France bans all pro-Palestinian demonstrations(bbc.com)
bbc.com
France bans all pro-Palestinian demonstrations
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67088547
183 comments
It's not about ethnicity or religion per se. The land israel occupies was taken by force from palestinians. Gaza specifically is to a large extent simply a refugee camp for those displaced to create the state of israel, and their descendants.
Both groups have, from their own perspective, a valid and exclusive claim to the land there. If not prevented from doing so, palestinians would certainly reclaim the homes and farms of their grandparents. Israel has the political, economic, and military power to prevent this, and so they do.
Both groups have, from their own perspective, a valid and exclusive claim to the land there. If not prevented from doing so, palestinians would certainly reclaim the homes and farms of their grandparents. Israel has the political, economic, and military power to prevent this, and so they do.
Not true. Jews purchased many of the lands during British and Ottoman rule. When Israel was formed the Palestinians were given the majority of the territories. They attacked to get the rest and were defeated in a very bloody war.
As a result many fled. Many stayed and are a part of Israel to this day, they vote and have representatives in parliament, supreme court etc.
The Gaza strip and occupied territories were held by Egypt and Jordan. They were occupied in the 6 day war (1967) but Israel never annexed them. Some of the residence there are indeed refugees who prior to the formation of Israel, lived in a different region.
It's also not true that it's not about religion. This is 100% about religion. Jewish settlers are entirely motivated by religion. Hamas is an extremist religious group who believes in holy war and murder of its own people. While Israel is technically a secular country, the religious forces are strong and force us into situations like this.
As a result many fled. Many stayed and are a part of Israel to this day, they vote and have representatives in parliament, supreme court etc.
The Gaza strip and occupied territories were held by Egypt and Jordan. They were occupied in the 6 day war (1967) but Israel never annexed them. Some of the residence there are indeed refugees who prior to the formation of Israel, lived in a different region.
It's also not true that it's not about religion. This is 100% about religion. Jewish settlers are entirely motivated by religion. Hamas is an extremist religious group who believes in holy war and murder of its own people. While Israel is technically a secular country, the religious forces are strong and force us into situations like this.
> Not true. Jews purchased many of the lands during British and Ottoman rule. When Israel was formed the Palestinians were given the majority of the territories.
"The Jewish State allocated to the Jews, who constituted a third of the population and owned about 7% of the land, was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine, a slightly larger area to accommodate the increasing numbers of Jews who would immigrate there." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_...)
"The Jewish State allocated to the Jews, who constituted a third of the population and owned about 7% of the land, was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine, a slightly larger area to accommodate the increasing numbers of Jews who would immigrate there." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_...)
Notice that the areas allocated are not continuous most of the area is a desert (the entire southern region). It also doesn't mention who owned the rest of the land so the 7% number isn't valuable.
People on this part of the world have been killing each other for a good 3000 years or so. It has gone back and forward and there isn't really one correct owner.
However they want to do it, rolling into a music festival and shooting everyone really doesn't sound like the right way to fight injustice (perceived or real).
However they want to do it, rolling into a music festival and shooting everyone really doesn't sound like the right way to fight injustice (perceived or real).
> People on this part of the world have been killing each other for a good 3000 years or so.
This is a really nasty way to dismiss it imo. It explains nothing but just assumes the conflict is inevitable. What, is the land cursed? Are they bloodthirsty barbarians who can't do anything else?
No, there are specific grievances in the recent past and ongoing. This is not some mythical blood feud with its origins lost in history. Israel as a modern nation-state did an ethnic cleansing to get itself started a few decades ago. People are mad about that, and it's in living memory you don't need to reach back to the obscure 3000-year-old whatever.
This is a really nasty way to dismiss it imo. It explains nothing but just assumes the conflict is inevitable. What, is the land cursed? Are they bloodthirsty barbarians who can't do anything else?
No, there are specific grievances in the recent past and ongoing. This is not some mythical blood feud with its origins lost in history. Israel as a modern nation-state did an ethnic cleansing to get itself started a few decades ago. People are mad about that, and it's in living memory you don't need to reach back to the obscure 3000-year-old whatever.
It is a lie that Israel was founded on an ethnic cleansing hiding the fact that the Arab league wanted to wipe out all Jewish settlements. Just like it happened in other Arab countries at that time and just how they want to do it today.
War erupted which Israel won and hence their claim to the land. They did not ethnically cleanse anyone, in many cases they even bought the land, which I have never seen in a similar conflict. Usually it is just taken.
War erupted which Israel won and hence their claim to the land. They did not ethnically cleanse anyone, in many cases they even bought the land, which I have never seen in a similar conflict. Usually it is just taken.
Man what do you want to call the forced removal of an ethnic group from a geographic area so they can be replaced by another one? Ethnic cleansing has been the accepted term for this for a couple generations but I'm flexible on nomenclature here as long as we agree that the forced removal happened.
If we don't agree that it did then we literally cannot have a conversation across this boundary on this subject. I also don't see how you can adequately explain the current situation in the region when you deny this part of its history but that's your problem I guess.
If we don't agree that it did then we literally cannot have a conversation across this boundary on this subject. I also don't see how you can adequately explain the current situation in the region when you deny this part of its history but that's your problem I guess.
Any admittance of fault would be abused and very one-sided, so we cannot have a discussion on this topic indeed. I stand by my statement that the accusation of ethnic cleansing is a hideous lie.
If you only hold discussions where one party must confess to ethnic cleansing, conflict is inevitable.
If you only hold discussions where one party must confess to ethnic cleansing, conflict is inevitable.
No I hold plenty of discussions where no one has to confess to an ethnic cleansing. But only ones where neither participant has committed one.
> I stand by my statement that the accusation of ethnic cleansing is a hideous lie.
What does it mean "stand by" a statement that an assertion is a lie without attempting to refute the assertion? This is a nonsense action, it is nothing. I said I'm flexible about the vocabulary we use when we talk about what happened, so what happened? Why do so many palestinians live in gaza? How did they get there, under what conditions do they remain? Why aren't there more of them in other parts of israel?
