out of touch, out of the loop. I
think most other people are up to speed. Yesterday Jess Phillips and a
number of other courageous Labour MPs defied their leader's whip and
voted for an immediate ceasefire. This was a vote to prevent further >massacres of innocent civilians. Israel of course claims that a
ceasefire would be a surrender to terrorism.
I don't know, it is a very closed society, and perhaps it is that and
it's historical treatment of gentiles as opposed to their own that has created hatred.
An example is a friend who was born a jew to a jewish mother and married
a woman without the same credentials. She converted to judaism but their children were not always welcome to certain events.
He said to me that
was an aspect that annoyed him and he felt they were being unnecessarily excluded.
On 16/11/2023 11:26 am, Bill Borland wrote:
In article <n91alitevnabado5vri838f2g7qpr2pcgf@4ax.com>, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 15:34:30 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:As a matter of interest, can someone not ethnically Jewish "convert"
On 15/11/2023 13:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
In particular, the statement that "In Judaism Israel is the promised land"
is an example of a very over-wide assumption. It is true that the majority
of religious Jews would agree that Israel was, historically, the promised >>>>> land (but even that would not necessarily be shared by people who consider
themselves to be simply ethnic Jews). But it is certainly not true that all
Jews, and not even all religious Jews, would state that it still is the >>>>> promised land, in the sense of having a divine right to occupy it. Even >>>>> among those Jews (which is almost certainly the majority) who support >>>>> Israel's right to exist, many of them support it on the basis of
self-determination and/or as justifiable compensation for the centuries of
discrimination which ultimately led to the Holocaust, rather than because it
is the will of God.
That's an interesting take. Does this mean many muslims, certainly
Palestinians, could describe themselves racially as a Jew?
Judaism is complicated, because it's both an ethnic group and a religion. I >>> think that makes it unique, at least among major religions and ethnic
groups. Islam, on the other hand, is solely a religion, and people of any >>> and every ethnic groups can be - and are - Muslims.
So, at least in theory, it's entirely possible for there to be people who >>> are ethnically Jewish but religiously Muslim. It's certainly true that there
are people who are ethnically Jewish but religiously Christian, and it's >>> also true that there are people who are ethnically Jewish but consider
themselves atheist or agnostic as far as religion is concerned. I know
people who fall into both those categories.
So a Jewish Muslim is not in any way implausible, although I suspect it's a >>> bit less likely than some of the others. I don't think that many
Palestinians would consider themselves ethnically Jewish, although of course
they're all part of the same underlying Levantine ethnicity.
Mark
to Judaism? Would he be accepted by other Jews?
A famous example would be Sammy Davis Jnr, who converted about sixty
years ago, partly in order to be able to marry a Jewish woman.
And wasn't there a cohort of black (African) Jews whom Israel airlifted
from NE Africa to Israel a couple of decades ago?
On 16/11/2023 12:41, Fredxx wrote:
I don't know, it is a very closed society, and perhaps it is that and
it's historical treatment of gentiles as opposed to their own that has
created hatred.
Those who want to hate Jews clearly don't need an excuse.
For millennia Jews were banned from proselytising by our Christian
hosts, so maybe we are out of practice?
Given that for much of that
time Christians were at each others' throats for being the wrong sort of Christian, it is understandable they had a short fuse as far as Jews
were concerned.
Besides that, Jews believe that non-Jews only need to keep the 7 Noahide
Laws in order to be saved. So, why would anyone sane take on the 613
laws that apply to Jews if they don't have to?
Anyway, in your view, keeping a low profile so as not to get massacred
is equivalent to a very closed society, and if I disagree you may start
a pogrom, so of course you are right.
An example is a friend who was born a jew to a jewish mother and
married a woman without the same credentials. She converted to judaism
but their children were not always welcome to certain events.
There are different groups within Judaism, unfortunately, and they don't necessarily accept each other's conversions. An orthodox conversion is
such a long-winded process that potential converts understandably don't
want to go through it - with the result you outlined above.
Comparing to Christianity, there are similar issues: I'm not sure how straightforward things would be if say a Mormon marries a staunch Catholic?
He said to me that was an aspect that annoyed him and he felt they
were being unnecessarily excluded.
Your friend could have accepted 2, 3, or more years of celibacy whilst
his potential bride undertook an orthodox conversion, but as he didn't
do so, what's he complaining about?
It's not fair that I haven't been included in the British Olympic squad,
even though I am old, overweight, and never train. I also feel
unnecessarily excluded.
On 16 Nov 2023 at 16:10:45 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/11/2023 11:26 am, Bill Borland wrote:
In article <n91alitevnabado5vri838f2g7qpr2pcgf@4ax.com>, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 15:34:30 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>As a matter of interest, can someone not ethnically Jewish "convert" >>> to Judaism? Would he be accepted by other Jews?
On 15/11/2023 13:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
In particular, the statement that "In Judaism Israel is the promised land"
is an example of a very over-wide assumption. It is true that the majority
of religious Jews would agree that Israel was, historically, the promised
land (but even that would not necessarily be shared by people who consider
themselves to be simply ethnic Jews). But it is certainly not true that all
Jews, and not even all religious Jews, would state that it still is the >>>>>> promised land, in the sense of having a divine right to occupy it. Even >>>>>> among those Jews (which is almost certainly the majority) who support >>>>>> Israel's right to exist, many of them support it on the basis of
self-determination and/or as justifiable compensation for the centuries of
discrimination which ultimately led to the Holocaust, rather than because it
is the will of God.
That's an interesting take. Does this mean many muslims, certainly
Palestinians, could describe themselves racially as a Jew?
Judaism is complicated, because it's both an ethnic group and a religion. I
think that makes it unique, at least among major religions and ethnic
groups. Islam, on the other hand, is solely a religion, and people of any >>>> and every ethnic groups can be - and are - Muslims.
So, at least in theory, it's entirely possible for there to be people who >>>> are ethnically Jewish but religiously Muslim. It's certainly true that there
are people who are ethnically Jewish but religiously Christian, and it's >>>> also true that there are people who are ethnically Jewish but consider >>>> themselves atheist or agnostic as far as religion is concerned. I know >>>> people who fall into both those categories.
So a Jewish Muslim is not in any way implausible, although I suspect it's a
bit less likely than some of the others. I don't think that many
Palestinians would consider themselves ethnically Jewish, although of course
they're all part of the same underlying Levantine ethnicity.
Mark
A famous example would be Sammy Davis Jnr, who converted about sixty
years ago, partly in order to be able to marry a Jewish woman.
And wasn't there a cohort of black (African) Jews whom Israel airlifted
from NE Africa to Israel a couple of decades ago?
The African Jews *were* ethnically Jewish.
You seem to have a preconception
about ethnicity based on the otherness of black people.
Maybe, but there is generally a reason, not just differences. Financial lending and debt brings the worst out in people on both sides.
Anyway, in your view, keeping a low profile so as not to get massacred
is equivalent to a very closed society, and if I disagree you may
start a pogrom, so of course you are right.
That doesn't follow. If religion impinges on others' freedoms then that
is when the line is crossed.
Comparing to Christianity, there are similar issues: I'm not sure how
straightforward things would be if say a Mormon marries a staunch
Catholic?
I could be wrong, but once converted into any form of christianity then
they and their children are generally accepted into the faith without
any further judgement. BICBW
He said to me that was an aspect that annoyed him and he felt they
were being unnecessarily excluded.
Your friend could have accepted 2, 3, or more years of celibacy whilst
his potential bride undertook an orthodox conversion, but as he didn't
do so, what's he complaining about?
I thought that happened though not so sure about the celibacy.
It's not fair that I haven't been included in the British Olympic
squad, even though I am old, overweight, and never train. I also feel
unnecessarily excluded.
Is the olympic squad a religion where membership requires a misplaced
belief in a specific mythical deity?
On 16/11/2023 07:11 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Nov 2023 at 16:10:45 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/11/2023 11:26 am, Bill Borland wrote:
In article <n91alitevnabado5vri838f2g7qpr2pcgf@4ax.com>, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 15:34:30 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>As a matter of interest, can someone not ethnically Jewish "convert" >>>> to Judaism? Would he be accepted by other Jews?
On 15/11/2023 13:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
In particular, the statement that "In Judaism Israel is the promised land"
is an example of a very over-wide assumption. It is true that the majority
of religious Jews would agree that Israel was, historically, the promised
land (but even that would not necessarily be shared by people who consider
themselves to be simply ethnic Jews). But it is certainly not true that all
Jews, and not even all religious Jews, would state that it still is the >>>>>>> promised land, in the sense of having a divine right to occupy it. Even >>>>>>> among those Jews (which is almost certainly the majority) who support >>>>>>> Israel's right to exist, many of them support it on the basis of >>>>>>> self-determination and/or as justifiable compensation for the centuries of
discrimination which ultimately led to the Holocaust, rather than because it
is the will of God.
That's an interesting take. Does this mean many muslims, certainly >>>>>> Palestinians, could describe themselves racially as a Jew?
Judaism is complicated, because it's both an ethnic group and a religion. I
think that makes it unique, at least among major religions and ethnic >>>>> groups. Islam, on the other hand, is solely a religion, and people of any >>>>> and every ethnic groups can be - and are - Muslims.
So, at least in theory, it's entirely possible for there to be people who >>>>> are ethnically Jewish but religiously Muslim. It's certainly true that there
are people who are ethnically Jewish but religiously Christian, and it's >>>>> also true that there are people who are ethnically Jewish but consider >>>>> themselves atheist or agnostic as far as religion is concerned. I know >>>>> people who fall into both those categories.
So a Jewish Muslim is not in any way implausible, although I suspect it's a
bit less likely than some of the others. I don't think that many
Palestinians would consider themselves ethnically Jewish, although of course
they're all part of the same underlying Levantine ethnicity.
Mark
A famous example would be Sammy Davis Jnr, who converted about sixty
years ago, partly in order to be able to marry a Jewish woman.
And wasn't there a cohort of black (African) Jews whom Israel airlifted
from NE Africa to Israel a couple of decades ago?
The African Jews *were* ethnically Jewish.
That's an odd definition of "ethnic" and its derivatives that you seem
to be working from.
You seem to have a preconception
about ethnicity based on the otherness of black people.
<sigh>
On a witch-hunt again?
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:55:42 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 17:19, Mark Goodge wrote:
Anyway, as well as being a hate crime, that placard is a clear and obvious >>> example of Godwin's Law. Unfortunately, you won't find Godwin's law in the >>> statute books or referenced in a precedent-setting court judgment, so the >>> police, not unreasonably, have to disregard it. But every well-informed, >>> right-thinking person will automatically dissociate themselves from anything
which invokes it.
To say the Israelis are behaving like Nazis is not, of course, to say
that they are rounding up people, putting them in extermination camps,
gassing them, lining them up next to ditches and opening fire, gassing
disabled people, invading Poland, sending aircraft to bomb the London
docks, need I continue?
Then they're not really behaving like the Nazis, in any meaningful sense.
Use of the term "Nazi" to mean "someone who is doing things I strongly disapprove of" is linguistic bollocks.
Mark
On 15/11/2023 10:37, Pamela wrote:
There clearly are civilian deaths, which is the tragic price paid to
save Gaza's Palestinians from Hamas.
Saving them by exterminating them, indiscriminately.
Maybe you should step up to the plate yourself - offer yourself as a
human sacrifice in order to save the Palestinians from Hamas.
However such losses are not unexpected when we recall other
conflicts, such as the Battle for Normandy in WW2 in which 20,000
French civilians died. More recently the battle for Mosul cost
10,000 (genuine) civilian lives.
It's very sad and Hamas would have predicted this outcome when it
attacked Israel on October 7th.
Certainly the UK and the USA would have predicted this outcome - the
mass slaughter of innocent people - which is why it is disgraceful
that they did nothing to restrain Israel. Except maybe secretly,
behind the scenes encouraging them to show some mercy to the babies
and civilian women. To which Israel would have replied, thank you but
go fuck yourselves, this is our war not yours.
On 16/11/2023 11:26, Bill Borland wrote:
As a matter of interest, can someone not ethnically Jewish "convert"
to Judaism? Would he be accepted by other Jews?
I don't know, it is a very closed society, and perhaps it is that and
it's historical treatment of gentiles as opposed to their own that has created hatred.
An example is a friend who was born a jew to a jewish mother and married
a woman without the same credentials. She converted to judaism but their children were not always welcome to certain events. He said to me that
was an aspect that annoyed him and he felt they were being unnecessarily excluded.
On 11/14/23 14:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:55:42 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 13/11/2023 17:19, Mark Goodge wrote:
Anyway, as well as being a hate crime, that placard is a clear and
obvious
example of Godwin's Law. Unfortunately, you won't find Godwin's law
in the
statute books or referenced in a precedent-setting court judgment,
so the
police, not unreasonably, have to disregard it. But every
well-informed,
right-thinking person will automatically dissociate themselves from
anything
which invokes it.
To say the Israelis are behaving like Nazis is not, of course, to say
that they are rounding up people, putting them in extermination camps,
gassing them, lining them up next to ditches and opening fire, gassing
disabled people, invading Poland, sending aircraft to bomb the London
docks, need I continue?
Then they're not really behaving like the Nazis, in any meaningful sense.
Use of the term "Nazi" to mean "someone who is doing things I strongly
disapprove of" is linguistic bollocks.
No, the use of Nazi as a cautionary tale is not an insult. Cautionary
tales are used to warn that a specific behaviour leads to a specific
danger, a specific outcome.
In the Nazi case, the warning is that race supremacism, expansionism, nationalism, distorted propaganda dehumanising a subpopulation, and
racist disenfranchisement of this subpopulation lead to a
desensitisation of compassion that allows wholesale murder to occur.
The thing is that these comparisons do fit with Israel, and hence it is
a very powerful analogy. Any regime that valued media presentation and propaganda would naturally try to ban it, out of hand, rather than
convince people it was inappropriate.
The Jews have done more than anyone to promote the Nazis and the
Holocaust as a cautionary tale. It is completely proper that it should
be applied to them as to every one else.
Never again, for anyone.
Another example would be a relative of mine, Jewish and of Jewish
parents, definitely therefore Jewish but he married a gentile woman. He
and his gentile wife went to Israel to visit his sister's daughter in
her home in Tel Aviv. The daughter was friendly and welcoming but her
husband said he was not willing to meet with them or speak to them
because it would offend his religious principles, whatever those
principles were. But I wouldn't blame all or even most Jews for the
behaviour of a tiny minority.
