Hamas Attacks Against Israel

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Renegade7]

Oh cool, I guess now we can take these campus protests seriously instead of ignoring them or jus sending the police in...

 

If you don't schedule you server maintenance, your server will schedule it for you...

Edited April 30 by Renegade7

[bearrock]

14 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Oh cool, I guess now we can take these campus protests seriously instead of ignoring them or jus sending the police in...

 

If you don't schedule you server maintenance, your server will schedule it for you...

 

https://cuapartheiddivest.org/demands

 

Yeah....  pretty doubtful that Columbia is gonna cave to all their demands regardless of the escalation in protest. Ceasation of university expansion, reparation/housing for displaced residents, defund public safety and sever ties with NYPD?  Seems like a pipe dream to me.  Stick with the divesting in companies doing business with Israel (though the list seems overbroad when you include companies like Amazon, Alphabet, and Microsoft).  Cutting all ties with any Israeli universities?  Don't get the logic behind that one.  Divesting in weapons manufacturers is probably a targeted message that likely would have won broad support.

[Renegade7]

35 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

https://cuapartheiddivest.org/demands

 

Yeah....  pretty doubtful that Columbia is gonna cave to all their demands regardless of the escalation in protest. Ceasation of university expansion, reparation/housing for displaced residents, defund public safety and sever ties with NYPD?  Seems like a pipe dream to me.  Stick with the divesting in companies doing business with Israel (though the list seems overbroad when you include companies like Amazon, Alphabet, and Microsoft).  Cutting all ties with any Israeli universities?  Don't get the logic behind that one.  Divesting in weapons manufacturers is probably a targeted message that likely would have won broad support.

 

Where do you see reparation housing or severing ties with NYPD?

 

Below is their specific list from the same link (in context this group says they date back all the way to 2016):

 

Quote

OUR DEMANDS

The Columbia University Apartheid Divest demands Columbia University immediately divest all economic and academic stakes in Israeli apartheid in accordance with the results of the 2020 student body referendum. Furthermore, we demand that the University:

1. Call on President Biden, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, Rep. Adriano Espaillat, and all other government officials to support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, in line with the demands of the majority of Americans.

2. Divest from companies profiting from Israeli apartheid, noting that both former Columbia and Barnard presidents unilaterally and anti-democratically ignored the student body referendums to divest in 2020 and in 2018.

3. Cancel the opening of the Tel Aviv Global Center, noting that Palestinian affiliates of Columbia would be restricted from access to this program given Israel’s apartheid policies, and further noting that this, therefore, violates Columbia’s very own non-discrimination policy.

4. Cease the dual-degree partnership with Tel Aviv University, for the same reason.

5. Stop repressing and vilifying pro-Palestinian activism and vigorously protect the academic freedom and right to political speech of students, staff, and faculty as they face McCarthyite smear campaigns. Accordingly, the University must change policy so that protests and events can be sanctioned within three days to allow students to organize under urgent circumstances, such as the current Palestinian genocide.

6. Reinstate Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, and issue an official apology for their unjust suspension in violation of University procedure.

 

 

This is one group, are they running point for this protest in Columbia?

 

What about other campuses?

 

At its core, we jus sent more money ($90+ billion) to three different countries in their war and defense efforts then the Federal Government allocated to our entire Department of Education (~$80 billion) this current fiscal year.

 

In the middle of a student debt crisis, is it any shock college students are seemingly leading protests with respect to continuing to give military aid to Israel even though they are still planning to invade Rafah?

 

Yes, our government should reconsider their stance on this issue in an election year instead of blowing this off as a bunch of angry youngin's who don't get how the world works yet. Especially when your asking for their votes to help save democracy in a couple months.

Edited April 30 by Renegade7

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, Skins24 said:

1) What do you think that means? You can't possibly be that ignorant.They will never recognize Israel as a legitimate state (stated in both charters, but more importantly, repeated extensively by their leaders <-- that's what matters more...the words of their leaders) and they want to create a Palestinian state. Say they create the state - Do you honestly believe, based on their actions, that they will be satisfied and start singing kumbaya with the Israelis, who they see as illegitimate? Come on...