I'm giving you an opportunity to describe it on your terms. So describe it.
> I stand by my statement that the accusation of ethnic cleansing is a hideous lie.
What does it mean "stand by" a statement that an assertion is a lie without attempting to refute the assertion? This is a nonsense action, it is nothing. I said I'm flexible about the vocabulary we use when we talk about what happened, so what happened? Why do so many palestinians live in gaza? How did they get there, under what conditions do they remain? Why aren't there more of them in other parts of israel?
I'm giving you an opportunity to describe it on your terms. So describe it.
You haven't put forward any argument that would allow for such a severe accusation, so I can dismiss it w.ithout comment just fine.
I am not flexible about the vocabulary of ethnic cleansing for that matter. It has a very specific meaning
I am not flexible about the vocabulary of ethnic cleansing for that matter. It has a very specific meaning
I'm not making an argument, I'm making an assertion that you called a lie. So clearly you understood the point I'm making, I don't see that it requires further litigation on the details.
So, again, what happened? What is your description of the events that led to palestinians being so concentrated in gaza, and no longer living in the land they inhabited before.
Again I am giving you an opportunity to tell this story in the words you prefer. What, other than your cowardice, is preventing you from taking it?
So, again, what happened? What is your description of the events that led to palestinians being so concentrated in gaza, and no longer living in the land they inhabited before.
Again I am giving you an opportunity to tell this story in the words you prefer. What, other than your cowardice, is preventing you from taking it?
Heh, no, it definitely doesn't need any litigation of the details at all as the case is pretty clear, your honor.
It is their own making. It is safe to be a Palestinian in Israel, while you probably don't want to be a Jew in Gaza.
It is their own making. It is safe to be a Palestinian in Israel, while you probably don't want to be a Jew in Gaza.
You wouldn't want to be an unarmed german in an unsupervised corner of auchswitz either but that's hardly a condemnation of the prisoners is it.
https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
The levels of hate have gone beyond reason and strategy and (it is hard to read my own words but because it's the truth I won't leave it implicit) reached ethnic cleansing and suicide bombing. That is the only way to explain these events and what is openly planned.
The united states must stay out. Controlling a city sized pile of collapsed buildings is a nightmarish situation that I do not wish on Israeli conscripts but extraordinarily so not on our own volunteers. The prospect of a second major invasion of the middle east should give pause even in the event that a terrorist strike in the United States occurs. Second to that I hope that they can return to a peace process before the scale of the atrocities stain their (Israeli) flag forever and ours by abetting. (Hamas' flag has guns on it, it can't get a lot worse. Wishing anything from their own leadership is hopeless even surrender.)
The civilians will be given guns and told their life is already over. We will be told Hamas is using child soldiers.
The united states must stay out. Controlling a city sized pile of collapsed buildings is a nightmarish situation that I do not wish on Israeli conscripts but extraordinarily so not on our own volunteers. The prospect of a second major invasion of the middle east should give pause even in the event that a terrorist strike in the United States occurs. Second to that I hope that they can return to a peace process before the scale of the atrocities stain their (Israeli) flag forever and ours by abetting. (Hamas' flag has guns on it, it can't get a lot worse. Wishing anything from their own leadership is hopeless even surrender.)
The civilians will be given guns and told their life is already over. We will be told Hamas is using child soldiers.
In my opinion you shouldn't be worried about that possibility, the presence of the US in the middle east right now is probably just to deter other parties from escalating the conflict. The US has no interest and no intent for entering Gaza, Israel has the resources to deal with Hamas on it's own.
One of the most important parts of this conflict I think which most people here aren't talking about ia the geopolitics in the middle east. Most of this is still just a big old proxy war spear-headed by Iran. All the big terrorist groups and actors in the region wheather it be Gaza-based terror groups like Hamas or Lebanon's Hezbollah are funded and controlled by Iran.
There's a whole Wikipedia page on it, actually: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_co...
One of the most important parts of this conflict I think which most people here aren't talking about ia the geopolitics in the middle east. Most of this is still just a big old proxy war spear-headed by Iran. All the big terrorist groups and actors in the region wheather it be Gaza-based terror groups like Hamas or Lebanon's Hezbollah are funded and controlled by Iran.
There's a whole Wikipedia page on it, actually: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_co...
Israel has bombed airports in Syria only a few days ago. They seem willing to strain the American protection and could little by little provoke an escalation involving regional powers, leading to our involvement. The one thing that could make this catastrophe worse is if America is drawn in.
Not only a few days ago, they do that on a regular basis by now because there are regular shipments of weapons by Iran. Syria in its state of civil war doesn't have much influence in the northern regions, where Iran tried to deploy the weapons against Israel.
One need not forget that Israel too has no interest in an all out conflict. Also the syrian attack iirc was to prevent Iran's foreign minister from landing there.
Everyone's (except maybe Iran's) hope is that this conflict does not escalate any more.
Everyone's (except maybe Iran's) hope is that this conflict does not escalate any more.
Ok I understand this but why prevent clean water and food and medicine from crossing the border? Why disallow them from trade while simultaneously not letting them into Israel?
Note: If you're referring to things that they've done within the last few days, disregard this comment as this comment was written regarding the way things were before the recent attacks
I think it's more nuanced than just them trying to "prevent clean water and food and medicine from crossing the border." In the region, water is scarce and important for both sides. Israel does allow "clean water" into the region, the complaint is that Israel government allows their own people take too much of it (from the perspective of Palestinian farmers). In the American west we have the exact same problem. Farmers higher upstream of the Colorado river want enough water for all their crops, but this would deprive the farmers further west from having enough. There are intense and heated (political) battles between the regions, with both regions feeling like they are getting shortchanged. With food, medicine etc, there's concern that those supplies are going to enemy combatants/terrorists (from the Israeli perspective).
This is one of those situations where there aren't really any clear/easy answers.