On 16/11/2023 22:36, Pancho wrote:
On 11/14/23 14:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 17:19, Mark Goodge wrote:
Anyway, as well as being a hate crime, that placard is a clear and
obvious
example of Godwin's Law. Unfortunately, you won't find Godwin's law
in the
statute books or referenced in a precedent-setting court judgment,
so the
police, not unreasonably, have to disregard it. But every
well-informed,
right-thinking person will automatically dissociate themselves from
anything
which invokes it.
To say the Israelis are behaving like Nazis is not, of course, to say
that they are rounding up people, putting them in extermination camps, >>>> gassing them, lining them up next to ditches and opening fire, gassing >>>> disabled people, invading Poland, sending aircraft to bomb the London
docks, need I continue?
Then they're not really behaving like the Nazis, in any meaningful
sense.
Use of the term "Nazi" to mean "someone who is doing things I strongly
disapprove of" is linguistic bollocks.
No, the use of Nazi as a cautionary tale is not an insult. Cautionary
tales are used to warn that a specific behaviour leads to a specific
danger, a specific outcome.
In the Nazi case, the warning is that race supremacism, expansionism,
nationalism, distorted propaganda dehumanising a subpopulation, and
racist disenfranchisement of this subpopulation lead to a
desensitisation of compassion that allows wholesale murder to occur.
The thing is that these comparisons do fit with Israel, and hence it
is a very powerful analogy. Any regime that valued media presentation
and propaganda would naturally try to ban it, out of hand, rather than
convince people it was inappropriate.
The Jews have done more than anyone to promote the Nazis and the
Holocaust as a cautionary tale. It is completely proper that it should
be applied to them as to every one else.
Never again, for anyone.
Agreed! You've explained it far better than I did. What's more, there
are many Jews who agree with the above, but their voice is not heard in
our mass media, which always regards the Board of Deputies as the
authentic voice of the entire Jewish community. And Ruth Smeeth, and Luciana Berger. And Gideon Falter.
Where is your bias here or would that make you antisemitic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
And who said terrorism isn't successful?
I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but there are reasons why Hamas is supported in Gaza. Who else will take on the Palestinian struggle? Or do
you think the Gazans should acquiesce and accept their position in the
world order?
On 16/11/2023 19:57, Fredxx wrote:
Maybe, but there is generally a reason, not just differences.
Financial lending and debt brings the worst out in people on both sides.
On my father's side, I can trace my ancestry back for 300 years. They
were all doctors. I am so terribly, terribly sorry that we don't conform
to your stereotype of usury. I'll try harder.
On 16/11/2023 21:44, GB wrote:
On 16/11/2023 19:57, Fredxx wrote:
Maybe, but there is generally a reason, not just differences.
Financial lending and debt brings the worst out in people on both sides.
On my father's side, I can trace my ancestry back for 300 years. They
were all doctors. I am so terribly, terribly sorry that we don't
conform to your stereotype of usury. I'll try harder.
It's a side issue, but people don't usually like it when they borrow
money and the bank want it back with interest.
AIUI Christian law forbade the charging of interest until quite
recently; Muslim law still does. Jewish law does not, so only they could
be bankers.
On 16/11/2023 18:48, GB wrote:
On 16/11/2023 12:41, Fredxx wrote:
I don't know, it is a very closed society, and perhaps it is that and
it's historical treatment of gentiles as opposed to their own that has
created hatred.
Those who want to hate Jews clearly don't need an excuse.
Maybe, but there is generally a reason, not just differences. Financial lending and debt brings the worst out in people on both sides.
No, the*odd* definition is to base a race or ethnicity on skin colour. AIUI the Ethiopian Jews worshipped and lived in comparable way to other Jewish communities. It is out-and-out crass racism to suggest they can't be ethnically Jewish because they happen to be black. In case you hadn't got the memo, black people aren't a different race. And many European Jews had relatively little visibly in common with their presumed Levantine roots, any more than the Ethiopian Jews did.
On 16/11/2023 21:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
No, the*odd* definition is to base a race or ethnicity on skin
colour. AIUI
the Ethiopian Jews worshipped and lived in comparable way to other Jewish
communities. It is out-and-out crass racism to suggest they can't be
ethnically Jewish because they happen to be black. In case you hadn't
got the
memo, black people aren't a different race. And many European Jews had
relatively little visibly in common with their presumed Levantine
roots, any
more than the Ethiopian Jews did.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews#Y-DNA_of_Ethiopian_Jews>
is an interesting read. I shan't comment on its contents.
I'm curious though - what is your definition of race?
Andy
On 16/11/2023 21:44, GB wrote:
On 16/11/2023 19:57, Fredxx wrote:
Maybe, but there is generally a reason, not just differences.
Financial lending and debt brings the worst out in people on both sides.
On my father's side, I can trace my ancestry back for 300 years. They
were all doctors. I am so terribly, terribly sorry that we don't
conform to your stereotype of usury. I'll try harder.
It's a side issue, but people don't usually like it when they borrow
money and the bank want it back with interest.
AIUI Christian law forbade the charging of interest until quite
recently; Muslim law still does. Jewish law does not, so only they could
be bankers.
On 17/11/2023 10:01, The Todal wrote:
Another example would be a relative of mine, Jewish and of Jewish
parents, definitely therefore Jewish but he married a gentile woman. He
and his gentile wife went to Israel to visit his sister's daughter in
her home in Tel Aviv. The daughter was friendly and welcoming but her
husband said he was not willing to meet with them or speak to them
because it would offend his religious principles, whatever those
principles were. But I wouldn't blame all or even most Jews for the
behaviour of a tiny minority.
Somebody chose not to meet somebody else. Why would you blame anybody
for that? I can think of people I would choose not to meet - Nigel
Farage, for one. Whom are you going to blame for that?
Maybe you would feel similarly about Farage, or Tony Blair, or Keir
Starmer? Should I lump you in with some group or other, and then
graciously say I wouldn't blame the lot of them?
The Sabbath starts in a few minutes,
On 16/11/2023 21:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
No, the*odd* definition is to base a race or ethnicity on skin
colour. AIUI
the Ethiopian Jews worshipped and lived in comparable way to other Jewish
communities. It is out-and-out crass racism to suggest they can't be
ethnically Jewish because they happen to be black. In case you hadn't
got the
memo, black people aren't a different race. And many European Jews had
relatively little visibly in common with their presumed Levantine
roots, any
more than the Ethiopian Jews did.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews#Y-DNA_of_Ethiopian_Jews>
is an interesting read. I shan't comment on its contents.
I'm curious though - what is your definition of race?
On 17/11/2023 10:01, The Todal wrote:
Another example would be a relative of mine, Jewish and of Jewish
parents, definitely therefore Jewish but he married a gentile woman.
He and his gentile wife went to Israel to visit his sister's daughter
in her home in Tel Aviv. The daughter was friendly and welcoming but
her husband said he was not willing to meet with them or speak to them
because it would offend his religious principles, whatever those
principles were. But I wouldn't blame all or even most Jews for the
behaviour of a tiny minority.
Somebody chose not to meet somebody else. Why would you blame anybody
for that? I can think of people I would choose not to meet - Nigel
Farage, for one. Whom are you going to blame for that?
Maybe you would feel similarly about Farage, or Tony Blair, or Keir
Starmer? Should I lump you in with some group or other, and then
graciously say I wouldn't blame the lot of them?
On 16/11/2023 21:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
No, the*odd* definition is to base a race or ethnicity on skin colour. AIUI >> the Ethiopian Jews worshipped and lived in comparable way to other Jewish
communities. It is out-and-out crass racism to suggest they can't be
ethnically Jewish because they happen to be black. In case you hadn't got the
memo, black people aren't a different race. And many European Jews had
relatively little visibly in common with their presumed Levantine roots, any >> more than the Ethiopian Jews did.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews#Y-DNA_of_Ethiopian_Jews>
is an interesting read. I shan't comment on its contents.
I'm curious though - what is your definition of race?
Andy
On 17/11/2023 02:03 pm, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 16/11/2023 21:44, GB wrote:
On 16/11/2023 19:57, Fredxx wrote:
Maybe, but there is generally a reason, not just differences.
Financial lending and debt brings the worst out in people on both
sides.
On my father's side, I can trace my ancestry back for 300 years. They
were all doctors. I am so terribly, terribly sorry that we don't
conform to your stereotype of usury. I'll try harder.
It's a side issue, but people don't usually like it when they borrow
money and the bank want it back with interest.
Really?
AIUI Christian law forbade the charging of interest until quite
recently; Muslim law still does. Jewish law does not, so only they
could be bankers.
What does "quite recently" mean?
Well there are no true races of humans at least for the last few millennia. >For instance, anyone who can look at a Somali person and an Eastern Nigerian >and suppose that their skin colour makes them the same race, or that they are >closer genetically to each other than each is to, say, a white English person >is ignoring the evidence of their own eyes in favour of a dogmatic belief in >the significance of skin colour.
On 17/11/2023 02:03 pm, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 16/11/2023 21:44, GB wrote:
On 16/11/2023 19:57, Fredxx wrote:
Maybe, but there is generally a reason, not just differences.On my father's side, I can trace my ancestry back for 300 years. They
Financial lending and debt brings the worst out in people on both sides. >>>
were all doctors. I am so terribly, terribly sorry that we don't
conform to your stereotype of usury. I'll try harder.
It's a side issue, but people don't usually like it when they borrow
money and the bank want it back with interest.
Really?
AIUI Christian law forbade the charging of interest until quite
recently; Muslim law still does. Jewish law does not, so only they could
be bankers.
What does "quite recently" mean?
On 16/11/2023 19:57, Fredxx wrote:
Maybe, but there is generally a reason, not just differences.
Financial lending and debt brings the worst out in people on both sides.
On my father's side, I can trace my ancestry back for 300 years. They
were all doctors. I am so terribly, terribly sorry that we don't conform
to your stereotype of usury. I'll try harder.
Anyway, in your view, keeping a low profile so as not to get
massacred is equivalent to a very closed society, and if I disagree
you may start a pogrom, so of course you are right.
That doesn't follow. If religion impinges on others' freedoms then
that is when the line is crossed.
That's very tolerant of you.
Comparing to Christianity, there are similar issues: I'm not sure how
straightforward things would be if say a Mormon marries a staunch
Catholic?
I could be wrong, but once converted into any form of christianity
then they and their children are generally accepted into the faith
without any further judgement. BICBW
But, will the children be brought up Catholic, or Mormon?
He said to me that was an aspect that annoyed him and he felt they
were being unnecessarily excluded.
Your friend could have accepted 2, 3, or more years of celibacy
whilst his potential bride undertook an orthodox conversion, but as
he didn't do so, what's he complaining about?
I thought that happened though not so sure about the celibacy.
The wife-to-be would have to be sincere about taking on a lifetime
commitment to those 613 laws, and obviously that would include chastity
until married.
It's not surprising that lots of people opt for a non-orthodox
conversion, but then they shouldn't be annoyed that the orthodox don't
accept it.
It's not fair that I haven't been included in the British Olympic
squad, even though I am old, overweight, and never train. I also feel
unnecessarily excluded.
Is the olympic squad a religion where membership requires a misplaced
belief in a specific mythical deity?
It's close to a religion for some sports fanatics.
In any case, you are diverting attention from the utter unfairness of excluding me from the Olympic squad on the flimsy basis that I am
hopeless at sport and spend no time training. It's ridiculous that
people who put in years of training get precedence.
On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 15:40:55 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
The Sabbath starts in a few minutes,
Aka wine o'clock, for the rest of us :-)
What we call "race" in the context of humans is what, in other animals, biologists would call a "breed". That is, an observable subset caused by in-group breeding but which remains, nonetheless, fully able to interbreed with any other member of the species.
To that extent, it's as wrong to say that race is a social construct as it
is to say that, say, a Cocker Spaniel is a social construct. The differences do objectively exist, and are observable. But it is wrong to say that visual differences, and in particular skin colours, are all that differentiate different human breeds (or races).
On 17 Nov 2023 18:39:52 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
What we call "race" in the context of humans is what, in other
animals, biologists would call a "breed". That is, an observable
subset caused by in-group breeding but which remains, nonetheless,
fully able to interbreed with any other member of the species.
AIUI Christian law forbade the charging of interest until quite
recently; Muslim law still does. Jewish law does not, so only they could
be bankers.
On 2023-11-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 15:40:55 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>> The Sabbath starts in a few minutes,
Aka wine o'clock, for the rest of us :-)
Sundown was 4.09pm today, which is a little early for wine o'clock
in my book I'm afraid :-p
On 17/11/2023 15:24, JNugent wrote:
On 17/11/2023 02:03 pm, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 16/11/2023 21:44, GB wrote:
On 16/11/2023 19:57, Fredxx wrote:
Maybe, but there is generally a reason, not just differences.
Financial lending and debt brings the worst out in people on both
sides.
On my father's side, I can trace my ancestry back for 300 years.
They were all doctors. I am so terribly, terribly sorry that we
don't conform to your stereotype of usury. I'll try harder.
It's a side issue, but people don't usually like it when they borrow
money and the bank want it back with interest.
Really?
AIUI Christian law forbade the charging of interest until quite
recently; Muslim law still does. Jewish law does not, so only they
could be bankers.
What does "quite recently" mean?
I made some searches and didn't come up with very much. This was my best
hit:
https://www.yourfaithyourfinance.org/money-and-faith/usury-and-the-theology-of-money/usury-in-christian-history/
On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 15:24:32 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/11/2023 02:03 pm, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 16/11/2023 21:44, GB wrote:
On 16/11/2023 19:57, Fredxx wrote:
Maybe, but there is generally a reason, not just differences.On my father's side, I can trace my ancestry back for 300 years. They
Financial lending and debt brings the worst out in people on both sides. >>>>
were all doctors. I am so terribly, terribly sorry that we don't
conform to your stereotype of usury. I'll try harder.
It's a side issue, but people don't usually like it when they borrow
money and the bank want it back with interest.
Really?
AIUI Christian law forbade the charging of interest until quite
recently; Muslim law still does. Jewish law does not, so only they could >>> be bankers.
What does "quite recently" mean?