 

2) You never answered the question.

"Hamas realistically today is at least portraying itself as one of the more moderate armed anti-Israeli organizations in that they are no longer actively calling for the elimination Israel."

Was this before or after 7 Oct?

You honestly think their actions were "moderate"? Or that's what they're trying to portray themselves as?

 

 

It was draft week, which was way more important 😂

I have not posted one IDF talking point...as I have no idea what they are, nor do I care. At all. My position has been stated repeatedly.

 

I would say you're posting Hamas' talking points, but according to Peter, they are more moderate than you

 

It means that they aren't actively calling for the destruction of Israel.  It means they are at least suggesting they might settle for less than the destruction of Israel.  Whether they actually will or not, I don't know.

 

I don't know where Hamas is going to end up.  And realistically, neither do you.  And pretending like you do is just dumb.  I do know it isn't uncommon for terrorists organizations to settle for much less than they originally want.  I've discussed the IRA here before.  The IRA (and off shots from it) spent almost a hundred years claiming they would settle for no less than a unified Irish country that was independent from Britain.  That was their stated goal/requirement even up to a few months before they came gave up their arms and came to a peace agreement.  As an organization, their public demands didn't move one iota through decades of fighting and ceasefire but in the end they settle for much much less than those public demands.  

 

2 years before the last cease fire agreement that led to the final agreement nobody in the public (and even the British government) would have told you in 2 years the IRA is going to give up and agree to a peace deal based on N. Ireland having a vote that allowed them to stay part of the UK.  

 

Can/will Hamas ever give up violence, especially if it coincides with the creation of a viable Palestinian state?  I don't know.

 

The statement about them being moderate comes with enough qualifiers.

 

@Barry.Randolphe (to my knowledge) is not part of or an armed anti-Israeli organization, so I'm not saying they are more moderate than him.  I'm saying if you take that group organizations that are armed and anti-Israeli (Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, etc. and doesn't include the PA), then they are at least projecting themselves as moderate in that they aren't actively calling for the destruction of Israel.  I wouldn't say the Oct. 7th attack was moderate, but I'll also tell you all the other organizations that I've listed that fit into that category would have done the same and likely would do worse if they can (and some of them participated in Oct. 7).  It isn't like Oct. 7 was just Hamas.  I'm saying Hamas is trying to portray itself as moderate in the context of a group of organizations that are all violent and extreme.  All of which would regularly carry out Oct 7th like attacks if they could.  I'm not even saying Hamas is moderate.  It is possible they are just playing at being moderate because they think it will help them.  But of that group of organizations, none of them wouldn't carry out or help in an Oct. 7 if they could, so Hamas doing it doesn't make them less moderate than them.

 

In fact, until Oct. 7 over the last few years Hamas has avoided attacking Israel while the PIJ and others had launched several attacks on Israel.  Some people think part of the reason for the attack on Oct. 7 was that Hamas was worried about losing credibility as a resistance force against Israel compared to organizations that are openly more extreme like the PIJ (i.e. that are still calling for the destruction Israel, the large scale killing of Jews, and had been attacking Israel regularly).

 

You also didn't answer my question.

Edited April 30 by PeterMP

[bearrock]

20 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Where do you see reparation housing or severing ties with NYPD?

 

Below is their specific list from the same link (in context this group says they date back all the way to 2016):

 

 

 

This is one group, are they running point for this protest in Columbia?

 

What about other campuses?

 

At its core, we jus sent more money ($90+ billion) to three different countries in their war and defense efforts then the Federal Government allocated to our entire Department of Education (~$80 billion).

 

In the middle of a student debt crisis, is it any shock college students are seemingly leading protests with respect to continuing to give military aid to Israel even though they are still planning to invade Rafah?