I think it's more nuanced than just them trying to "prevent clean water and food and medicine from crossing the border." In the region, water is scarce and important for both sides. Israel does allow "clean water" into the region, the complaint is that Israel government allows their own people take too much of it (from the perspective of Palestinian farmers). In the American west we have the exact same problem. Farmers higher upstream of the Colorado river want enough water for all their crops, but this would deprive the farmers further west from having enough. There are intense and heated (political) battles between the regions, with both regions feeling like they are getting shortchanged. With food, medicine etc, there's concern that those supplies are going to enemy combatants/terrorists (from the Israeli perspective).
This is one of those situations where there aren't really any clear/easy answers.
So that what? They can become a thriving, economically powerful micronation on their doorstep? With better access to the political and military connections necessary to reclaim what they will always consider their land? Why would israel want that? Why would they allow it, if they have the power to prevent it.
Isn’t the deck tilted so much in Israel’s favour (economically and militarily) right now, that Palestine doesn’t need to be oppressed in the manner that it is? Isn’t oppressing the Palestinian people what allows groups like Hamas to thrive?
(These are honest questions, from someone with essentially no understanding of the current conflict but is trying desperately to make sense of it and is struggling with obviously biased reporting everywhere I look)
(These are honest questions, from someone with essentially no understanding of the current conflict but is trying desperately to make sense of it and is struggling with obviously biased reporting everywhere I look)
First of all, I am biased to my opinions so take everything I say eith a grain of salt.
Now, you need to divide your concept of thr Palestinian people to (at least) 2 groups or factions, those that live in Gaza and those that live in the west bank. The major difference between these groups is that Israel is the sovereign over the West Bank but disengaged from Gaza about 18 years ago and since it's disengagement, terrorist groups like Hamas have taken control of the Gaza strip[1]. One could have a long conversation about human rights issues in the West Bank but what is happening in Gaza right now isn't oppression, it's a war. You could point out Israel's blockade of Gaza as a form of oppression but it's just a way for Israel to prevent Hamas from accumulating massive amounts of weapons from certain foreign actors[2]. The really terrible thing ia that Hamas's infrastructure is so deeply linked and interleaved with civilian life it's impossible to fight them effectively without hurting civilians (Israel has some measures to attempt to do that[3] but everything has it's limits). Hamas isn't interested in peace and will slaighter their way to victory whatever happens, they are actively hurting both Gaza and Israeli civilians as we recently observed with the cruel massacre. The world will be better without Hamas, it's heartbreaking it has to happen this way.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_G... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_co... [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_knocking
Now, you need to divide your concept of thr Palestinian people to (at least) 2 groups or factions, those that live in Gaza and those that live in the west bank. The major difference between these groups is that Israel is the sovereign over the West Bank but disengaged from Gaza about 18 years ago and since it's disengagement, terrorist groups like Hamas have taken control of the Gaza strip[1]. One could have a long conversation about human rights issues in the West Bank but what is happening in Gaza right now isn't oppression, it's a war. You could point out Israel's blockade of Gaza as a form of oppression but it's just a way for Israel to prevent Hamas from accumulating massive amounts of weapons from certain foreign actors[2]. The really terrible thing ia that Hamas's infrastructure is so deeply linked and interleaved with civilian life it's impossible to fight them effectively without hurting civilians (Israel has some measures to attempt to do that[3] but everything has it's limits). Hamas isn't interested in peace and will slaighter their way to victory whatever happens, they are actively hurting both Gaza and Israeli civilians as we recently observed with the cruel massacre. The world will be better without Hamas, it's heartbreaking it has to happen this way.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_G... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_co... [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_knocking
It's useful to focus on how neither entity is unified or homogenous I think. There are factions within israel that benefit from hamas having power relative to other options. https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...
A good bit of it is quite simply explained by "they want to do a genocide and this is an effective way of doing it."
A good bit of it is quite simply explained by "they want to do a genocide and this is an effective way of doing it."
If you are able to get a supply of rockets into your land, you can get anything that allows you to strive economically. Israel also granted them more autonomy which they repaid with terrorism. Do you just deny that fact?
The blind blame of Israel is just tiring. They still want all the land and drive out the Jews. That is no basis to found a prosperous nation.
The blind blame of Israel is just tiring. They still want all the land and drive out the Jews. That is no basis to found a prosperous nation.
It's not blind I'm not blaming israel for anything israel hasn't chosen to do. No one made them do an ethnic cleansing, no one made them keep its refugees in a blockaded prison city. No one makes them bomb palestinian children and assassinate palestinian journalists. These are their choices and they are responsible for them.
Hamas actually did make israel keep Gazans in a blockaded prison city through repeated terrorist attacks.
How're you sitting with this one today? Got a clear idea what hamas did to make israel bomb a hospital?
[deleted]
>Since we’re off HN topic anyways, can someone ELI5 why Israel blockades / occupies Palestinian territories?
No. There are things that you can reasonably expect to explain to an average five year old children. Humanitarian horror shows entangled into complex geo-political situations twisted with religious and ethnic matters is, to my mind, not one of them.
Sure one can always try to sketch some answers, but what is the purpose you are expecting to get out of it? If you want to build a solidly informed opinion, I’m afraid that there is no shortcut royal way.
But if this answer seems unsatisfying to you, maybe you can try https://eli5.gg/why%20Israel%20blockades%20%2F%20occupies%20...
No. There are things that you can reasonably expect to explain to an average five year old children. Humanitarian horror shows entangled into complex geo-political situations twisted with religious and ethnic matters is, to my mind, not one of them.
Sure one can always try to sketch some answers, but what is the purpose you are expecting to get out of it? If you want to build a solidly informed opinion, I’m afraid that there is no shortcut royal way.
But if this answer seems unsatisfying to you, maybe you can try https://eli5.gg/why%20Israel%20blockades%20%2F%20occupies%20...
I'm a liberal Israeli. The border used to be mostly open. With the Oslo accord the Hamas started bombing civilians (busses, coffee shops etc.).
The wall is a problem but it stopped this. Hamas did its best to destroy the peace that was forming. It found a collaborator in our PM (Netanyahu) who essentially supported them and elevated them so they will fight with the PLO.