Until around the 16th century, in most cases. Which is within the last quartile of Christianity's existence (so far). So, relatively recently.
On 17 Nov 2023 at 10:36:26 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/11/2023 10:01, The Todal wrote:
Another example would be a relative of mine, Jewish and of Jewish
parents, definitely therefore Jewish but he married a gentile woman. He
and his gentile wife went to Israel to visit his sister's daughter in
her home in Tel Aviv. The daughter was friendly and welcoming but her
husband said he was not willing to meet with them or speak to them
because it would offend his religious principles, whatever those
principles were. But I wouldn't blame all or even most Jews for the
behaviour of a tiny minority.
Somebody chose not to meet somebody else. Why would you blame anybody
for that? I can think of people I would choose not to meet - Nigel
Farage, for one. Whom are you going to blame for that?
Maybe you would feel similarly about Farage, or Tony Blair, or Keir
Starmer? Should I lump you in with some group or other, and then
graciously say I wouldn't blame the lot of them?
Mind you, if the "someone" was your wife's family and visiting your house you'd probably need a pretty good reason for "choosing' not to meet them.
On 16/11/2023 21:44, GB wrote:
On 16/11/2023 19:57, Fredxx wrote:
Maybe, but there is generally a reason, not just differences.
Financial lending and debt brings the worst out in people on both sides.
On my father's side, I can trace my ancestry back for 300 years. They
were all doctors. I am so terribly, terribly sorry that we don't
conform to your stereotype of usury. I'll try harder.
Yes, you should.At no time have I ever stated that all jews are money lenders.
Anyway, in your view, keeping a low profile so as not to get
massacred is equivalent to a very closed society, and if I disagree
you may start a pogrom, so of course you are right.
That doesn't follow. If religion impinges on others' freedoms then
that is when the line is crossed.
That's very tolerant of you.
It is, why should you enforce your doctrine on me?
I don't understand why you asked the question, unless it's based on the racist nature of some churches?
On 15/11/2023 20:14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-15, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 13:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/11/2023 13:16, GB wrote:
On 14/11/2023 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed, we only know the death toll in Gaza due to direct
military action of the occupying forces. How many have died or
will die because of lack of water, food, shelter, family support
or medical care is unknown. And perhaps never will be if the
Israeli forces continue to systematically kill journalists and
anyone from the outside world trying to help the population.
I was going to stop replying to these comments, but can I just
check what you mean by "Israeli forces continue to systematically
kill journalists"?
Are they perhaps rounding up journalists? Clearly, nobody has
suggested that. So, is it just pure hyperbole? And, if so, why?
So far just 13 rounded up and arrested.
It's obviously hyperbole. So, my question stands: Why did Roger say
it? He obviously feels strongly about this, but what is the point
of going way OTT?
Because it's not "obviously hyperbole" - it appears to be true?
Do you have some basis for dismissing all alternative theories, such
as that journalists go where the action is, and put themselves at
risk?
I suggested that there might be thousands of journalists, but that
got dismissed by Todal as absolutely absurd and then he impugned my
motives for saying it.
However, my rough guess was at least in the right direction:
"Tim Dawson, the deputy general secretary at International Federation
of Journalists, told ABC News there are about 1,000 journalists in
Gaza"
https://abcnews.go.com/International/israel-hamas-war-deadliest- conflict-journalists-1992-cpj/story?id=104718365
Could I suggest that people moderate what they say - certainly in
terms of attacking other posters on this NG. Otherwise, the moderated
group loses its purpose.
It would be better also to rein in the conspiracy theories, as they
spark a reaction, which doesn't help.
Those are fairly meaningless figures without knowing how many
journalists there are in Gaza. At the moment, I would guess
thousands, perhaps tens of thousands.
You think 1 in every 100 people in Gaza is a journalist? That seems
*spectacularly* unlikely.
You are quite correct. I guessed a bit high. I have just posted a
reference showing 1000 as the correct figure.
Clearly, 37 deaths out of 1000 contradicts the claim of
'systematically killing journalists'. As I said, these are brave
people, putting themselves in harm's way.
On 17/11/2023 20:27, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/11/2023 21:44, GB wrote:
On 16/11/2023 19:57, Fredxx wrote:
Maybe, but there is generally a reason, not just differences.
Financial lending and debt brings the worst out in people on both
sides.
On my father's side, I can trace my ancestry back for 300 years. They
were all doctors. I am so terribly, terribly sorry that we don't
conform to your stereotype of usury. I'll try harder.
Yes, you should.At no time have I ever stated that all jews are money
lenders.
You wrote:
"I don't know, it is a very closed society, and perhaps it is that and
it's historical treatment of gentiles as opposed to their own that has created hatred. "
"Maybe, but there is generally a reason, not just differences. Financial lending and debt brings the worst out in people on both sides."
Perhaps, you could explain what you had in mind?
Anyway, in your view, keeping a low profile so as not to get
massacred is equivalent to a very closed society, and if I disagree
you may start a pogrom, so of course you are right.
That doesn't follow. If religion impinges on others' freedoms then
that is when the line is crossed.
That's very tolerant of you.
It is, why should you enforce your doctrine on me?
We live in a society where everyone's freedoms impinge on everyone
else's. It happens all the time. Try driving down Holloway Road shortly before an Arsenal match, for example.
We normally sort it out with a bit of give and take.
Yet, you have just said that a massacre is justified if someone else's religion impinges on your freedoms.
I don't understand why you asked the question, unless it's based on
the racist nature of some churches?
I didn't ask a question. I was explaining what is wrong with your
statement here:
"An example is a friend who was born a jew to a jewish mother and
married a woman without the same credentials. She converted to judaism
but their children were not always welcome to certain events. He said to
me that was an aspect that annoyed him and he felt they were being unnecessarily excluded. "
If she opted for a shortcut conversion process, then there are orthodox
Jews who simply don't accept that she converted properly.
On 11:05 16 Nov 2023, GB said:
On 15/11/2023 20:14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-15, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 13:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/11/2023 13:16, GB wrote:
On 14/11/2023 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed, we only know the death toll in Gaza due to direct
military action of the occupying forces. How many have died or
will die because of lack of water, food, shelter, family support >>>>>>> or medical care is unknown. And perhaps never will be if the
Israeli forces continue to systematically kill journalists and
anyone from the outside world trying to help the population.
I was going to stop replying to these comments, but can I just
check what you mean by "Israeli forces continue to systematically
kill journalists"?
Are they perhaps rounding up journalists? Clearly, nobody has
suggested that. So, is it just pure hyperbole? And, if so, why?
So far just 13 rounded up and arrested.
It's obviously hyperbole. So, my question stands: Why did Roger say
it? He obviously feels strongly about this, but what is the point
of going way OTT?
Because it's not "obviously hyperbole" - it appears to be true?
Do you have some basis for dismissing all alternative theories, such
as that journalists go where the action is, and put themselves at
risk?
I suggested that there might be thousands of journalists, but that
got dismissed by Todal as absolutely absurd and then he impugned my
motives for saying it.
However, my rough guess was at least in the right direction:
"Tim Dawson, the deputy general secretary at International Federation
of Journalists, told ABC News there are about 1,000 journalists in
Gaza"
https://abcnews.go.com/International/israel-hamas-war-deadliest-
conflict-journalists-1992-cpj/story?id=104718365
Could I suggest that people moderate what they say - certainly in
terms of attacking other posters on this NG. Otherwise, the moderated
group loses its purpose.
It would be better also to rein in the conspiracy theories, as they
spark a reaction, which doesn't help.
Those are fairly meaningless figures without knowing how many
journalists there are in Gaza. At the moment, I would guess
thousands, perhaps tens of thousands.
You think 1 in every 100 people in Gaza is a journalist? That seems
*spectacularly* unlikely.
You are quite correct. I guessed a bit high. I have just posted a
reference showing 1000 as the correct figure.
Clearly, 37 deaths out of 1000 contradicts the claim of
'systematically killing journalists'. As I said, these are brave
people, putting themselves in harm's way.
The 1,000 journalists are all Palestinian. If any of them report (even
in a balanced way) about Hamas's atrocities against Israel then they
would presumably be killed by Hamas's military goons, the Al Qassam.
I suspect such deaths would be incorrectly attributed to the Israeli
Defense Force.
On 17/11/2023 10:08 am, The Todal wrote:
On 16/11/2023 22:36, Pancho wrote:
On 11/14/23 14:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 17:19, Mark Goodge wrote:
Anyway, as well as being a hate crime, that placard is a clear and >>>>>> obvious
example of Godwin's Law. Unfortunately, you won't find Godwin's
law in the
statute books or referenced in a precedent-setting court judgment, >>>>>> so the
police, not unreasonably, have to disregard it. But every
well-informed,
right-thinking person will automatically dissociate themselves
from anything
which invokes it.
To say the Israelis are behaving like Nazis is not, of course, to say >>>>> that they are rounding up people, putting them in extermination camps, >>>>> gassing them, lining them up next to ditches and opening fire, gassing >>>>> disabled people, invading Poland, sending aircraft to bomb the London >>>>> docks, need I continue?
Then they're not really behaving like the Nazis, in any meaningful
sense.
Use of the term "Nazi" to mean "someone who is doing things I strongly >>>> disapprove of" is linguistic bollocks.
No, the use of Nazi as a cautionary tale is not an insult. Cautionary
tales are used to warn that a specific behaviour leads to a specific
danger, a specific outcome.
In the Nazi case, the warning is that race supremacism, expansionism,
nationalism, distorted propaganda dehumanising a subpopulation, and
racist disenfranchisement of this subpopulation lead to a
desensitisation of compassion that allows wholesale murder to occur.
The thing is that these comparisons do fit with Israel, and hence it
is a very powerful analogy. Any regime that valued media presentation
and propaganda would naturally try to ban it, out of hand, rather
than convince people it was inappropriate.
The Jews have done more than anyone to promote the Nazis and the
Holocaust as a cautionary tale. It is completely proper that it
should be applied to them as to every one else.
Never again, for anyone.
Agreed! You've explained it far better than I did. What's more, there
are many Jews who agree with the above, but their voice is not heard
in our mass media, which always regards the Board of Deputies as the
authentic voice of the entire Jewish community. And Ruth Smeeth, and
Luciana Berger. And Gideon Falter.
Don't some of those people and organisations have a certain amount of representative legitimacy by dint of having been elected or appointed?
Mind you, "Gideon Falter" is a relatively new name to me.
On 17/11/2023 10:01, The Todal wrote:
Another example would be a relative of mine, Jewish and of Jewish
parents, definitely therefore Jewish but he married a gentile woman.
He and his gentile wife went to Israel to visit his sister's daughter
in her home in Tel Aviv. The daughter was friendly and welcoming but
her husband said he was not willing to meet with them or speak to them
because it would offend his religious principles, whatever those
principles were. But I wouldn't blame all or even most Jews for the
behaviour of a tiny minority.
Somebody chose not to meet somebody else. Why would you blame anybody
for that? I can think of people I would choose not to meet - Nigel
Farage, for one. Whom are you going to blame for that?
Maybe you would feel similarly about Farage, or Tony Blair, or Keir
Starmer? Should I lump you in with some group or other, and then
graciously say I wouldn't blame the lot of them?
On 2023-11-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
What we call "race" in the context of humans is what, in other animals,
biologists would call a "breed". That is, an observable subset caused by
in-group breeding but which remains, nonetheless, fully able to interbreed >> with any other member of the species.
To that extent, it's as wrong to say that race is a social construct as it >> is to say that, say, a Cocker Spaniel is a social construct. The differences >> do objectively exist, and are observable. But it is wrong to say that visual >> differences, and in particular skin colours, are all that differentiate
different human breeds (or races).
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to sit down for a bit to recover from the suggestion that "Cocker Spaniel is a social construct" is an incorrect statement. I mean, who do you think invented dog breeds... dogs?
On 17/11/2023 08:11 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 15:24:32 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/11/2023 02:03 pm, Vir Campestris wrote:
AIUI Christian law forbade the charging of interest until quite
recently; Muslim law still does. Jewish law does not, so only they could >>>> be bankers.
What does "quite recently" mean?
Until around the 16th century, in most cases. Which is within the last
quartile of Christianity's existence (so far). So, relatively recently.
It's actually a long time ago in terms of social development, wouldn't
you agree (and that's if your estimate is accurate)?
I was explaining what is wrong with your
statement here:
"An example is a friend who was born a jew to a jewish mother and
married a woman without the same credentials. She converted to judaism
but their children were not always welcome to certain events. He said
to me that was an aspect that annoyed him and he felt they were being
unnecessarily excluded. "
If she opted for a shortcut conversion process, then there are
orthodox Jews who simply don't accept that she converted properly.
That sounds like a form of racism.
On 17/11/2023 08:22 pm, Fredxx wrote:
https://www.yourfaithyourfinance.org/money-and-faith/usury-and-the-theology-of-money/usury-in-christian-history/
Thank you. It predates the answer given by another poster.
On 17/11/2023 14:03, Vir Campestris wrote:
AIUI Christian law forbade the charging of interest until quite
recently; Muslim law still does. Jewish law does not, so only they could
be bankers.
AIUI, Jewish law is similar to Christian (and Muslim).
The trick is that the prohibition on usury only applies to lending to
people within your own faith. So Jews can lend to Christians, and vice
versa.
On 18/11/2023 11:55, GB wrote:
On 17/11/2023 20:27, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/11/2023 21:44, GB wrote:
On 16/11/2023 19:57, Fredxx wrote:
Maybe, but there is generally a reason, not just differences.
Financial lending and debt brings the worst out in people on both
sides.
On my father's side, I can trace my ancestry back for 300 years. They
were all doctors. I am so terribly, terribly sorry that we don't
conform to your stereotype of usury. I'll try harder.
Yes, you should.At no time have I ever stated that all jews are money
lenders.
You wrote:
"I don't know, it is a very closed society, and perhaps it is that and
it's historical treatment of gentiles as opposed to their own that has
created hatred. "
"Maybe, but there is generally a reason, not just differences. Financial
lending and debt brings the worst out in people on both sides."
Perhaps, you could explain what you had in mind?
I would have thought a small amount of research on the history of money lending and banks would have been sufficient explanation. It's hardly a secret or rocket science.
Currently we have a welfare state, but in the 20s and 30s many starved through being eviction and foreclosing loans. One could explain, in
part, the rise of fascism in the same time period.