 

Yes, our government should reconsider their stance on this issue in an election year instead of blowing this off as a bunch of angry youngin's who don't get how the world works yet. Especially when your asking for their votes to help save democracy in a couple months.

 

Hmm, maybe it only shows up on the mobile version? (I'm using a phone).  Number 3 has the reparation and housing and number 4 has the sever with NYPD.

 

Not sure who can be the "point group" per se in a campus protest, but seems like this one is the one often prominent in the news.  Perhaps it would actually be helpful if all or most of the groups involved in the encampment or occupation issue a agreed upon list of demands.  Not gonna imagine it's likely to cross that over to other universities.

 

I have nothing to say against a student or anyone's right to protest lawfully.  I also think civil disobedience is an option, though that's on less absolute moral footing.  Interruption of other students' right to education is of course wrong, but I'm not sure if any of that really occurred or if that's just stirring the pot by certain members of the media.  Occupation of university building just seems to be asking for trouble, but if they are okay with the consequences, I guess they will live with the aftermath.  They shouldn't be shocked when they get slapped with consequences for breaking the law though.  No one ever said anyone has a legal right to protest unlawfully, though perhaps the history books will be kinder to them than the law books.

 

As for the election, whatever.  Save democracy if they think it's worth saving.  Not sure how much of a democratic process it is to protest, occupy and demand instead of voting.  If the next occupation and protest is by a pro-Israeli group, then what?  If they have so little faith in democracy to not bother to attempt change at the ballot box and so little respect for it that they cannot accept defeat if their chosen position loses in the election, I'm not sure what democracy there is left to save anyway.

 

[ixcuincle]

 

go off queen

 

yaaassss

 

 

[Renegade7]

42 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Hmm, maybe it only shows up on the mobile version? (I'm using a phone).  Number 3 has the reparation and housing and number 4 has the sever with NYPD.

 

I recommend switching to desktop.mode in your browser on your phone, the word reparation, housing, and NYPD are not in 3 or 4:

 

Quote

3. Cancel the opening of the Tel Aviv Global Center, noting that Palestinian affiliates of Columbia would be restricted from access to this program given Israel’s apartheid policies, and further noting that this, therefore, violates Columbia’s very own non-discrimination policy.

4. Cease the dual-degree partnership with Tel Aviv University, for the same reason.

 

That list of 6 items seems reasonable, I can't speak for the rest because while they are saying a lot on this page, those 6 items look specific like they are meant to not look crazy...they arent.

 

42 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Not sure who can be the "point group" per se in a campus protest, but seems like this one is the one often prominent in the news.  Perhaps it would actually be helpful if all or most of the groups involved in the encampment or occupation issue a agreed upon list of demands.  Not gonna imagine it's likely to cross that over to other universiaren't.

 

I get the request...maybe idealistic since NYC is concerned some of the folks in that building might not even be students.

 

I wish someone would look at that list to try to turn the temperature down, can't make everyone happy.

 

Quote

I have nothing to say against a student or anyone's right to protest lawfully.  I also think civil disobedience is an option, though that's on less absolute moral footing.  Interruption of other students' right to education is of course wrong, but I'm not sure if any of that really occurred or if that's just stirring the pot by certain members of the media.  Occupation of university building just seems to be asking for trouble, but if they are okay with the consequences, I guess they will live with the aftermath.  They shouldn't be shocked when they get slapped with consequences for breaking the law though.  No one ever said anyone has a legal right to protest unlawfully, though perhaps the history books will be kinder to them than the law books.

 

 

Surly complicated with respect to Civil Rights movement all the way up to NFL owners telling players to kneel in the locker room instead. 

 

Protests aren't meant to make anyone feel comfortable like that, for better or worse.

 

Quote

As for the election, whatever.  Save democracy if they think it's worth saving.  Not sure how much of a democratic process it is to protest, occupy and demand instead of voting.  If the next occupation and protest is by a pro-Israeli group, then what?  If they have so little faith in democracy to not bother to attempt change at the ballot box and so little respect for it that they cannot accept defeat if their chosen position loses in the election, I'm not sure what democracy there is left to save anyway.