The idea was that it would prevent the formation of a Palestinian state. That was always a stupid idea... Notice that this was never "official" policy, this is my interpretation based on his actions.
Right now the specific blockade is fulled by three things:
* Rage - this is something I feel personally as everyone lost someone they know there. It's a small country... When children are murdered it tends to bring out blind rage and indifference towards the other side.
* Fear - Israel survived in a very hostile environment thanks to its ability to instill fear in its enemies. This showed a weak underbelly and Israelis are rightly concerned that anything less than complete destruction of the enemy will trigger an all out war.
* Hostages - There are civilians and children held hostage. The minister responsible for infrastructure specifically said that electricity and water won't be restored until the hostages are returned.
I personally think the bombings are absolutely horrible. I know quite a few Palestinians and my heart goes out to them. There's a mob mentality on both sides and we both lack in leadership. It took 5 days for the MODERATE head of the PLO to issue a very weak condemnation of the attack. On our side Netanyahu is as corrupt as they come. A demagogue of the worst kind. He promised to "flatten Gaza" which is stupid. I don't want that.
The Hamas has been a cancer on the Palestinian people. It murdered more Palestinians than Israel ever did. They believe in holy war and that Palestinian dead will be rewarded in the afterlife. The death of a Palestinian child is just PR for these guys. They are as terrible as they come. Unfortunately, this cancer masticated through the population. I have no easy answered but one thing I think pretty much every Israeli agrees on, they MUST be destroyed completely. Not the Palestinian people, the Hamas. My main concern is the leadership vacuum. The PLO isn't great either and won't want to collaborate with Israel after everything it did... Going back to something resembling the Oslo accord will be hard on all fronts.
The wall is a problem but it stopped this. Hamas did its best to destroy the peace that was forming. It found a collaborator in our PM (Netanyahu) who essentially supported them and elevated them so they will fight with the PLO.
The idea was that it would prevent the formation of a Palestinian state. That was always a stupid idea... Notice that this was never "official" policy, this is my interpretation based on his actions.
Right now the specific blockade is fulled by three things:
* Rage - this is something I feel personally as everyone lost someone they know there. It's a small country... When children are murdered it tends to bring out blind rage and indifference towards the other side.
* Fear - Israel survived in a very hostile environment thanks to its ability to instill fear in its enemies. This showed a weak underbelly and Israelis are rightly concerned that anything less than complete destruction of the enemy will trigger an all out war.
* Hostages - There are civilians and children held hostage. The minister responsible for infrastructure specifically said that electricity and water won't be restored until the hostages are returned.
I personally think the bombings are absolutely horrible. I know quite a few Palestinians and my heart goes out to them. There's a mob mentality on both sides and we both lack in leadership. It took 5 days for the MODERATE head of the PLO to issue a very weak condemnation of the attack. On our side Netanyahu is as corrupt as they come. A demagogue of the worst kind. He promised to "flatten Gaza" which is stupid. I don't want that.
The Hamas has been a cancer on the Palestinian people. It murdered more Palestinians than Israel ever did. They believe in holy war and that Palestinian dead will be rewarded in the afterlife. The death of a Palestinian child is just PR for these guys. They are as terrible as they come. Unfortunately, this cancer masticated through the population. I have no easy answered but one thing I think pretty much every Israeli agrees on, they MUST be destroyed completely. Not the Palestinian people, the Hamas. My main concern is the leadership vacuum. The PLO isn't great either and won't want to collaborate with Israel after everything it did... Going back to something resembling the Oslo accord will be hard on all fronts.
Israel isn't committing genocide in the Gaza strip. Lets not go there.
In fact, lets not blame the victims. Israel is defending themselves from aggressors and so I don't go far at all to consider their hasty response to the situation.
Next, "what palestinian territory?"
The british through blood, death and gore took that land. They formed Israel who has kept the land through blood, death and gore.
Did the palestianians take the land by force? Were they given land? Nope and Nope.
In fact, lets not blame the victims. Israel is defending themselves from aggressors and so I don't go far at all to consider their hasty response to the situation.
Next, "what palestinian territory?"
The british through blood, death and gore took that land. They formed Israel who has kept the land through blood, death and gore.
Did the palestianians take the land by force? Were they given land? Nope and Nope.
Eggsellence(1)
There is no blockade.
If there was a blockade - how so many weapons got in?
Guarding the borders is essential - we saw what they did in a few hours without them. Burning women alive. Decapitating babies. Raping teenagers then shooting them.
Without a guarded border - they'll do a second holocaust. That's not a speculation - that's a proven fact.
If there was a blockade - how so many weapons got in?
Guarding the borders is essential - we saw what they did in a few hours without them. Burning women alive. Decapitating babies. Raping teenagers then shooting them.
Without a guarded border - they'll do a second holocaust. That's not a speculation - that's a proven fact.
"If there was a blockade - how so many weapons got in?"
Tunnels.
"Decapitating babies."
This was fabricated.
Tunnels.
"Decapitating babies."
This was fabricated.
Wait who said it was fabricated? It’s been widely reported to be true afaik
>It’s been widely reported to be true afaik
Its been widely reported without evidence existing, which should have been a redflag for anyone with brain. It was just "trust me bro" by the prime minister.
Everybody has been slowly backtracking on it over the last 2 days. Including Israel itself:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/12/middleeast/israel-hamas-b...
Its been widely reported without evidence existing, which should have been a redflag for anyone with brain. It was just "trust me bro" by the prime minister.
Everybody has been slowly backtracking on it over the last 2 days. Including Israel itself:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/12/middleeast/israel-hamas-b...
And the statement that it would be fabricated should be taken as it is? Doesn't explain the witnesses though.
What is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Israel was being asked about it for days by western media and refuses to provide anything.
Israel was being asked about it for days by western media and refuses to provide anything.
witnesses: believe me bro
snird(3)
Because killing babies is good as long as you don't decapitate them?
OK.
OK.
That is not a straw man argument. If anything you seem to be conducting one by focusing on a single detail to discredit a narrative. Children were executed in cold blood. That's a fact. The method of execution is really irrelevant here.