Anyway, in your view, keeping a low profile so as not to get
massacred is equivalent to a very closed society, and if I disagree >>>>>> you may start a pogrom, so of course you are right.
That doesn't follow. If religion impinges on others' freedoms then
that is when the line is crossed.
That's very tolerant of you.
It is, why should you enforce your doctrine on me?
We live in a society where everyone's freedoms impinge on everyone
else's. It happens all the time. Try driving down Holloway Road shortly
before an Arsenal match, for example.
Yep, some of the pedestrian crossing will be in automatic making the
journey more problematic and make me consume more fuel.
We normally sort it out with a bit of give and take.
That's not how I see it. It's more you do something bad against me and
I'll x 10 to recruit more hatred.
Yet, you have just said that a massacre is justified if someone else's
religion impinges on your freedoms.
Again, I can only assume English is not your first language. I have
never said anything of the sort. Unless you're referring to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
Unless you would justify this terrorism on account of religion:
I don't understand why you asked the question, unless it's based on
the racist nature of some churches?
I didn't ask a question. I was explaining what is wrong with your
statement here:
"An example is a friend who was born a jew to a jewish mother and
married a woman without the same credentials. She converted to judaism
but their children were not always welcome to certain events. He said to
me that was an aspect that annoyed him and he felt they were being
unnecessarily excluded. "
If she opted for a shortcut conversion process, then there are orthodox
Jews who simply don't accept that she converted properly.
That sounds like a form of racism.
On 17/11/2023 10:36, GB wrote:
On 17/11/2023 10:01, The Todal wrote:
Another example would be a relative of mine, Jewish and of Jewish
parents, definitely therefore Jewish but he married a gentile woman.
He and his gentile wife went to Israel to visit his sister's daughter
in her home in Tel Aviv. The daughter was friendly and welcoming but
her husband said he was not willing to meet with them or speak to
them because it would offend his religious principles, whatever those
principles were. But I wouldn't blame all or even most Jews for the
behaviour of a tiny minority.
Somebody chose not to meet somebody else. Why would you blame anybody
for that? I can think of people I would choose not to meet - Nigel
Farage, for one. Whom are you going to blame for that?
Well, it's obviously hurtful and discourteous and raises the suspicion
that a devout religious person is perhaps the much stronger person in
the marriage, but I suppose more fool she for marrying such a person.
On 2023-11-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
What we call "race" in the context of humans is what, in other animals,
biologists would call a "breed". That is, an observable subset caused by
in-group breeding but which remains, nonetheless, fully able to interbreed >> with any other member of the species.
To that extent, it's as wrong to say that race is a social construct as it >> is to say that, say, a Cocker Spaniel is a social construct. The differences >> do objectively exist, and are observable. But it is wrong to say that visual >> differences, and in particular skin colours, are all that differentiate
different human breeds (or races).
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to sit down for a bit to recover from the >suggestion that "Cocker Spaniel is a social construct" is an incorrect >statement. I mean, who do you think invented dog breeds... dogs?
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message >news:e9ifli5nmv2cnoinsm3es0a0st5h12r7b3@4ax.com...
On 17 Nov 2023 18:39:52 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
What we call "race" in the context of humans is what, in other
animals, biologists would call a "breed". That is, an observable
subset caused by in-group breeding but which remains, nonetheless,
fully able to interbreed with any other member of the species.
Right. So that in dog breeds, greyhounds are bred to run fast,
collies are bred to round up sheep, and huskies are bred to
pull sleds.
While amongst Humans, blacks are bred to work on plantations
with the unintended consequence that they can also run fast,
whilst the whites are bred to order the blacks about. Hence
Eton and Harrow etc.
On 18/11/2023 14:32, The Todal wrote:
On 17/11/2023 10:36, GB wrote:
On 17/11/2023 10:01, The Todal wrote:
Another example would be a relative of mine, Jewish and of Jewish parents, >>>> definitely therefore Jewish but he married a gentile woman. He and his >>>> gentile wife went to Israel to visit his sister's daughter in her home in >>>> Tel Aviv. The daughter was friendly and welcoming but her husband said he >>>> was not willing to meet with them or speak to them because it would offend >>>> his religious principles, whatever those principles were. But I wouldn't >>>> blame all or even most Jews for the behaviour of a tiny minority.
Somebody chose not to meet somebody else. Why would you blame anybody for >>> that? I can think of people I would choose not to meet - Nigel Farage, for >>> one. Whom are you going to blame for that?
Well, it's obviously hurtful and discourteous and raises the suspicion that a
devout religious person is perhaps the much stronger person in the marriage, >> but I suppose more fool she for marrying such a person.
I agree that it's hurtful and discourteous. So, we can assume the niece's husband thought about that aspect.
Unfortunately, you seem to have chosen to condemn him without going to the trouble to find out what his reasons were.
On 18/11/2023 14:32, The Todal wrote:
On 17/11/2023 10:36, GB wrote:
On 17/11/2023 10:01, The Todal wrote:
Another example would be a relative of mine, Jewish and of Jewish
parents, definitely therefore Jewish but he married a gentile woman.
He and his gentile wife went to Israel to visit his sister's
daughter in her home in Tel Aviv. The daughter was friendly and
welcoming but her husband said he was not willing to meet with them
or speak to them because it would offend his religious principles,
whatever those principles were. But I wouldn't blame all or even
most Jews for the behaviour of a tiny minority.
Somebody chose not to meet somebody else. Why would you blame anybody
for that? I can think of people I would choose not to meet - Nigel
Farage, for one. Whom are you going to blame for that?
Well, it's obviously hurtful and discourteous and raises the suspicion
that a devout religious person is perhaps the much stronger person in
the marriage, but I suppose more fool she for marrying such a person.
I agree that it's hurtful and discourteous. So, we can assume the
niece's husband thought about that aspect.
Unfortunately, you seem to have chosen to condemn him without going to
the trouble to find out what his reasons were.
On 18/11/2023 13:17, Fredxx wrote:
I was explaining what is wrong with your statement here:
"An example is a friend who was born a jew to a jewish mother and
married a woman without the same credentials. She converted to
judaism but their children were not always welcome to certain events.
He said to me that was an aspect that annoyed him and he felt they
were being unnecessarily excluded. "
If she opted for a shortcut conversion process, then there are
orthodox Jews who simply don't accept that she converted properly.
That sounds like a form of racism.
Suppose you want to get your child into Amplethorpe, and they say they
want evidence that you are a church goer. You then send them your
membership of the Church of Scientology. Well, that's a church, innit.
Are you seriously suggesting that Amplethorpe are racist if they reject
your child?
On 18/11/2023 16:54, GB wrote:
On 18/11/2023 14:32, The Todal wrote:
On 17/11/2023 10:36, GB wrote:
On 17/11/2023 10:01, The Todal wrote:
Another example would be a relative of mine, Jewish and of Jewish
parents, definitely therefore Jewish but he married a gentile woman. >>>>> He and his gentile wife went to Israel to visit his sister's
daughter in her home in Tel Aviv. The daughter was friendly and
welcoming but her husband said he was not willing to meet with them
or speak to them because it would offend his religious principles,
whatever those principles were. But I wouldn't blame all or even
most Jews for the behaviour of a tiny minority.
Somebody chose not to meet somebody else. Why would you blame anybody
for that? I can think of people I would choose not to meet - Nigel
Farage, for one. Whom are you going to blame for that?
Well, it's obviously hurtful and discourteous and raises the suspicion
that a devout religious person is perhaps the much stronger person in
the marriage, but I suppose more fool she for marrying such a person.
I agree that it's hurtful and discourteous. So, we can assume the
niece's husband thought about that aspect.
Unfortunately, you seem to have chosen to condemn him without going to
the trouble to find out what his reasons were.
I admire your multicultural credentials and your ability to speak up in favour of batshit-crazy religious people.
We should all respect each others beliefs and aspirations. I ought to
write him a letter in Hebrew in order to become better informed about
why he refuses to talk to dirty gentile people or be in the same room.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 03:11:28 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-11-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
What we call "race" in the context of humans is what, in other animals,
biologists would call a "breed". That is, an observable subset caused by >>> in-group breeding but which remains, nonetheless, fully able to interbreed >>> with any other member of the species.
To that extent, it's as wrong to say that race is a social construct
as it is to say that, say, a Cocker Spaniel is a social construct.
The differences do objectively exist, and are observable. But it is
wrong to say that visual differences, and in particular skin
colours, are all that differentiate different human breeds (or races).
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to sit down for a bit to recover from the >>suggestion that "Cocker Spaniel is a social construct" is an incorrect >>statement. I mean, who do you think invented dog breeds... dogs?
What I mean is that the differences between a Cocker Spaniel and a Labrador are objectively part of their genetics and are observable both visually and forensically. It's not like, say, the difference between punks and new romantics, which is just a social construct.
Obviously, dog breeds are almost entirely the creation of humans, since dogs as we know them are almost entirely the result of domestication. But that's not necessarily true of all animals. Many cat breeds, for example, can be traced back to different wild populations in different parts of the world. The origin of the breed doesn't make it any less objective.
On 2023-11-18, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 03:11:28 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-11-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
What we call "race" in the context of humans is what, in other animals, >>>> biologists would call a "breed". That is, an observable subset caused by >>>> in-group breeding but which remains, nonetheless, fully able to interbreed >>>> with any other member of the species.
To that extent, it's as wrong to say that race is a social construct
as it is to say that, say, a Cocker Spaniel is a social construct.
The differences do objectively exist, and are observable. But it is
wrong to say that visual differences, and in particular skin
colours, are all that differentiate different human breeds (or races).
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to sit down for a bit to recover from the
suggestion that "Cocker Spaniel is a social construct" is an incorrect
statement. I mean, who do you think invented dog breeds... dogs?
What I mean is that the differences between a Cocker Spaniel and a Labrador >> are objectively part of their genetics and are observable both visually and >> forensically. It's not like, say, the difference between punks and new
romantics, which is just a social construct.
Obviously, dog breeds are almost entirely the creation of humans, since dogs >> as we know them are almost entirely the result of domestication. But that's >> not necessarily true of all animals. Many cat breeds, for example, can be
traced back to different wild populations in different parts of the world. >> The origin of the breed doesn't make it any less objective.
But it isn't remotely objective. "Breeds" are entirely made up. What
counts as variation within a breed and what counts as a different breed
is a decision that people have made. It's entirely subjective.
On 2023-11-18, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
What I mean is that the differences between a Cocker Spaniel and a Labrador >> are objectively part of their genetics and are observable both visually and >> forensically. It's not like, say, the difference between punks and new
romantics, which is just a social construct.
Obviously, dog breeds are almost entirely the creation of humans, since dogs >> as we know them are almost entirely the result of domestication. But that's >> not necessarily true of all animals. Many cat breeds, for example, can be
traced back to different wild populations in different parts of the world. >> The origin of the breed doesn't make it any less objective.
But it isn't remotely objective. "Breeds" are entirely made up. What
counts as variation within a breed and what counts as a different breed
is a decision that people have made. It's entirely subjective.
Unfortunately, you seem to have chosen to condemn him without going to
the trouble to find out what his reasons were.
I admire your multicultural credentials and your ability to speak up in favour of batshit-crazy religious people.
We should all respect each others beliefs and aspirations. I ought to
write him a letter in Hebrew in order to become better informed about
why he refuses to talk to dirty gentile people or be in the same room.
On 18/11/2023 19:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
You are applying logic and common sense. This is inadvisable where the
religious are concerned.
Actually, he's not applying either logic or common sense. He is imposing
his values on someone else, who has different values.
You are applying logic and common sense. This is inadvisable where the religious are concerned.
On 19 Nov 2023 at 11:04:38 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
You are applying logic and common sense. This is inadvisable where the
religious are concerned.
Actually, he's not applying either logic or common sense. He is imposing
his values on someone else, who has different values.
It is not unreasonable to impose rational values on a situation where people wish to choose irrational values.
On 19/11/2023 11:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Nov 2023 at 11:04:38 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 18/11/2023 19:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
You are applying logic and common sense. This is inadvisable where the >>>> religious are concerned.
Actually, he's not applying either logic or common sense. He is imposing >>> his values on someone else, who has different values.
It is not unreasonable to impose rational values on a situation where people >> wish to choose irrational values.
It's going a bit far to call it rational if:
a) Todal has not tried in any way to understand what is going on, and
b) Todal has as a result completely misunderstood.
Can one rationally judge a situation one has misunderstood?
On 18/11/2023 19:40, The Todal wrote:
Unfortunately, you seem to have chosen to condemn him without going
to the trouble to find out what his reasons were.
I admire your multicultural credentials and your ability to speak up
in favour of batshit-crazy religious people.
We should all respect each others beliefs and aspirations. I ought to
write him a letter in Hebrew in order to become better informed about
why he refuses to talk to dirty gentile people or be in the same room.
I haven't spoken to your relative, but I am practically certain that he
had absolutely no issues with the wife, did not regard her as dirty in
any way, and he no particular difficulties about being in the same room
as her.
On 19 Nov 2023 at 11:20:19 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 19/11/2023 11:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Nov 2023 at 11:04:38 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>
On 18/11/2023 19:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
You are applying logic and common sense. This is inadvisable where the >>>>> religious are concerned.
Actually, he's not applying either logic or common sense. He is imposing >>>> his values on someone else, who has different values.
It is not unreasonable to impose rational values on a situation where people
wish to choose irrational values.
It's going a bit far to call it rational if:
a) Todal has not tried in any way to understand what is going on, and
b) Todal has as a result completely misunderstood.
Can one rationally judge a situation one has misunderstood?
Your quite right that if the situation is misunderstood then Todal is mistaken. My comment was based on the situation as Todal understood it. If the
situation was *not* related to irrational supernatural prejudices but to something else entirely, then I agree with you.
On 19/11/2023 11:01, GB wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:40, The Todal wrote:
Unfortunately, you seem to have chosen to condemn him without going
to the trouble to find out what his reasons were.
I admire your multicultural credentials and your ability to speak up
in favour of batshit-crazy religious people.
We should all respect each others beliefs and aspirations. I ought to
write him a letter in Hebrew in order to become better informed about
why he refuses to talk to dirty gentile people or be in the same room.