 

It sure is easier to out reach to Hispanics without understanding they come from different countries and viewpoints, plus vast majority hate the term Latinx.

 

Protesting is about bringing attention to an issue and/or clarifying a request for a  specific change.  Blowing these young people off and saying if they want change they need to vote isn't true, they voting for Biden this November is giving no indication to a change in policy to giving Israel further military aid. 

 

Those are separate matters and yes while I wish more young people voted, it starts with helping them feel they votes matter or they matter.  I've seen multiple pages where one viewpoint after the other shows people don't and are blowing them off. 

 

That's not how voter outreach is supposed to work, telling people they don't matter until they are needed to win an election and shame them into higher turnout is dead ass wrong. And results speak for themselves.

Edited April 30 by Renegade7

[Skins24]

43 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

You also didn't answer my question.

 

I'm guessing this question - "Seriously, why would you come in and post something that is easily disprovable with a 5 second google search?"

 

Your post pretty much answered it. Look at the mental gymnastics you had to do to (unsuccessfully) paint Hamas in a more moderate light. Or at least more moderate than the other terrorist organizations.

 

When one's actions are in direct contradiction to their words, what am I supposed to believe? Their actions or their words? You think a terrorist organization is incapable of lying?

Look at the October 7th recruitment videos and tell me with a straight face Hamas has seen the light and changed their ways.

Everything Hamas has ever actually done is about as far from "moderate" as you can get. Yet, you think that because on a terrorist organization's useless charter they don't explicitly call for the destruction of Israel, they are?

 

Based on their actual actions, which includes the worst attack on Jews since the holocaust and starting a war, please clarify.

 

[PeterMP]

3 minutes ago, Skins24 said:

 

I'm guessing this question - "Seriously, why would you come in and post something that is easily disprovable with a 5 second google search?"

 

Your post pretty much answered it. Look at the mental gymnastics you had to do to (unsuccessfully) paint Hamas in a more moderate light. Or at least more moderate than the other terrorist organizations.

 

When one's actions are in direct contradiction to their words, what am I supposed to believe? Their actions or their words? You think a terrorist organization is incapable of lying?

Look at the October 7th recruitment videos and tell me with a straight face Hamas has seen the light and changed their ways.

Everything Hamas has ever actually done is about as far from "moderate" as you can get. Yet, you think that because on a terrorist organization's useless charter they don't explicitly call for the destruction of Israel, they are?

 

Based on their actual actions, which includes the worst attack on Jews since the holocaust and starting a war, please clarify.

 

 

You do realize none of your response has anything to do with my question or your initial post.  What the Hamas charter physically says is independent of whether they are lying or not, and as the charter didn't change on Oct. 7th, what happened on Oct 7th has no bearing on what the charter physically says.  You made your initial post about what is in their charter.  Not about whether Hamas is being honest in their charter or what happened on Oct. 7.

 

Can you reason at that level?

 

(I've never said Hamas was moderate.  I've never said even compared to the other organizations that I was comparing them to they are moderate.  The fact that that I said they were portraying/projecting themselves as such explicitly indicates that they might be lying.  And I pretty specifically in the last post eluded to the idea that Hamas might be lying (playing at it).

 

If you'd come in and said you don't think Hamas is moderate (in the context of a bunch of extreme and violent organization) and they lied in their charter, I probably wouldn't have said anything.  If you would have said that they might be moderate (compared to those extreme organizations) but they are still too far extreme and violent for it to practically matter, I probably wouldn't have said anything.  Both of those things might be true.  I'm not sure that Hamas didn't lie in their charter and doesn't want to see the destruction of Israel, and I'm not sure that Hamas can ever lay down their weapons and achieve peace with Israel even if it would allow for the creation of a viable Palestinian state.  Hamas can absolutely lie and will do so to serve their purposes.  We saw it in the run up to the Palestinian elections vs. their actions after the elections (using violence and killing to eliminate political opposition after saying they wouldn't).  Despite @CousinsCowgirl84 claims, I'm not pro-Hamas.  (I just also don't believe everything Israel says without question.)  Getting from where we are to a peaceful two state solution might require the the death/ending of Hamas.  I'd even say that's pretty likely.