>That is not a straw man argument.
It is a textbook example of a strawman. He is putting words in my mouth that I never said to debunk my post. That is exactly what strawman fallacy means. Lmao.
>If anything you seem to be conducting one by focusing on a single detail to discredit a narrative
Another strawman. I merely pointed out it was a hoax, as briefly and straightforwardly as possible. I didnt say anything about any "narrative" at all.
>The method of execution is really irrelevant here.
It is very relevant when it was explicitely stated. Falsehoods must be pointed out. Relentlessly.
It is a textbook example of a strawman. He is putting words in my mouth that I never said to debunk my post. That is exactly what strawman fallacy means. Lmao.
>If anything you seem to be conducting one by focusing on a single detail to discredit a narrative
Another strawman. I merely pointed out it was a hoax, as briefly and straightforwardly as possible. I didnt say anything about any "narrative" at all.
>The method of execution is really irrelevant here.
It is very relevant when it was explicitely stated. Falsehoods must be pointed out. Relentlessly.
They published verified photos of dead and burnt babies. You're grasping on literal straws.
>They published verified photos of dead and burnt babies.
This is irrelevant to the topic discussed which is "validity of the Israel's claim of decapitated babies". You entered this specific topic and keep derailing it with these claims that are unrelated to the original statement.
>You're grasping on literal straws.
Literal straws is what grows behind your house. Perhaps you meant figurative straws.
This is irrelevant to the topic discussed which is "validity of the Israel's claim of decapitated babies". You entered this specific topic and keep derailing it with these claims that are unrelated to the original statement.
>You're grasping on literal straws.
Literal straws is what grows behind your house. Perhaps you meant figurative straws.
> Literal straws is what grows behind your house.
This is exactly my point. You're being purposely petty as if decapitation of a baby or mutilation with a knife are different. There are many lies perpetrated in the fog of war. But your choose to focus on the methodology of baby execution as the "hill to die on" in terms of "truth" is pretty f*ed up.
This is exactly my point. You're being purposely petty as if decapitation of a baby or mutilation with a knife are different. There are many lies perpetrated in the fog of war. But your choose to focus on the methodology of baby execution as the "hill to die on" in terms of "truth" is pretty f*ed up.
It is very relevant to the topic of whether Hamas murders babies.
Stop defending people who murder babies.
Stop defending people who murder babies.
Proof you don't have any excuse for defending people who murder babies.
Coward.
Coward.
[deleted]
I think it is absolutely grotesque and distasteful to hold pro rallies for Palestine and Hamas right now, but I would not stop them. They should be free to protest and speak.
Is anyone holding pro-Hamas rallies? I have only heard of Pro-Palestinian. The two are obviously not the same.
https://www.reuters.com/world/police-investigate-pro-palesti...
When the pro Palestinian rally is chanting gas the Jews, it might be pro hamas as well.
When the pro Palestinian rally is chanting gas the Jews, it might be pro hamas as well.
Protests are infiltrated all the time, so don’t be so cocksure with the cries of “pro hamas”.
I am not saying that every protestor there was pro hamas. There is video. It did happen and the group wasn't 3 people. I am providing recently information to the OP to directly answer their point.
Oh yeah they all just happen to cheer for Palestine right after the Hamas carnage!
What a coincidence life is strange sometimes! ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯
I do not know if anyone is protesting the civilian deaths due to retaliation but that would be a worthwhile reason to hold a candlelight vigil or demonstrative march in support of the inevitable bystander victims and their families here.
If we were spiritually sound we would be holding mass gatherings in remembrance of all victims and in support of all innocent survivors. But that does not draw enough attention for us to have heard about one if it took place.
If we were spiritually sound we would be holding mass gatherings in remembrance of all victims and in support of all innocent survivors. But that does not draw enough attention for us to have heard about one if it took place.
Yes, the demonstrators in the USA who cried "glory to the martyrs!" were pro-Hamas, at least in their own words.
If you hold them a few days after such an attack, that sounds like a lie.
Palestinians are facing bombings and imminent threats. Can you understand why their supporters would want to rally at this moment?
I would absolutely stop them.
Given they are chanting "Gas the Jews" and "Rape the Jews".
These are not protests - these are death marches.
Given they are chanting "Gas the Jews" and "Rape the Jews".
These are not protests - these are death marches.
That is a good point, and that is probably the one time I would say that they should not be allowed. Openly threatening people, even a broad group, with violence is absolutely wrong. I could see that being the case where I would say no, those protests need to stop.
By "They" you mean "Some".
>Given they are chanting "Gas the Jews" and "Rape the Jews".
When?
When?
Sydney isn't in France. I was asking specifically about the demonstrations in France that France just banned
snird(1)
There's also some sort of ban in place in my home country of Germany. I think there's technically no ban, but people keep getting arrested for protesting regardless.
Germany has very strict laws against hate-speech and incitement of hatred ("Volkzverhetzung"), that would probably be the reason for people being arrested. For historic reasons.
Germany has a great deal to answer for the fate of modern day Palestinians. The most decisive factor next to Sykes Picot. They naturally have no interest in that debate.
Israel funded Hamas. https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-c...
Not that it appears to have done much good
https://x.com/NationalIndNews/status/1712525993854833142?s=2...
https://x.com/NationalIndNews/status/1712525993854833142?s=2...
[deleted]
So in the end the real cancel culture finally came? _Mais vous m'étonnez..._
Yeah it seems stupid to ban them instead of identifying (and probably arresting for support of terrorism) anyone taking part at them.
But as it's often the case it's easier to sweep the problems under the rug.
There was a demonstration in my city as well tonight, I'm still in shock.
But it's obvious that Europe is filled with antisemitic immigrants if you don't even ask them their beliefs before allowing them to stay.
But as it's often the case it's easier to sweep the problems under the rug.
There was a demonstration in my city as well tonight, I'm still in shock.
But it's obvious that Europe is filled with antisemitic immigrants if you don't even ask them their beliefs before allowing them to stay.