I haven't spoken to your relative, but I am practically certain that
he had absolutely no issues with the wife, did not regard her as dirty
in any way, and he no particular difficulties about being in the same
room as her.
Yeah, right.
I haven't spoken to the leaders of Hamas
On 17/11/2023 10:44, JNugent wrote:
On 17/11/2023 10:08 am, The Todal wrote:
On 16/11/2023 22:36, Pancho wrote:
On 11/14/23 14:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 17:19, Mark Goodge wrote:
Anyway, as well as being a hate crime, that placard is a clear
and obvious
example of Godwin's Law. Unfortunately, you won't find Godwin's
law in the
statute books or referenced in a precedent-setting court
judgment, so the
police, not unreasonably, have to disregard it. But every
well-informed,
right-thinking person will automatically dissociate themselves
from anything
which invokes it.
To say the Israelis are behaving like Nazis is not, of course, to say >>>>>> that they are rounding up people, putting them in extermination
camps,
gassing them, lining them up next to ditches and opening fire,
gassing
disabled people, invading Poland, sending aircraft to bomb the London >>>>>> docks, need I continue?
Then they're not really behaving like the Nazis, in any meaningful
sense.
Use of the term "Nazi" to mean "someone who is doing things I strongly >>>>> disapprove of" is linguistic bollocks.
No, the use of Nazi as a cautionary tale is not an insult.
Cautionary tales are used to warn that a specific behaviour leads to
a specific danger, a specific outcome.
In the Nazi case, the warning is that race supremacism,
expansionism, nationalism, distorted propaganda dehumanising a
subpopulation, and racist disenfranchisement of this subpopulation
lead to a desensitisation of compassion that allows wholesale murder
to occur.
The thing is that these comparisons do fit with Israel, and hence it
is a very powerful analogy. Any regime that valued media
presentation and propaganda would naturally try to ban it, out of
hand, rather than convince people it was inappropriate.
The Jews have done more than anyone to promote the Nazis and the
Holocaust as a cautionary tale. It is completely proper that it
should be applied to them as to every one else.
Never again, for anyone.
Agreed! You've explained it far better than I did. What's more,
there are many Jews who agree with the above, but their voice is not
heard in our mass media, which always regards the Board of Deputies
as the authentic voice of the entire Jewish community. And Ruth
Smeeth, and Luciana Berger. And Gideon Falter.
Don't some of those people and organisations have a certain amount of
representative legitimacy by dint of having been elected or appointed?
Smeeth and Berger were elected as Labour MPs but that does not confer on
them the right to speak for the Jewish "community" (there is in fact no single entity that can be called the Jewish community) and they used
their position to make trouble for their party leader, Jeremy Corbyn,
despite his friendly, compassionate and helpful behaviour towards them.
Mind you, "Gideon Falter" is a relatively new name to me.
He leads the Campaign Against Antisemitism, a charity whose trustees are (unusually) kept secret.
Its way of campaigning against antisemitism is
to accuse individual politicians of antisemitism often on the flimsiest excuse. And to vigorously defend Israel against all critics.
He's probably quite litigious, and is a wonderful human being who
performs a terrific service to the community.
see eg https://antisemitism.org/high-court-grants-caa-permission-to-intervene-in-ken-livingstones-bid-to-overturn-ehrc-investigation-into-antisemitism-in-labour-party/
(I know you personally refuse to follow hyperlinks, so this is for the benefit of anyone else who wants to become better informed)
On 19/11/2023 11:41, The Todal wrote:
On 19/11/2023 11:01, GB wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:40, The Todal wrote:
Unfortunately, you seem to have chosen to condemn him without going
to the trouble to find out what his reasons were.
I admire your multicultural credentials and your ability to speak up
in favour of batshit-crazy religious people.
We should all respect each others beliefs and aspirations. I ought
to write him a letter in Hebrew in order to become better informed
about why he refuses to talk to dirty gentile people or be in the
same room.
I haven't spoken to your relative, but I am practically certain that
he had absolutely no issues with the wife, did not regard her as
dirty in any way, and he no particular difficulties about being in
the same room as her.
Yeah, right.
It's your family. Your squabble.
You refer to your relative as 'batshit-crazy', yet you are clearly upset
by the schism. I am just suggesting that some effort to understand
them a bit better might help.
I haven't spoken to the leaders of Hamas
I really don't think Hamas are responsible for your family issues.
On 18/11/2023 02:44 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 17/11/2023 10:44, JNugent wrote:
On 17/11/2023 10:08 am, The Todal wrote:
On 16/11/2023 22:36, Pancho wrote:
On 11/14/23 14:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 17:19, Mark Goodge wrote:
Anyway, as well as being a hate crime, that placard is a clear >>>>>>>> and obvious
example of Godwin's Law. Unfortunately, you won't find Godwin's >>>>>>>> law in the
statute books or referenced in a precedent-setting court
judgment, so the
police, not unreasonably, have to disregard it. But every
well-informed,
right-thinking person will automatically dissociate themselves >>>>>>>> from anything
which invokes it.
To say the Israelis are behaving like Nazis is not, of course, to >>>>>>> say
that they are rounding up people, putting them in extermination
camps,
gassing them, lining them up next to ditches and opening fire,
gassing
disabled people, invading Poland, sending aircraft to bomb the
London
docks, need I continue?
Then they're not really behaving like the Nazis, in any meaningful >>>>>> sense.
Use of the term "Nazi" to mean "someone who is doing things I
strongly
disapprove of" is linguistic bollocks.
No, the use of Nazi as a cautionary tale is not an insult.
Cautionary tales are used to warn that a specific behaviour leads
to a specific danger, a specific outcome.
In the Nazi case, the warning is that race supremacism,
expansionism, nationalism, distorted propaganda dehumanising a
subpopulation, and racist disenfranchisement of this subpopulation
lead to a desensitisation of compassion that allows wholesale
murder to occur.
The thing is that these comparisons do fit with Israel, and hence
it is a very powerful analogy. Any regime that valued media
presentation and propaganda would naturally try to ban it, out of
hand, rather than convince people it was inappropriate.
The Jews have done more than anyone to promote the Nazis and the
Holocaust as a cautionary tale. It is completely proper that it
should be applied to them as to every one else.
Never again, for anyone.
Agreed! You've explained it far better than I did. What's more,
there are many Jews who agree with the above, but their voice is not
heard in our mass media, which always regards the Board of Deputies
as the authentic voice of the entire Jewish community. And Ruth
Smeeth, and Luciana Berger. And Gideon Falter.
Don't some of those people and organisations have a certain amount of
representative legitimacy by dint of having been elected or appointed?
Smeeth and Berger were elected as Labour MPs but that does not confer
on them the right to speak for the Jewish "community" (there is in
fact no single entity that can be called the Jewish community) and
they used their position to make trouble for their party leader,
Jeremy Corbyn, despite his friendly, compassionate and helpful
behaviour towards them.
What about the Board of Deputies? Who deputises them?
Mind you, "Gideon Falter" is a relatively new name to me.
As lyricist John Bettis once wrote:
"What a name. Are you sure you didn't make it up yourself?".
He leads the Campaign Against Antisemitism, a charity whose trustees
are (unusually) kept secret.
<shrug>
I can see why such people might not want their names and addresses
generally known.
Can't you?
Its way of campaigning against antisemitism is to accuse individual
politicians of antisemitism often on the flimsiest excuse. And to
vigorously defend Israel against all critics.
He's probably quite litigious, and is a wonderful human being who
performs a terrific service to the community.
see eg
https://antisemitism.org/high-court-grants-caa-permission-to-intervene-in-ken-livingstones-bid-to-overturn-ehrc-investigation-into-antisemitism-in-labour-party/
(I know you personally refuse to follow hyperlinks, so this is for the
benefit of anyone else who wants to become better informed)
A somewhat peevish response.
I had believed you to be capable of better argument than the tired old:
"If you would simply read all fifteen volumes of this publication, whose contents need no commentary or analysis from me, you would find it
impossible to disagree with my points".
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:
AIUI Christian law forbade the charging of interest until quite
recently; Muslim law still does. Jewish law does not, so only they could >>>>> be bankers.
What does "quite recently" mean?
Until around the 16th century, in most cases. Which is within the last
quartile of Christianity's existence (so far). So, relatively recently.
It's actually a long time ago in terms of social development, wouldn't
you agree (and that's if your estimate is accurate)?
It's not my estimate, I'm using the dates given in the various Wikipedia articles on usury, which I have no reason to doubt.
But the point is that for many, many centuries, Jewish moneylenders were the only ones able to charge interest, and therefore the only ones able to make
a profit out of moneylending. As you can imagine, this created a situation where Jewish moneylenders were both essential to the functioning of society and yet, at the same time, widely reviled as money-grabbing usurers.
Combined with the fact that the church still considered Jews to be responsible for the death of Christ, at a time when practically everybody in Western Europe was a Christian (unless they happened to be a Jew), that made the whole of Europe fertile soil for antisemitism. And, although kings and rulers started to drop their opposition to usury from around the 16th
century (because it's really useful from a state financial perspective), the Catholic Church still forbade it until the 18th century and din't fully accept it until the early 20th century. So even as recently as a hundred years or so ago, banking was still overwhelmingly dominated by Jewish moneylenders. And that influence didn't end overnight even when the Church finally dropped its opposition. The financial sector in the 21st century is still disproportionately Jewish owned.
On 2023-11-18, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 03:11:28 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-11-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
What we call "race" in the context of humans is what, in other animals, >>>> biologists would call a "breed". That is, an observable subset caused by >>>> in-group breeding but which remains, nonetheless, fully able to interbreed >>>> with any other member of the species.
To that extent, it's as wrong to say that race is a social construct
as it is to say that, say, a Cocker Spaniel is a social construct.
The differences do objectively exist, and are observable. But it is
wrong to say that visual differences, and in particular skin
colours, are all that differentiate different human breeds (or races).
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to sit down for a bit to recover from the
suggestion that "Cocker Spaniel is a social construct" is an incorrect
statement. I mean, who do you think invented dog breeds... dogs?
What I mean is that the differences between a Cocker Spaniel and a Labrador >> are objectively part of their genetics and are observable both visually and >> forensically. It's not like, say, the difference between punks and new
romantics, which is just a social construct.
Obviously, dog breeds are almost entirely the creation of humans, since dogs >> as we know them are almost entirely the result of domestication. But that's >> not necessarily true of all animals. Many cat breeds, for example, can be
traced back to different wild populations in different parts of the world. >> The origin of the breed doesn't make it any less objective.
But it isn't remotely objective. "Breeds" are entirely made up. What
counts as variation within a breed and what counts as a different breed
is a decision that people have made. It's entirely subjective.
On 19/11/2023 11:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Nov 2023 at 11:04:38 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
You are applying logic and common sense. This is inadvisable where the >>>> religious are concerned.
Actually, he's not applying either logic or common sense. He is imposing >>> his values on someone else, who has different values.
It is not unreasonable to impose rational values on a situation where
people
wish to choose irrational values.
It's going a bit far to call it rational if:
a) Todal has not tried in any way to understand what is going on, and
b) Todal has as a result completely misunderstood.
Can one rationally judge a situation one has misunderstood?
On 19 Nov 2023 at 11:04:38 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
You are applying logic and common sense. This is inadvisable where the
religious are concerned.
Actually, he's not applying either logic or common sense. He is imposing
his values on someone else, who has different values.
It is not unreasonable to impose rational values on a situation where people wish to choose irrational values.
What about the Board of Deputies? Who deputises them?
On 19/11/2023 12:53, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2023 02:44 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 17/11/2023 10:44, JNugent wrote:
On 17/11/2023 10:08 am, The Todal wrote:
On 16/11/2023 22:36, Pancho wrote:
On 11/14/23 14:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 17:19, Mark Goodge wrote:
Anyway, as well as being a hate crime, that placard is a clear >>>>>>>>> and obvious
example of Godwin's Law. Unfortunately, you won't find Godwin's >>>>>>>>> law in the
statute books or referenced in a precedent-setting court
judgment, so the
police, not unreasonably, have to disregard it. But every
well-informed,
right-thinking person will automatically dissociate themselves >>>>>>>>> from anything
which invokes it.
To say the Israelis are behaving like Nazis is not, of course, >>>>>>>> to say
that they are rounding up people, putting them in extermination >>>>>>>> camps,
gassing them, lining them up next to ditches and opening fire, >>>>>>>> gassing
disabled people, invading Poland, sending aircraft to bomb the >>>>>>>> London
docks, need I continue?
Then they're not really behaving like the Nazis, in any
meaningful sense.
Use of the term "Nazi" to mean "someone who is doing things I
strongly
disapprove of" is linguistic bollocks.
No, the use of Nazi as a cautionary tale is not an insult.
Cautionary tales are used to warn that a specific behaviour leads
to a specific danger, a specific outcome.
In the Nazi case, the warning is that race supremacism,
expansionism, nationalism, distorted propaganda dehumanising a
subpopulation, and racist disenfranchisement of this subpopulation >>>>>> lead to a desensitisation of compassion that allows wholesale
murder to occur.
The thing is that these comparisons do fit with Israel, and hence
it is a very powerful analogy. Any regime that valued media
presentation and propaganda would naturally try to ban it, out of
hand, rather than convince people it was inappropriate.
The Jews have done more than anyone to promote the Nazis and the
Holocaust as a cautionary tale. It is completely proper that it
should be applied to them as to every one else.
Never again, for anyone.
Agreed! You've explained it far better than I did. What's more,
there are many Jews who agree with the above, but their voice is
not heard in our mass media, which always regards the Board of
Deputies as the authentic voice of the entire Jewish community.
And Ruth Smeeth, and Luciana Berger. And Gideon Falter.
Don't some of those people and organisations have a certain amount
of representative legitimacy by dint of having been elected or
appointed?
Smeeth and Berger were elected as Labour MPs but that does not confer
on them the right to speak for the Jewish "community" (there is in
fact no single entity that can be called the Jewish community) and
they used their position to make trouble for their party leader,
Jeremy Corbyn, despite his friendly, compassionate and helpful
behaviour towards them.
What about the Board of Deputies? Who deputises them?
Mind you, "Gideon Falter" is a relatively new name to me.
As lyricist John Bettis once wrote:
"What a name. Are you sure you didn't make it up yourself?".
He leads the Campaign Against Antisemitism, a charity whose trustees
are (unusually) kept secret.