 

But what the charter actually says about the destruction of Israel doesn't depend on any of that and is easily verifiable with a 5 second google search.)

 

In the context of anything relevant to the conversation, your initial post, my question, and anything I've said, your whole post is worthless.

[ixcuincle]

so it is okay to graffiti and disrespect George Washington 

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6W6FqoOMeK/?igsh=eXdmYzlyamw5dHQx

 

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/04/29/see-statue-george-washington-defaced-dc-university-bearing-presidents-namesake/

 

You're free to protest but vandalism and destroying property crosses the line. enough is enough 

[tshile]

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Oh cool, I guess now we can take these campus protests seriously instead of ignoring them or jus sending the police in...

No, you can just send the police in. That’s still an option. Probably the most productive one for the university and their students trying to get an education.  

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

No, you can just send the police in. That’s still an option. Probably the most productive one for the university and their students trying to get an education.  

 

Listening to wtop this morning didn't seem that simple, at minimum from optics perspective.

 

Not trying to look like Hong Kong up in here, maybe...convo has changed now that there's actual property damage and building occupation. 

 

Doubt that ends well for them regardless of how right they think they are at Columbia specifically. 

 

But this was absolutely the level of escalation I was concerned about as it started to organically spread from campus to campus all over the country.  I was not buying at all this would simply go away by looking away, no, what was happening at Columbia was feeding the other protests around the country in solidarity.

 

People can be killed all day, not ideas.

 

 

 

[tshile]

@PeterMP

reading your posts, you do an awful lot of extending benefit of the doubt to Hamas. 
 

neither of us can predict the future, and history isn’t a great predictor,  but when it comes to this there is a long history of them feeling one way, and very little to support this benefit of the doubt you give them. 
 

at the end of the day your argument hangs on them removing explicit language that calls for the destruction of Israel. I hope it seems at least reasonable that this is not exactly reassuring of the claim you’re trying to make. 
 

it reminds me a lot of the argument that Hamas somehow has a legitimate “government” arm that’s worthy of any respect or to be treated like a legitimate government. 
 

 

7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Listening to wtop this morning didn't seem that simple, at minimum from optics perspective.

 

Not trying to look like Hong Kong up in here, maybe...convo has changed now that there's actual property damage and building occupation. 

 

Doubt that ends well for them regardless of how right they think they are at Columbia specifically. 

 

But this was absolutely the level of escalation I was concerned about as it started to organically spread from campus to campus all over the country.  I was not buying at all this would simply go away by looking away, no, what was happening at Columbia was feeding the other protests around the country in solidarity.

 

People can be killed all day, not ideas.

 

 

 

oh I never thought it would go away (I don’t think I said that, but if I did I don’t think I meant it would just go away without escalation.) This latest escalation seemed the obvious path forward to me. 
 

which is why I said from the jump - you never need to take these college protestors seriously on topics like this. Like most young adults - they firmly believe they know it all and they base that on their 0 life experience as an adult. 
 

I posted about the protest I found myself in the middle of in Chicago last Saturday. That was a respectable protest. To me - that’s an effective way to do it.
 

This stuff? I just hope they actually enforce the law on them. Universities have lost control of their campus and they’ve enabled this to happen as has been discussed throughout the thread. 

Edited April 30 by tshile

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I recommend switching to desktop.mode in your browser on your phone, the word reparation, housing, and NYPD are not in 3 or 4:

 

 

Still shows up on desktop 🤷‍♂️ (not sure why it would matter if it only showed up on some versions of the website and not others in any event.  If it's no longer their position, take it down)

 

Quote

No.3 STOP THE DISPLACEMENT

No land grabs, whether in Harlem, Lenapehoking, or Palestine. Cease expansion, provide reparations, and support housing for low-income Harlem residents. No development by Columbia without real community control.