Don't you think arresting anyone flying a Palestinian flag is a bit authoritarian.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." — Voltaire
Doesn't France have constitutionally protected freedom of speech?
No constituional protection is absolute, as they usually contradict each other to at least some extend. The difference where different societies place the focus - the US is strongly in favor of freedom of speech, whereas European states usually are less absolutist about speech.
One significant difference is the US constitutional assertion that "certain inalienable rights" (notably the freedom to speak) are "endowed by our creator". In practice, this places such rights outside the authority of governments.
In most other countries, rights are constructed and granted at the pleasure of the government currently in power.
It's easy to overlook this philosophical difference as pedantic, but the ramifications are profound.
In most other countries, rights are constructed and granted at the pleasure of the government currently in power.
It's easy to overlook this philosophical difference as pedantic, but the ramifications are profound.
Godel's constitutional theorem
How many are brave enough to challenge it in the face of arrest or worse police violence?
Judging by this (linked up in the thread) - plenty: https://x.com/NationalIndNews/status/1712525993854833142?s=2...
Censorship is rearing its ugly head again. Can't have the wrong opinions. I feel like this really took off with the Corona virus pandemic, again with the Ukraine invasion, and now this.
Yes, all the people who couldn't imagine the censorship being used against "their team," here it is. It always happens. Censorship is the tool of authoritarians. Fight it in every form.
Well. My team doesn't hold rallys where people yell to gas the jews after a major terrorist attack. So... It's not that I can't imagine it being used against me it's just that I don't do that anyway so not being allowed to do it isn't a loss.
> Well. My team doesn't hold rallys where people yell to gas the jews
No your team hold rallies where people chants death to Arabs (even before the recent attacks)
i.e. Just this last march, in Jerusalem under the protection of Israeli soldiers thousands of Israelis chanted "Death to Arabs" [1]. The term "Death to Arabs" is very famous in rallies and context of Israeli extremists, where some of the current Israeli government are members of their groups (i.e [2]).
Will this change anything to you? I doubt but let's just say you are not being honest.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/29/israel-jerusalem-ma...
[2] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/extreme-right-m...
No your team hold rallies where people chants death to Arabs (even before the recent attacks)
i.e. Just this last march, in Jerusalem under the protection of Israeli soldiers thousands of Israelis chanted "Death to Arabs" [1]. The term "Death to Arabs" is very famous in rallies and context of Israeli extremists, where some of the current Israeli government are members of their groups (i.e [2]).
Will this change anything to you? I doubt but let's just say you are not being honest.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/29/israel-jerusalem-ma...
[2] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/extreme-right-m...
There is violent rhetoric at all rallies related to this war, pro-Israel rallies included. Most people do not say such terrible things, some people do say them, and the opposition paints the whole rally as endorsing that stance. That’s the way it goes.
Once a population is ok with censorship, they enable censorship, so eventually it will be a loss. That's what's happening right now.
That is not what they banned, I strongly suspect that is already illegal.
Also, your "my team" take is bordering on, if not racist. There is no "other team", they are diverse individuals who have opinions that differ from yours.
Also, your "my team" take is bordering on, if not racist. There is no "other team", they are diverse individuals who have opinions that differ from yours.
Pretty sure with "my team," parent was talking American politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
Mirroring my comments elsewhere:
In an ideal world we would not have censorship, but people would be punished for death threats and violent action. However, most governments do not have the resources needed to enforce such punishment in the scale necessary (in these cases). When the need for that supercedes the capacity of the state to control it, the devil's bargain to censor speech instead.
In an ideal world we would not have censorship, but people would be punished for death threats and violent action. However, most governments do not have the resources needed to enforce such punishment in the scale necessary (in these cases). When the need for that supercedes the capacity of the state to control it, the devil's bargain to censor speech instead.
[deleted]
I really doubt any pro-palestine activists were surprised by this one?
The tactic of contacting our employers expecting them to fire us is a couple decades old at least. We are routinely called anti-semites for condemning treatment of palestinians.
And in the US currently the right is the one with the book-banning campaign? Again idk really how you can paint this as a surprising twist lol. We all saw it coming.
The tactic of contacting our employers expecting them to fire us is a couple decades old at least. We are routinely called anti-semites for condemning treatment of palestinians.
And in the US currently the right is the one with the book-banning campaign? Again idk really how you can paint this as a surprising twist lol. We all saw it coming.
No, democracies have to have limits what they tolerate. Killing civilians just because they have a certain religion is incompatible with western values. The limit should be too not be tolerant with people that are not willing to provide the same tolerance. By that standard celebrating the killing of civilians we shouldn't tolerate.
That isn't what they banned, they banned pro Palestine demonstrations.
Not a mention of Hamas.
Not a mention of Hamas.
The problems were not the demonstrations, it was the barrage of death threats against Jews (inside France). Which were linked and exacerbated because of the demonstrations.
The demonstrations themselves are acceptable - but the linked death threats definitely aren't, and unfortunately the state apparatus is not set up to deal adequately with the latter.
The demonstrations themselves are acceptable - but the linked death threats definitely aren't, and unfortunately the state apparatus is not set up to deal adequately with the latter.
Can you expand on how the death threats were linked to the protests?
I tend to think focusing on the threats themselves would be the better approach. Having trouble seeing how shutting down protest would help.
I tend to think focusing on the threats themselves would be the better approach. Having trouble seeing how shutting down protest would help.
2 days ago in Australia the pro-palenstinian protestors were chanting gas the Jews.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/10/pro-palest...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/10/pro-palest...
Look at January 6th. Many people came to "peacefully protest" the election and got swept up in doing something they didn't expect to do.
I don't know if you can conclusively prove they were directly linked, but we've seen how online people get radicalized by finding a community that espouses abhorrent ideas and then go on to commit crimes in service of that community. Real life gatherings and protests can have the same radicalizing effect in certain cases. That's not to say all of them do - the ideology behind the protest matters.