<shrug>
I can see why such people might not want their names and addresses
generally known.
Can't you?
Well, no. I can only speculate.
Usually the trustees of any charity are
proud to be identified as such.
Possibilities might include: not wanting the public to trace their links
with Israel or with specific campaigning groups.
Or wanting to give the impression that anyone who stands against
antisemitism puts themselves in grave danger because there are hordes of antisemites out there, ready and willing to smash down doors and rape
women.
Its way of campaigning against antisemitism is to accuse individual
politicians of antisemitism often on the flimsiest excuse. And to
vigorously defend Israel against all critics.
He's probably quite litigious, and is a wonderful human being who
performs a terrific service to the community.
see eg
https://antisemitism.org/high-court-grants-caa-permission-to-intervene-in-ken-livingstones-bid-to-overturn-ehrc-investigation-into-antisemitism-in-labour-party/
(I know you personally refuse to follow hyperlinks, so this is for
the benefit of anyone else who wants to become better informed)
A somewhat peevish response.
But you brought it on yourself, by regularly saying that you weren't interested in reading hyperlinks. However, it's quite an effort to
distil a web page and spoon feed it to someone.
I had believed you to be capable of better argument than the tired old:
"If you would simply read all fifteen volumes of this publication,
whose contents need no commentary or analysis from me, you would find
it impossible to disagree with my points".
Ah, that old "fifteen volumes" thing. As a genuine attempt to assist
you, can I suggest you subscribe to Audible, one of the excellent
products on Amazon, an app which reads books to you.
On 19/11/2023 01:22 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 19/11/2023 12:53, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2023 02:44 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 17/11/2023 10:44, JNugent wrote:
On 17/11/2023 10:08 am, The Todal wrote:
On 16/11/2023 22:36, Pancho wrote:
No, the use of Nazi as a cautionary tale is not an insult.
Cautionary tales are used to warn that a specific behaviour leads >>>>>>> to a specific danger, a specific outcome.
In the Nazi case, the warning is that race supremacism,
expansionism, nationalism, distorted propaganda dehumanising a
subpopulation, and racist disenfranchisement of this
subpopulation lead to a desensitisation of compassion that allows >>>>>>> wholesale murder to occur.
The thing is that these comparisons do fit with Israel, and hence >>>>>>> it is a very powerful analogy. Any regime that valued media
presentation and propaganda would naturally try to ban it, out of >>>>>>> hand, rather than convince people it was inappropriate.
The Jews have done more than anyone to promote the Nazis and the >>>>>>> Holocaust as a cautionary tale. It is completely proper that it
should be applied to them as to every one else.
Never again, for anyone.
Agreed! You've explained it far better than I did. What's more,
there are many Jews who agree with the above, but their voice is
not heard in our mass media, which always regards the Board of
Deputies as the authentic voice of the entire Jewish community.
And Ruth Smeeth, and Luciana Berger. And Gideon Falter.
Don't some of those people and organisations have a certain amount
of representative legitimacy by dint of having been elected or
appointed?
Smeeth and Berger were elected as Labour MPs but that does not
confer on them the right to speak for the Jewish "community" (there
is in fact no single entity that can be called the Jewish community)
and they used their position to make trouble for their party leader,
Jeremy Corbyn, despite his friendly, compassionate and helpful
behaviour towards them.
What about the Board of Deputies? Who deputises them?
Mind you, "Gideon Falter" is a relatively new name to me.
As lyricist John Bettis once wrote:
"What a name. Are you sure you didn't make it up yourself?".
He leads the Campaign Against Antisemitism, a charity whose trustees
are (unusually) kept secret.
<shrug>
I can see why such people might not want their names and addresses
generally known.
Can't you?
Well, no. I can only speculate.
That's what I was doing (hence use of the word "might").
Usually the trustees of any charity are proud to be identified as such.
OK, I'll clarify.
"Nevertheless, I can see why *those* people might not want their names
and addresses generally known".
Is that better?
Possibilities might include: not wanting the public to trace their
links with Israel or with specific campaigning groups.
You didn't need to remark on the quite obvious.
Or wanting to give the impression that anyone who stands againstYou dismiss the possibility that they are anxious as to the safety of
antisemitism puts themselves in grave danger because there are hordes
of antisemites out there, ready and willing to smash down doors and
rape women.
their families and themselves?
Its way of campaigning against antisemitism is to accuse individual
politicians of antisemitism often on the flimsiest excuse. And to
vigorously defend Israel against all critics.
He's probably quite litigious, and is a wonderful human being who
performs a terrific service to the community.
see eg
https://antisemitism.org/high-court-grants-caa-permission-to-intervene-in-ken-livingstones-bid-to-overturn-ehrc-investigation-into-antisemitism-in-labour-party/
I had believed you to be capable of better argument than the tired old:
"If you would simply read all fifteen volumes of this publication,
whose contents need no commentary or analysis from me, you would find
it impossible to disagree with my points".
Ah, that old "fifteen volumes" thing. As a genuine attempt to assist
you, can I suggest you subscribe to Audible, one of the excellent
products on Amazon, an app which reads books to you.
Childish, much?
Are you some sort of self-appointed conciliator or relationship
counsellor? I'm baffled by the enthusiasm with which you defend a
complete stranger, a person who does not hold any office or elected post
that we know of, so does not require even a moment of your time.
On 19/11/2023 12:53, JNugent wrote:
What about the Board of Deputies? Who deputises them?
The Board of Deputies comprises over 300 deputies directly elected by
the synagogues and communal organisations they represent, from
congregations to youth movements, and social welfare charities to
regional councils.
That's probably about as democratic as it can be, although it must be recognised that there are people who are ethically Jewish but hardly
ever set foot in a synagogue or join communal organisations, and they
are not properly represented.
I say 'they', but I should count myself in that unrepresented group. I
am not complaining. If someone were to take the trouble to start an association of agnostic or atheistic Jews, it might well be invited to
elect representatives to the Board of Deputies.
On 19/11/2023 04:32 pm, GB wrote:
On 19/11/2023 12:53, JNugent wrote:
What about the Board of Deputies? Who deputises them?
The Board of Deputies comprises over 300 deputies directly elected by
the synagogues and communal organisations they represent, from
congregations to youth movements, and social welfare charities to
regional councils.
That's probably about as democratic as it can be, although it must be
recognised that there are people who are ethically Jewish but hardly
ever set foot in a synagogue or join communal organisations, and they
are not properly represented.
I say 'they', but I should count myself in that unrepresented group. I
am not complaining. If someone were to take the trouble to start an
association of agnostic or atheistic Jews, it might well be invited to
elect representatives to the Board of Deputies.
Thank you.
It sounds as representative as one could reasonably expect.
On 19/11/2023 13:16, The Todal wrote:
Are you some sort of self-appointed conciliator or relationship
counsellor? I'm baffled by the enthusiasm with which you defend a
complete stranger, a person who does not hold any office or elected
post that we know of, so does not require even a moment of your time.
I was trying to help you sort out the chip on your shoulder. But, as you
say, you are a stranger.
Not at all - many adults use Audible. Not just the visually impaired,
either.
Very likely. But still not an organisation that can truthfully claim to
speak for "the Jewish community".
On 19/11/2023 17:32, The Todal wrote:
Very likely. But still not an organisation that can truthfully claim to
speak for "the Jewish community".
What it says on the website is:
"The Board of Deputies of British Jews is the voice of the British
Jewish Community, the first port of call for the Government, the media
and others seeking to understand Jewish community interests and concerns."
I suspect that anybody sensible knows there are Jewish people within the community (or in my case perhaps not in the community!) with different
views. For all I know, journalists would be pleased to hear from Todal
with his rather different viewpoint.
But were he a member of the Labour Party he could then be expelled for expressing views defined by said Board as anti-semitic, by definition because he disagreed with them.
And he might find his employment in any government
controlled body similarly at risk.
It's not clearly absurd to compare Israel with the Nazis, given that
Israel ...(e) in the manner of Goebbels, tells lies to the world about
how Hamas has strongholds under hospitals
On 19/11/2023 18:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
But were he a member of the Labour Party he could then be expelled for expressing views defined by said Board as anti-semitic, by definition because
he disagreed with them.
The Labour Party is obsessed with Israel. There are ghastly things going
on around the world, which the Labour Party is silent about:-
Uighur death camps in China - not a dicky bird.
Yemen - silence.
Myanmar - silence.
Ethiopia - silence.
There are 7 conflicts with death tolls over 10000 this year, and another
36 smaller ones listed on WP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts
The Labour Party is pretty much silent on all of them. Apart from Israel.
That's not to excuse Israel, but I do wonder what's going on in the
minds of some party members.
On 19/11/2023 18:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
But were he a member of the Labour Party he could then be expelled for
expressing views defined by said Board as anti-semitic, by definition because
he disagreed with them.
The Labour Party is obsessed with Israel. There are ghastly things going
on around the world, which the Labour Party is silent about:-
Uighur death camps in China - not a dicky bird.
Yemen - silence.
Myanmar - silence.
Ethiopia - silence.
There are 7 conflicts with death tolls over 10000 this year, and another
36 smaller ones listed on WP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts
The Labour Party is pretty much silent on all of them. Apart from Israel.
That's not to excuse Israel, but I do wonder what's going on in the
minds of some party members.
And he might find his employment in any government
controlled body similarly at risk.
Are you saying there was not a single civil servant at the pro
palestinian marches?
The Labour Party is pretty much silent on all of them. Apart from Israel.
That of course is a weak argument at the best of times, but doubly so when we have no influence or already an undisputed opinion on most of these conflicts.
By the way, I am not sure that China's concentration camps for the Uighurs can reasonably be called "death camps".
Israeli action is contentious
precisely because they are a close ally of ours.
It is also not actually true that the Labour Party has no position on any of these conflicts, though it may be true that their position is not news.
On 19/11/2023 19:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Labour Party is pretty much silent on all of them. Apart from Israel. >>That of course is a weak argument at the best of times, but doubly so when we
have no influence or already an undisputed opinion on most of these conflicts.
We could impose sanctions on China, for example.
By the way, I am not sure that China's concentration camps for the Uighurs >> can reasonably be called "death camps".
Agreed. There's a WP article on Uyghur genocide, but it seems to be more
like ethnocide.
The Uyghurs are certainly being appallingly treated by the Chinese government. Yet, who on this NG or in the Labour Party speaks out about
it? Who goes on marches?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
Israeli action is contentious
precisely because they are a close ally of ours.
Our relationship to Israel is similar to that with the Chinese, and we
import vastly more from China than from Israel, which gives us clout
with China. But, we don't raise the issue with the Chinese, because the reality is that nobody in this country cares two figs about the Uyghurs.
And, that's strange. We care about muslims in the middle east, but not
the far east. What's the logic in that?
It is also not actually true that the Labour Party has no position on any of >> these conflicts, though it may be true that their position is not news.
Fair enough.
On 13/11/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
It's not clearly absurd to compare Israel with the Nazis, given that
Israel ...(e) in the manner of Goebbels, tells lies to the world about
how Hamas has strongholds under hospitals
The BBC is now reporting on a "55m-long terror tunnel, 10m deep
underneath al-Shifa hospital".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67466779
Todal also wrote: "[In the manner of Goebbels is] the best possible way
of demonstrating the dishonesty of Israel."
Except that, unlike Goebbels, there was no dishonesty.
On 19/11/2023 18:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
But were he a member of the Labour Party he could then be expelled for
expressing views defined by said Board as anti-semitic, by definition
because
he disagreed with them.
The Labour Party is obsessed with Israel.
on around the world, which the Labour Party is silent about:-
Uighur death camps in China - not a dicky bird.
Yemen - silence.
Myanmar - silence.
Ethiopia - silence.
There are 7 conflicts with death tolls over 10000 this year, and another
36 smaller ones listed on WP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts
The Labour Party is pretty much silent on all of them. Apart from Israel.
That's not to excuse Israel, but I do wonder what's going on in the
minds of some party members.
And he might find his employment in any government
controlled body similarly at risk.
Are you saying there was not a single civil servant at the pro
palestinian marches?
On 13/11/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
It's not clearly absurd to compare Israel with the Nazis, given that
Israel ...(e) in the manner of Goebbels, tells lies to the world about
how Hamas has strongholds under hospitals
The BBC is now reporting on a "55m-long terror tunnel, 10m deep
underneath al-Shifa hospital".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67466779
Todal also wrote: "[In the manner of Goebbels is] the best possible way
of demonstrating the dishonesty of Israel."
Except that, unlike Goebbels, there was no dishonesty.
On 19/11/2023 19:07, GB wrote:
On 13/11/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
It's not clearly absurd to compare Israel with the Nazis, given that
Israel ...(e) in the manner of Goebbels, tells lies to the world about
how Hamas has strongholds under hospitals
The BBC is now reporting on a "55m-long terror tunnel, 10m deep
underneath al-Shifa hospital".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67466779
Todal also wrote: "[In the manner of Goebbels is] the best possible way
of demonstrating the dishonesty of Israel."
Except that, unlike Goebbels, there was no dishonesty.
I don't trust Israel's self-serving propaganda. It is likely that their skilled intelligence services have manufactured a video to suit Israel's purposes.
On 19 Nov 2023 at 19:07:37 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
It's not clearly absurd to compare Israel with the Nazis, given that
Israel ...(e) in the manner of Goebbels, tells lies to the world about
how Hamas has strongholds under hospitals
The BBC is now reporting on a "55m-long terror tunnel, 10m deep
underneath al-Shifa hospital".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67466779
Todal also wrote: "[In the manner of Goebbels is] the best possible way
of demonstrating the dishonesty of Israel."
Except that, unlike Goebbels, there was no dishonesty.
I am not a military expert, but that doesn't sound much like a major command centre to me. Enough room for 10 or twenty people?
On 13/11/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
It's not clearly absurd to compare Israel with the Nazis, given that
Israel ...(e) in the manner of Goebbels, tells lies to the world
about how Hamas has strongholds under hospitals
The BBC is now reporting on a "55m-long terror tunnel, 10m deep
underneath al-Shifa hospital".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67466779
Todal also wrote: "[In the manner of Goebbels is] the best possible
way of demonstrating the dishonesty of Israel."
Except that, unlike Goebbels, there was no dishonesty.