I agree that focusing on death threats would be a better approach - the problem is that it's very hard to find perpetrators and very easy to commit. Deterrence doesn't scale in that case.
I don't know if you can conclusively prove they were directly linked, but we've seen how online people get radicalized by finding a community that espouses abhorrent ideas and then go on to commit crimes in service of that community. Real life gatherings and protests can have the same radicalizing effect in certain cases. That's not to say all of them do - the ideology behind the protest matters.
I agree that focusing on death threats would be a better approach - the problem is that it's very hard to find perpetrators and very easy to commit. Deterrence doesn't scale in that case.
Palestine != Hamas
BasedAnon(1)
Multiple governments have already come to feel that the sort of rhetoric that appears at these demonstrations, like chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, crosses the line into advocacy of genocide and are not mere opinions. Advocacy of genocide has been forbidden since long before COVID happened.
It’s important to remember that after the Holocaust, European nations have a special responsibility to the Jewish people, and therefore they often err on the side of caution in preventing that people from being targets of potentially genocidal rhetoric.
It’s important to remember that after the Holocaust, European nations have a special responsibility to the Jewish people, and therefore they often err on the side of caution in preventing that people from being targets of potentially genocidal rhetoric.
>It’s important to remember that after the Holocaust, European nations have a special responsibility to the Jewish people, and therefore they often errs on the side of caution in preventing that people from being targets of potentially genocidal rhetoric.
Oh bloody fucking rubbish. French courts let a guy off on murdering a French Jew, in France, because he had smoked marijuana beforehand.
Oh bloody fucking rubbish. French courts let a guy off on murdering a French Jew, in France, because he had smoked marijuana beforehand.
Not exactly. The ruling is that he was mentally incapacitated and is now in a closed psychiatric hospital (from which he won't leave for a good amount of time).
You may like out not the idea of not putting in prison people who were not save at the moment of the event, or the way the qualifications are made but it has nothing to do with Jews in the case you mention.
You may like out not the idea of not putting in prison people who were not save at the moment of the event, or the way the qualifications are made but it has nothing to do with Jews in the case you mention.
> Advocacy of genocide has been forbidden since long before COVID happened.
Really? Cause I remember post-9/11 it was a pretty mainstream opinion that America should go glass the middle east. And then, you know, America went and actually did start an awful, bloody war in the middle east that lasted for 20+ years. It was the anti-war people who were getting censored and accused of being terrorist sympathizers.
Really? Cause I remember post-9/11 it was a pretty mainstream opinion that America should go glass the middle east. And then, you know, America went and actually did start an awful, bloody war in the middle east that lasted for 20+ years. It was the anti-war people who were getting censored and accused of being terrorist sympathizers.
France refused to go to war in Iraq which pissed the US so much they renamed french fries to freedom fries.
The featured article is about France, not the USA.
[deleted]
Gibbon1(2)
France essentially has inquisition courts, which for example Houellebecq [1] (a prominent author) and Zemmour [2] (a former presidential candidate) had to suffer through.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Houellebecq
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ric_Zemmourcandi
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Houellebecq
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ric_Zemmourcandi
I've commented about this overall situation in France a few times, and yes, they've gone after fundamental rights also before. Which is kind of weird given their history.
EDIT: Over again, some Americans seem to think that this is about the "freedom of speech", whereas, in reality, it is about the freedom of assembly. That said, the situation seems pretty dire, with organizations classified as terrorists on the streets.
EDIT: Over again, some Americans seem to think that this is about the "freedom of speech", whereas, in reality, it is about the freedom of assembly. That said, the situation seems pretty dire, with organizations classified as terrorists on the streets.
I think this is mostly about searching for the solutions that would prevent people from abusing the fundamental rights to advance their anti-democracy agenda.
That's not how fundamental rights are meant to work. I'm not a monarchist, but I'm happy to allow monarchists (or communists, or Sharia folk, or Baptists) to push for that form of government.
Democracy is a durable form of government unless it's systemically broken.
Democracy is a durable form of government unless it's systemically broken.
The 18th-century revolutions that were centered around fundamental rights of man, were pretty hostile to monarchy. France famously guillotined supporters of the monarchy. Even the USA tarred and feathered loyalists or drove them into exile in Canada or the Caribbean. It was only years later, once monarchy wasn’t a realistic possibility any more (or, in France, the public mood had come around to monarchy again) that such advocacy was permitted again. And then later movements for instituting a non-democratic regime, namely fascism or communism, got various degrees of prohibition. So, I’d say it’s pretty normal even for successful democracies to interpret fundamental rights in that light.
I am happy to allow for any state transition that allows for a peaceful reversal of the event (i.e. an undo button). If it's a monarchy, it should be a monarchy with guardrails (i.e. could be deposed by a snap popular vote with 2/3 majority or something)
If the plan of the people, once in power, is to prevent any challenges to their power, we should not run such experiments, and those people do not deserve free speech rights.
Free speech has that paradox unfortunately built into it (see Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance). Universal free speech is a pipe dream you wouldn't enjoy living under.
If the plan of the people, once in power, is to prevent any challenges to their power, we should not run such experiments, and those people do not deserve free speech rights.
Free speech has that paradox unfortunately built into it (see Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance). Universal free speech is a pipe dream you wouldn't enjoy living under.
Well said.
Peaceful assembly is speech
It is a seperate basic right so. And as such has to be balanced againstvall the others, inclusing free speech.
Don't even attempt to muddy the waters like this. Zemmour has been sued many times, yes, but only convicted twice. The first time, for example, for saying "businesses should discriminate against blacks and Arabs". He was convicted for incitement to discrimination, an offense in many countries. In fact: he was sued for several things he said, like "traffickers are all black and muslim" which he was acquitted for, as while reproachable falls within freedom of expression. Again: only convicted for things which directly contravene specific laws, such as non-discrimination in hiring.
In sum, nothing to do with tfa.
In sum, nothing to do with tfa.
Zemmour so is one of the few European polititians that are so right wing, they would put people like the space laser lady to shame...
Why are people calling them hate rallies? Because their immediate response to an unprecedented atrocity was to spontaneously organize a public celebration.
It's like organizing a "pro-German but not pro-Nazi" march the day after Kristallnacht, with banners and chants glorifying the violence.
Nobody is fooled and every normal person with a shred of empathy is disgusted.
Watch a crowd cheer for a speaker who says that every Israeli man, woman and child is a valid military target.
https://twitter.com/Cooper4SAE/status/1711214442875093236
And of course people legitimately holding a vigil for peace and supporting the human rights of Palestinian civilians are not guilty of hate, so long as they don't justify or downplay the crimes of Hamas. But many of the rallies were absolutely something else that has no place in a free or decent society.
I've seen plenty of Palestinians interviewed on TV who said "I'm disgusted by the attacks of Hamas. All I want is peace for our people." Everyone can support a statement like that, and if the organizers of these rallies cared they could have thrown out anyone who didn't.
It's like organizing a "pro-German but not pro-Nazi" march the day after Kristallnacht, with banners and chants glorifying the violence.
Nobody is fooled and every normal person with a shred of empathy is disgusted.
Watch a crowd cheer for a speaker who says that every Israeli man, woman and child is a valid military target.
https://twitter.com/Cooper4SAE/status/1711214442875093236
And of course people legitimately holding a vigil for peace and supporting the human rights of Palestinian civilians are not guilty of hate, so long as they don't justify or downplay the crimes of Hamas. But many of the rallies were absolutely something else that has no place in a free or decent society.
I've seen plenty of Palestinians interviewed on TV who said "I'm disgusted by the attacks of Hamas. All I want is peace for our people." Everyone can support a statement like that, and if the organizers of these rallies cared they could have thrown out anyone who didn't.
> Why are people calling them hate rallies? Because their immediate response to an unprecedented atrocity was to spontaneously organize a public celebration.
Yeah, and? I want these people to go mask-off. Silencing them just gives them plausible deniability, and that's what we can't afford to let them have if we really want to fight and defeat them politically. Did we do a better job fighting the American far-right before or after Charlottesville?
Yeah, and? I want these people to go mask-off. Silencing them just gives them plausible deniability, and that's what we can't afford to let them have if we really want to fight and defeat them politically. Did we do a better job fighting the American far-right before or after Charlottesville?
But there's a risk like: "look eu is allowing terrorist cheering events!" But imo eu failed in this direction too bc most countries lack a proper integration program so that ppl either adapt to live in a democracy or gtfo of the eu if they don't like it
> Yeah, and? I want these people to go mask-off.
Supporting civilians in Gaza is not going “mask off”.
However, the leader of the “only democracy in the Middle East” calling gazans animals is.
Also, this dude is the minister of national security of Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar_Ben-Gvir?wprov=sfti1
This is someone who was so racist, the IDF exempted him from military service.
This person is now leading the national security strategy of Israel.
Supporting civilians in Gaza is not going “mask off”.
However, the leader of the “only democracy in the Middle East” calling gazans animals is.
Also, this dude is the minister of national security of Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar_Ben-Gvir?wprov=sfti1
This is someone who was so racist, the IDF exempted him from military service.
This person is now leading the national security strategy of Israel.
>Supporting civilians in Gaza is not going “mask off”.
The great thing about free speech is that if French demonstrators just support the humanitarian needs and basic rights and freedoms of Gazan civilians, then we'll see that when they demonstrate freely. And if they do like the demonstrators in Sydney and yell, "gas the Jews!", we'll see that too.
The great thing about free speech is that if French demonstrators just support the humanitarian needs and basic rights and freedoms of Gazan civilians, then we'll see that when they demonstrate freely. And if they do like the demonstrators in Sydney and yell, "gas the Jews!", we'll see that too.
"I want these people to go mask-off."
This is something that I want too, and I am surprised by the fact that many people would rather prefer not to know.
As if pushing Hamas sympathizers underground would "disappear" them.
Western Europe has a huge problem with Islamic radicalism and it should face this problem without any self-delusions.
This is something that I want too, and I am surprised by the fact that many people would rather prefer not to know.
As if pushing Hamas sympathizers underground would "disappear" them.
Western Europe has a huge problem with Islamic radicalism and it should face this problem without any self-delusions.
The good news is that these people are so committed to their cause that they're willing to go to jail for it. From that perspective, it's a win-win. Everyone gets to see them show the world what they are, and then to see them disavowed by society.
BasedAnon(1)
Which is why facism in america completely died out after Charlottesville and the completely mask off "blood and soil" march? No? There are still honest to god nazis, swastika and all, protesting in Florida. Supporters of what happened in Charlottesville still have millions of causal followers, and militias are probably having no issue recruiting.
This is why the ACLU stopped carrying water for facists: The "marketplace of ideas" has not seemed to work, and in general, globally, desire for authoritarianism is increasing as people feel squeezed and stressed and scared, basically the same as it always happens.
So we espoused this pro-speech plan, and then spent decades educating on the values of democracy and how obviously better it is than facism or other forms of authoritarianism, and then the second things get a little scary people turned to easy solutions of "Just hate that out group" like they always do.
It's like humans mostly work on emotions and aren't perfectly logical creatures or something, and addictive emotional stuff is just better at spreading than the nuance of reality.
This is why the ACLU stopped carrying water for facists: The "marketplace of ideas" has not seemed to work, and in general, globally, desire for authoritarianism is increasing as people feel squeezed and stressed and scared, basically the same as it always happens.
So we espoused this pro-speech plan, and then spent decades educating on the values of democracy and how obviously better it is than facism or other forms of authoritarianism, and then the second things get a little scary people turned to easy solutions of "Just hate that out group" like they always do.
It's like humans mostly work on emotions and aren't perfectly logical creatures or something, and addictive emotional stuff is just better at spreading than the nuance of reality.
[deleted]
BasedAnon(1)
[deleted]
BasedAnon(1)
For what it’s worth I have made a good faith attempt to answer this for myself and quickly got bogged down in information about the Ottoman Empire, etc etc which I can’t imagine is a real justification today.