But assuming for the sake of argument that the IDF has managed to find a tunnel after killing and maiming hundreds of people on and around the hospital, the question has to be asked: why didn't the IDF spare all
those people and send its soldiers into the (probably empty) tunnels at
the cost of fewer lives?
It would be impressive if Israel had failed to find tunnels under the hospital, given that Israel built tunnels under the hospital in the 80s.
Are the IDF cowardly, preferring not to risk
their lives to spare women and children?
On 18/11/2023 19:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
You are applying logic and common sense. This is inadvisable where the
religious are concerned.
Actually, he's not applying either logic or common sense. He is imposing
his values on someone else, who has different values.
On 15/11/2023 12:04, GB wrote:
On 14/11/2023 23:23, The Todal wrote:
Israel does the same to the Palestinians. It behaves like the
Nazis. Not quite to the same extent as the Nazis. But like the
Nazis. That comparison will no doubt offend many Jews. Is that a
good reason to ban any such comparison? I don't think so.
Germany vilified the Jews, so would it be fair to say that you are
quite literally behaving like the Nazis? You may say that vilifying
Israel is not the same as vilifying Jews, but that's just the sort
of argument Goebbels would have come up with.
FWIW, I don't think you are behaving like a Nazi, and my point is
just that they are best left out of this altogether.
When the foreign office advise you not to drive a car on the Saturday
when visiting Israel, on the basis that your car will be stoned with
impunity with no action from the Israeli police, nothing more needs
to be said.
On 18/11/2023 13:17, Fredxx wrote:
I was explaining what is wrong with your statement here:
"An example is a friend who was born a jew to a jewish mother and
married a woman without the same credentials. She converted to
judaism but their children were not always welcome to certain events.
He said to me that was an aspect that annoyed him and he felt they
were being unnecessarily excluded. "
If she opted for a shortcut conversion process, then there are
orthodox Jews who simply don't accept that she converted properly.
That sounds like a form of racism.
Suppose you want to get your child into Amplethorpe, and they say they
want evidence that you are a church goer. You then send them your
membership of the Church of Scientology. Well, that's a church, innit.
Are you seriously suggesting that Amplethorpe are racist if they reject
your child?
On 19/11/2023 11:04, GB wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
You are applying logic and common sense. This is inadvisable where the
religious are concerned.
Actually, he's not applying either logic or common sense. He is
imposing his values on someone else, who has different values.
Religious values are those made up by men. They can be ignored at a whim
when convenient. You don't see the righteous stoning practising
homosexuals any more.
By way of example, pressing a switch at a pedestrian crossing could be
seen by many as "Any way to save someone’s life takes precedence over
any spiritual laws". Why do you think they are placed in high risk
roads? For fun? Should they all be replaced by zebra crossings?
Many seem to like imposing their beliefs on others with some very
convenient exceptions such the Covid vaccine even if it does contain
elicit ingredients.
On 18/11/2023 19:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
You are applying logic and common sense. This is inadvisable where the
religious are concerned.
Actually, he's not applying either logic or common sense. He is imposing
his values on someone else, who has different values.
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 6:45:51 PM UTC, GB wrote:
On 19/11/2023 18:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
But were he a member of the Labour Party he could then be expelled for
expressing views defined by said Board as anti-semitic, by definition because
he disagreed with them.
The Labour Party is obsessed with Israel. There are ghastly things going
on around the world, which the Labour Party is silent about:-
Uighur death camps in China - not a dicky bird.
Yemen - silence.
Myanmar - silence.
Ethiopia - silence.
There are 7 conflicts with death tolls over 10000 this year, and another
36 smaller ones listed on WP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts
The Labour Party is pretty much silent on all of them. Apart from Israel.
That's not to excuse Israel, but I do wonder what's going on in the
minds of some party members.
The Labour Party may be obsessed with Israel, partly because
some Jewish / Israeli lobby groups are apparently obsessed with
alleged antisemitism in the Labour Party, plus Corbyn's supposed
support for Hamas, while none of the other countries you mention
seem to have any comparable obsessions.
Plus Israel claims to be a democracy (the only one in the Middle
East), while none of the other countries you mention, with the
possible exception of Ethiopia, are democratic, so far as I am
aware.
So Labour Party members may feel that Israel should be amenable
to democratic arguments.
On 19/11/2023 07:16 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Nov 2023 at 19:07:37 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 13/11/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
It's not clearly absurd to compare Israel with the Nazis, given that
Israel ...(e) in the manner of Goebbels, tells lies to the world about >>>> how Hamas has strongholds under hospitals
The BBC is now reporting on a "55m-long terror tunnel, 10m deep
underneath al-Shifa hospital".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67466779
Todal also wrote: "[In the manner of Goebbels is] the best possible way
of demonstrating the dishonesty of Israel."
Except that, unlike Goebbels, there was no dishonesty.
I am not a military expert, but that doesn't sound much like a major
command
centre to me. Enough room for 10 or twenty people?
About 170 feet long?
Although it is stated to be 10 metres (c. 33 feet) deep, what is not
started [aagh! *stated*!] is the width, of course.
On 18/11/2023 16:40, GB wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:17, Fredxx wrote:
I was explaining what is wrong with your statement here:
"An example is a friend who was born a jew to a jewish mother and
married a woman without the same credentials. She converted to
judaism but their children were not always welcome to certain
events. He said to me that was an aspect that annoyed him and he
felt they were being unnecessarily excluded. "
If she opted for a shortcut conversion process, then there are
orthodox Jews who simply don't accept that she converted properly.
That sounds like a form of racism.
Suppose you want to get your child into Amplethorpe, and they say they
want evidence that you are a church goer. You then send them your
membership of the Church of Scientology. Well, that's a church, innit.
Does it depend on where how your parents were brought up and the
religion they were exposed to rather than the one you had taken up?
Are you seriously suggesting that Amplethorpe are racist if they
reject your child?
Yes, if it depended on race.
I take it you condone racism, or at least a form of it?
On 14:13 15 Nov 2023, Fredxx said:
On 15/11/2023 12:04, GB wrote:
On 14/11/2023 23:23, The Todal wrote:
Israel does the same to the Palestinians. It behaves like the
Nazis. Not quite to the same extent as the Nazis. But like the
Nazis. That comparison will no doubt offend many Jews. Is that a
good reason to ban any such comparison? I don't think so.
Germany vilified the Jews, so would it be fair to say that you are
quite literally behaving like the Nazis? You may say that vilifying
Israel is not the same as vilifying Jews, but that's just the sort
of argument Goebbels would have come up with.
FWIW, I don't think you are behaving like a Nazi, and my point is
just that they are best left out of this altogether.
When the foreign office advise you not to drive a car on the Saturday
when visiting Israel, on the basis that your car will be stoned with
impunity with no action from the Israeli police, nothing more needs
to be said.
That is advised only for ultra-Orthodox Jewish areas of Jerusalem.
However for Israel, it also says:
"Some Palestinian groups may violently oppose events, cultural events
and demonstrations, which they consider to be inconsistent with their
own values. This includes those perceived to be linked to the LGBT+
community, even if the event is not intended to promote LGBT+ rights.
In these cases, the Palestinian security forces and police may not
always act effectively to protect participants"
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/israel/local-laws-and-customs
On 19/11/2023 19:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Labour Party is pretty much silent on all of them. Apart from
Israel.
That of course is a weak argument at the best of times, but doubly so
when we
have no influence or already an undisputed opinion on most of these
conflicts.
We could impose sanctions on China, for example.
By the way, I am not sure that China's concentration camps for the
Uighurs
can reasonably be called "death camps".
Agreed. There's a WP article on Uyghur genocide, but it seems to be more
like ethnocide.
The Uyghurs are certainly being appallingly treated by the Chinese government. Yet, who on this NG or in the Labour Party speaks out about
it? Who goes on marches?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
Israeli action is contentious
precisely because they are a close ally of ours.
Our relationship to Israel is similar to that with the Chinese, and we
import vastly more from China than from Israel, which gives us clout
with China. But, we don't raise the issue with the Chinese, because the reality is that nobody in this country cares two figs about the Uyghurs.
And, that's strange. We care about muslims in the middle east, but not
the far east. What's the logic in that?
It is also not actually true that the Labour Party has no position on
any of
these conflicts, though it may be true that their position is not news.
Fair enough.
On 20/11/2023 01:48 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/11/2023 16:40, GB wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:17, Fredxx wrote:
I was explaining what is wrong with your statement here:
"An example is a friend who was born a jew to a jewish mother and
married a woman without the same credentials. She converted to
judaism but their children were not always welcome to certain
events. He said to me that was an aspect that annoyed him and he
felt they were being unnecessarily excluded. "
If she opted for a shortcut conversion process, then there are
orthodox Jews who simply don't accept that she converted properly.
That sounds like a form of racism.
Suppose you want to get your child into Amplethorpe, and they say
they want evidence that you are a church goer. You then send them
your membership of the Church of Scientology. Well, that's a church,
innit.
Does it depend on where how your parents were brought up and the
religion they were exposed to rather than the one you had taken up?
No. You are describing the grandparents of the would-be pupil there. The example given was parents wanting to get their child into Ampleforth (corrected name).
Are you seriously suggesting that Amplethorpe are racist if they
reject your child?
Yes, if it depended on race.
But it doesn't. Ampleforth is renowned for being a Catholic college.
I take it you condone racism, or at least a form of it?
The other posted didn't mention either race or anything which can be
taken as a proxy for race.
I read it very differently.
On 20/11/2023 14:17, The Todal wrote:
On 19/11/2023 11:04, GB wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
You are applying logic and common sense. This is inadvisable where the >>>> religious are concerned.
Actually, he's not applying either logic or common sense. He is
imposing his values on someone else, who has different values.
It would be "imposing my values" if I had stormed into the man's
house, demanded that he speak to me, told him that his religious views
were stupid. None of which happened - it happened to a relative of
mine and not to me, I wasn't distressed by it but I think my relative
was, and obviously the decision of the man was respected, not challenged.
It is rather odd to say that we must never prefer our own values to
the values of other people.
You did call him batshit-crazy because you don't share his religiosity.
I'm speaking from memory there, and please forgive me if those weren't
your exact words, but I'm pretty sure it's the gist of what you said.
On 20/11/2023 14:18, JNugent wrote:
On 20/11/2023 01:48 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/11/2023 16:40, GB wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:17, Fredxx wrote:
I was explaining what is wrong with your statement here:
"An example is a friend who was born a jew to a jewish mother and
married a woman without the same credentials. She converted to
judaism but their children were not always welcome to certain
events. He said to me that was an aspect that annoyed him and he
felt they were being unnecessarily excluded. "
If she opted for a shortcut conversion process, then there are
orthodox Jews who simply don't accept that she converted properly.
That sounds like a form of racism.
Suppose you want to get your child into Amplethorpe, and they say
they want evidence that you are a church goer. You then send them
your membership of the Church of Scientology. Well, that's a church,
innit.
Does it depend on where how your parents were brought up and the
religion they were exposed to rather than the one you had taken up?
No. You are describing the grandparents of the would-be pupil there.
The example given was parents wanting to get their child into
Ampleforth (corrected name).
That is correct. Ampleforth would accept my application for my child
without worrying if my parents fitted any specific credentials.
Are you seriously suggesting that Amplethorpe are racist if they
reject your child?
Yes, if it depended on race.
But it doesn't. Ampleforth is renowned for being a Catholic college.
That is only because Catholicism isn't a race.
I take it you condone racism, or at least a form of it?
The other posted didn't mention either race or anything which can be
taken as a proxy for race.
I read it very differently.
On 19/11/2023 11:04, GB wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
You are applying logic and common sense. This is inadvisable where the
religious are concerned.
Actually, he's not applying either logic or common sense. He is
imposing his values on someone else, who has different values.
It would be "imposing my values" if I had stormed into the man's house, demanded that he speak to me, told him that his religious views were
stupid. None of which happened - it happened to a relative of mine and
not to me, I wasn't distressed by it but I think my relative was, and obviously the decision of the man was respected, not challenged.
It is rather odd to say that we must never prefer our own values to the values of other people.
On 20/11/2023 15:42, Fredxx wrote:
I read it very differently.
You accused me of racism, so you really ought to be prepared to back it up.
On 20/11/2023 14:17, The Todal wrote:
On 19/11/2023 11:04, GB wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
You are applying logic and common sense. This is inadvisable where the >>>> religious are concerned.
Actually, he's not applying either logic or common sense. He is
imposing his values on someone else, who has different values.
It would be "imposing my values" if I had stormed into the man's house,
demanded that he speak to me, told him that his religious views were
stupid. None of which happened - it happened to a relative of mine and
not to me, I wasn't distressed by it but I think my relative was, and
obviously the decision of the man was respected, not challenged.
It is rather odd to say that we must never prefer our own values to the
values of other people.
You did call him batshit-crazy because you don't share his religiosity.
I'm speaking from memory there, and please forgive me if those weren't
your exact words, but I'm pretty sure it's the gist of what you said.
On 20/11/2023 14:17, The Todal wrote:
On 19/11/2023 11:04, GB wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
You are applying logic and common sense. This is inadvisable where the >>>> religious are concerned.
Actually, he's not applying either logic or common sense. He is
imposing his values on someone else, who has different values.
It would be "imposing my values" if I had stormed into the man's
house, demanded that he speak to me, told him that his religious views
were stupid. None of which happened - it happened to a relative of
mine and not to me, I wasn't distressed by it but I think my relative
was, and obviously the decision of the man was respected, not challenged.
It is rather odd to say that we must never prefer our own values to
the values of other people.
You did call him batshit-crazy because you don't share his religiosity.
I'm speaking from memory there, and please forgive me if those weren't
your exact words, but I'm pretty sure it's the gist of what you said.
On 20/11/2023 18:19, GB wrote:
On 20/11/2023 14:17, The Todal wrote:
On 19/11/2023 11:04, GB wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
You are applying logic and common sense. This is inadvisable where the >>>>> religious are concerned.
Actually, he's not applying either logic or common sense. He is
imposing his values on someone else, who has different values.
It would be "imposing my values" if I had stormed into the man's
house, demanded that he speak to me, told him that his religious views
were stupid. None of which happened - it happened to a relative of
mine and not to me, I wasn't distressed by it but I think my relative
was, and obviously the decision of the man was respected, not challenged. >>>
It is rather odd to say that we must never prefer our own values to
the values of other people.
You did call him batshit-crazy because you don't share his religiosity.
I'm speaking from memory there, and please forgive me if those weren't
your exact words, but I'm pretty sure it's the gist of what you said.
What I said was:
I admire your multicultural credentials and your ability to speak up in favour of batshit-crazy religious people. Unquote.
In the interests of balance I hope you now feel able to speak up in
favour of all those Muslims who make their wives wear a face covering,
or all those people, of various religions including a few Christian
sects, who believe that female genital mutilation is a wonderful way of welcoming young women into their warm and supportive community.
Surely our duty is to extend the hand of friendship and do our best to understand that point of view?
On 20/11/2023 18:19, GB wrote:
On 20/11/2023 14:17, The Todal wrote:
On 19/11/2023 11:04, GB wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
You are applying logic and common sense. This is inadvisable where the >>>>> religious are concerned.
Actually, he's not applying either logic or common sense. He is
imposing his values on someone else, who has different values.
It would be "imposing my values" if I had stormed into the man's
house, demanded that he speak to me, told him that his religious
views were stupid. None of which happened - it happened to a relative
of mine and not to me, I wasn't distressed by it but I think my
relative was, and obviously the decision of the man was respected,
not challenged.
It is rather odd to say that we must never prefer our own values to
the values of other people.
You did call him batshit-crazy because you don't share his religiosity.
I'm speaking from memory there, and please forgive me if those weren't
your exact words, but I'm pretty sure it's the gist of what you said.
What I said was:
I admire your multicultural credentials and your ability to speak up in favour of batshit-crazy religious people. Unquote.
In the interests of balance I hope you now feel able to speak up in
favour of all those Muslims who make their wives wear a face covering,
or all those people, of various religions including a few Christian
sects, who believe that female genital mutilation is a wonderful way of welcoming young women into their warm and supportive community.
Surely our duty is to extend the hand of friendship and do our best to understand that point of view?
On 20/11/2023 18:13, GB wrote:
On 20/11/2023 15:42, Fredxx wrote:
I read it very differently.
You accused me of racism, so you really ought to be prepared to back
it up.
Rather than snipping everything, it would be helpful if you were more explicit why anyone would call you a racist.
Perhaps you trying to justify the membership, or their rejection, of
some elite religious community on account of a person's race?
On 20/11/2023 18:13, GB wrote:
On 20/11/2023 15:42, Fredxx wrote:
I read it very differently.
You accused me of racism, so you really ought to be prepared to back
it up.
Rather than snipping everything, it would be helpful if you were more explicit why anyone would call you a racist.
Perhaps you trying to justify the membership, or their rejection, of
some elite religious community on account of a person's race?
On 13/11/2023 21:47, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/11/2023 20:06, GB wrote:
On 13/11/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
(e) in the manner of Goebbels, tells lies to the world about how
Hamas has strongholds under hospitals
I may be naive, but I am inclined to believe that that is not a lie.
What makes you so sure it is?
It's very convenient to make and propagate such unsubstantiated claims
so extremists will think it's ok to bomb hospitals.
It's also convenient to hide bunkers under hospitals. Clearly, we don't
know either way. It is, therefore, inappropriate for Todal to have made
the claim he did.
BTW, "in the manner of Goebbels" is pure rhetoric. It's a pretty tired
cliche that in times of war truth goes out of the window, and I can see
no need to invoke the Nazis.
On 14/11/2023 10:24, GB wrote:
On 13/11/2023 21:47, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/11/2023 20:06, GB wrote:
On 13/11/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
(e) in the manner of Goebbels, tells lies to the world about how
Hamas has strongholds under hospitals
I may be naive, but I am inclined to believe that that is not a lie.
What makes you so sure it is?
It's very convenient to make and propagate such unsubstantiated claims
so extremists will think it's ok to bomb hospitals.
It's also convenient to hide bunkers under hospitals. Clearly, we don't
know either way. It is, therefore, inappropriate for Todal to have made
the claim he did.
BTW, "in the manner of Goebbels" is pure rhetoric. It's a pretty tired
cliche that in times of war truth goes out of the window, and I can see
no need to invoke the Nazis.
Hate? You want hate? Here's some hate....
https://youtu.be/mo6bGp652XI
Israeli children sing "We will annihilate everyone" in Gaza. Any
similarity with the Hitler Youth is of course quite unintentional.
On 20 Nov 2023 at 23:34:17 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 10:24, GB wrote:
On 13/11/2023 21:47, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/11/2023 20:06, GB wrote:
On 13/11/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
(e) in the manner of Goebbels, tells lies to the world about how
Hamas has strongholds under hospitals
I may be naive, but I am inclined to believe that that is not a lie. >>>>> What makes you so sure it is?
It's very convenient to make and propagate such unsubstantiated claims >>>> so extremists will think it's ok to bomb hospitals.
It's also convenient to hide bunkers under hospitals. Clearly, we don't
know either way. It is, therefore, inappropriate for Todal to have made
the claim he did.
BTW, "in the manner of Goebbels" is pure rhetoric. It's a pretty tired
cliche that in times of war truth goes out of the window, and I can see
no need to invoke the Nazis.
Hate? You want hate? Here's some hate....
https://youtu.be/mo6bGp652XI
Israeli children sing "We will annihilate everyone" in Gaza. Any
similarity with the Hitler Youth is of course quite unintentional.
Actually the similarity is quite eerie. The marching tune, glorifying soldiers
and war, and talk of racial purity and extermination of enemies. I doubt the Germans would have had quite such young children singing it, but what do I know?
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 1:45:54 AM UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
It would be impressive if Israel had failed to find tunnels under the
hospital, given that Israel built tunnels under the hospital in the 80s.
That comment prompted me to try and find further information on that:
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/bunkers-gaza-al-shifa-hospital-built-them-2762272
'... Israeli newspaper the Tablet reported in 2014: "Back in 1983,
when Israel still ruled Gaza, they built a secure underground
operating room and tunnel network beneath Al-Shifa hospital
– which is one among several reasons why Israeli security sources
are so sure that there is a main Hamas command bunker in or
around the large cement basement beneath the area of building 2
of the hospital."
Although I note from the comments that the Israeli trolls are saying it is a mash-up of a sentimental children's song about the beautiful countryside and IDF propaganda pictures and isn't really true. Strange accompaniment for a sentimental song, but who knows?
On 20/11/2023 23:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
Although I note from the comments that the Israeli trolls are saying it is a >> mash-up of a sentimental children's song about the beautiful countryside and >> IDF propaganda pictures and isn't really true. Strange accompaniment for a >> sentimental song, but who knows?
A brief internet search suggests that the song is genuine. Pretty
ghastly, but genuine.
'In Israel, some users hailed the new version as “moving” and inducing “goosebumps,” but much of the reaction was strongly negative.
“Nauseating. Are you able to do anything besides desecrate the original, sully it with Kahanism and cause Israel public relations damage?” one person commented. Others called the clip “insane” and “the epitome of bad taste.” '
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/clip-of-israeli-kids-singing-of-wiping-out-nations-enemies-elicits-outrage/
On 20/11/2023 23:34, The Todal wrote:
Hate? You want hate? Here's some hate....
<snip>
Israeli children sing "We will annihilate everyone" in Gaza. Any
similarity with the Hitler Youth is of course quite unintentional.
Can I just check a couple of legal point, please, seeing as this is a
legal NG, an' all?
If it turns out that the video is a fake, is it a crime to distribute it
in this way?
Hate? You want hate? Here's some hate....
<snip>
Israeli children sing "We will annihilate everyone" in Gaza. Any
similarity with the Hitler Youth is of course quite unintentional.
On 18/11/2023 16:40, GB wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:17, Fredxx wrote:
I was explaining what is wrong with your statement here:
"An example is a friend who was born a jew to a jewish mother and
married a woman without the same credentials. She converted to
judaism but their children were not always welcome to certain
events. He said to me that was an aspect that annoyed him and he
felt they were being unnecessarily excluded. "
If she opted for a shortcut conversion process, then there are
orthodox Jews who simply don't accept that she converted properly.
That sounds like a form of racism.
Suppose you want to get your child into Amplethorpe, and they say
they want evidence that you are a church goer. You then send them
your membership of the Church of Scientology. Well, that's a church,
innit.
Does it depend on where how your parents were brought up and the
religion they were exposed to rather than the one you had taken up?
Are you seriously suggesting that Amplethorpe are racist if they
reject your child?
Yes, if it depended on race. I take it you condone racism, or at
least a form of it?
On 20/11/2023 23:34, The Todal wrote:
Hate? You want hate? Here's some hate....
<snip>
Israeli children sing "We will annihilate everyone" in Gaza. Any
similarity with the Hitler Youth is of course quite unintentional.
Can I just check a couple of legal point, please, seeing as this is a
legal NG, an' all?
If it turns out that the video is a fake, is it a crime to distribute it
in this way?
Would there be any repercussions for the moderators?
If that video is genuine, then (regardless of the law) it seems
reasonable and morally right to discuss it. I doubt that it is illegal
to spread it just because it is very embarrassing.
If, on the other hand, the video is a fake, it certainly seems morally
wrong to be spreading it, but would it be a criminal act in this country?
On 2023-11-21, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 20/11/2023 23:34, The Todal wrote:
Hate? You want hate? Here's some hate....
<snip>
Israeli children sing "We will annihilate everyone" in Gaza. Any
similarity with the Hitler Youth is of course quite unintentional.
Can I just check a couple of legal point, please, seeing as this is a
legal NG, an' all?
If it turns out that the video is a fake, is it a crime to distribute itWell, firstly, it isn't fake:
in this way?
https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/11/20/israeli-children-singing-annihilate-gaza/
And secondly, I don't immediately see what crime it would be to link to
it even if it was fake, especially if whoever linked to it wasn't aware
that it was fake.
On 20/11/2023 23:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
Although I note from the comments that the Israeli trolls are saying it is a >> mash-up of a sentimental children's song about the beautiful countryside and >> IDF propaganda pictures and isn't really true. Strange accompaniment for a >> sentimental song, but who knows?
A brief internet search suggests that the song is genuine. Pretty
ghastly, but genuine.
'In Israel, some users hailed the new version as moving and inducing >goosebumps, but much of the reaction was strongly negative.
Nauseating. Are you able to do anything besides desecrate the original, >sully it with Kahanism and cause Israel public relations damage? one
person commented. Others called the clip insane and the epitome of
bad taste. '
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/clip-of-israeli-kids-singing-of-wiping-out-nations-enemies-elicits-outrage/
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 13:27:57 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 20/11/2023 23:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
Although I note from the comments that the Israeli trolls are saying it is a
mash-up of a sentimental children's song about the beautiful countryside and
IDF propaganda pictures and isn't really true. Strange accompaniment for a >>> sentimental song, but who knows?
A brief internet search suggests that the song is genuine. Pretty
ghastly, but genuine.
'In Israel, some users hailed the new version as “moving” and inducing >> “goosebumps,” but much of the reaction was strongly negative.
“Nauseating. Are you able to do anything besides desecrate the original, >> sully it with Kahanism and cause Israel public relations damage?” one
person commented. Others called the clip “insane” and “the epitome of >> bad taste.” '
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/clip-of-israeli-kids-singing-of-wiping-out-nations-enemies-elicits-outrage/
The organisation which produced it appears to be a fringe group that doesn't have any connection with the IDF or the Israeli government. You can read their own website here:
https://www.hachazit.co.il/
Given the ease with which it's possible for anyone to set up an online presence and produce videos for social media, their existence and opinions aren't necessarily representative of wider public opinion. Unless someone
can come up with membership numbers which demonstrate otherwise, I don't think this group is any more representative of Israel than, say, the BNP or SWP are of the UK. Every country has its idiotic extremists, and I'm sure Israel is no different.
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 13:27:57 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 20/11/2023 23:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
Although I note from the comments that the Israeli trolls are saying it is a
mash-up of a sentimental children's song about the beautiful countryside and
IDF propaganda pictures and isn't really true. Strange accompaniment for a >>> sentimental song, but who knows?
A brief internet search suggests that the song is genuine. Pretty
ghastly, but genuine.
'In Israel, some users hailed the new version as moving and inducing
goosebumps, but much of the reaction was strongly negative.
Nauseating. Are you able to do anything besides desecrate the original,
sully it with Kahanism and cause Israel public relations damage? one
person commented. Others called the clip insane and the epitome of
bad taste. '
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/clip-of-israeli-kids-singing-of-wiping-out-nations-enemies-elicits-outrage/
The organisation which produced it appears to be a fringe group that doesn't have any connection with the IDF or the Israeli government. You can read their own website here:
https://www.hachazit.co.il/
Given the ease with which it's possible for anyone to set up an online presence and produce videos for social media, their existence and opinions aren't necessarily representative of wider public opinion. Unless someone
can come up with membership numbers which demonstrate otherwise, I don't think this group is any more representative of Israel than, say, the BNP or SWP are of the UK. Every country has its idiotic extremists, and I'm sure Israel is no different.
Mark
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 13:27:57 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 20/11/2023 23:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
Although I note from the comments that the Israeli trolls are saying it is a
mash-up of a sentimental children's song about the beautiful countryside and
IDF propaganda pictures and isn't really true. Strange accompaniment for a >>> sentimental song, but who knows?
A brief internet search suggests that the song is genuine. Pretty
ghastly, but genuine.
'In Israel, some users hailed the new version as “moving” and inducing >> “goosebumps,” but much of the reaction was strongly negative.
“Nauseating. Are you able to do anything besides desecrate the original, >> sully it with Kahanism and cause Israel public relations damage?” one
person commented. Others called the clip “insane” and “the epitome of >> bad taste.” '
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/clip-of-israeli-kids-singing-of-wiping-out-nations-enemies-elicits-outrage/
The organisation which produced it appears to be a fringe group that doesn't have any connection with the IDF or the Israeli government. You can read their own website here:
https://www.hachazit.co.il/
Given the ease with which it's possible for anyone to set up an online presence and produce videos for social media, their existence and opinions aren't necessarily representative of wider public opinion. Unless someone
can come up with membership numbers which demonstrate otherwise, I don't think this group is any more representative of Israel than, say, the BNP or SWP are of the UK. Every country has its idiotic extremists, and I'm sure Israel is no different.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 43:39:36 |
| Calls: | 6,709 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,023 |