 

Quote

No.4 NO POLICING ON CAMPUS
End the targeted repression of Palestinian students and their allies on and off campus, including through university disciplinary processes. Defund Public Safety and disclose and sever all ties with the NYPD.

 

 

Quote

Surly complicated with respect to Civil Rights movement all the way up to NFL owners telling players to kneel in the locker room instead. 

 

Protests aren't meant to make anyone feel comfortable like that, for better or worse.

 

Sure.  But not all protests are always right (nor is the demand always reasonable) and you don't necessarily get blanket immunity just because your illegal actions occur during a protest either.  Once they break the law, they are saddled with the consequences.  History may look back on them as being on the side of justice and what's right, but that doesn't mean that all illegal actions during a protest gets a pass.  In the immediate, students are likely to get suspended, arrested, and they are going to have to live with the consequences of their actions.

 

Quote

Protesting is about bringing attention to an issue and/or clarifying a request for a  specific change.  Blowing these young people off and saying if they want change they need to vote isn't true, they voting for Biden this November is giving no indication to a change in policy to giving Israel further military aid. 

 

 

I don't think refusing to give in to their demand is the same as blowing them off, but whatever.  I never said don't protest and go vote instead.  But if they are going to say I'm not going to vote in the presidential election because the illegal actions during protests had consequences or because the university didn't cave to our demands, then fine.  There's nothing I care to say to change the mind of someone who thinks that way.  If they want to abstain from voting because Biden didn't do XYZ when Trump isn't going to be any better on that particular issue (most likely worse), then fine.  I don't think that's going to be a working democracy, but keep searching for the perfect candidate that will never come.  

 

Quote

Those are separate matters and yes while I wish more young people voted, it starts with helping them feel they votes matter or they matter.  I've seen multiple pages where one viewpoint after the other shows people don't and are blowing them off. 

 

That's not how voter outreach is supposed to work, telling people they don't matter until they are needed to win an election and shame them into higher turnout is dead ass wrong. And results speak for themselves.

 

Sometimes their votes isn't going to immediately change the country's policy.  Suck it up.  Protesters drew the line at what they want.  If the majority of the country agrees, things will hopefully change.  If the majority doesn't want it, that's democracy.  Outreach or not, people who choose not to vote for whatever reason have zero right to complain about anything at all.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, bearrock said:

But if they are going to say I'm not going to vote in the presidential election because the illegal actions during protests had consequences or because the university didn't cave to our demands, then fine

I have been wondering lately if the 2024 election might be significantly impacted the same way 2016 was by Sanders supporters that decided to do whatever they all decided to do, vote for Trump, not vote at all, vote third party. 
 

The dems have a problem with this issue. We’ve had a fervent anti-Trump poster actually threaten to vote for Trump simply over this issue. 😂 

 

Probably not anything to really add beyond something that could potentially become a problem. 

[Renegade7]

@tshile and @bearrock

 

I respect yall trying to clarify your stances and reason with me and other in this thread as it's evolved.

 

I feel like taking a breather and coming back to address your points.

 

In the meantime, I say we jus cut through all of it real quick and ask a yes or no question:

 

Should US stop giving military aid to Israel?

 

There are a lot of different protests right now and understandably a lot of different opinions in how we got to this point.

 

At some point though...where do we go from here?  I respect the need to clarify why to yes or no. Or even clarify conditions.

 

I'm at a Yes right now. 

 

I'll be back later, I need to focus on other things go make sure my emotions don't get the best of me and I'll still make sense where I stand on this complicated matter. 

 

Grey as any issue I've ever seen in a world that tries too hard to be black or white.

[tshile]

@Renegade7

yes. But I’ve felt that way for a long time. I don’t consider them a good ally. I definitely disapprove of how they’ve handled their issues with the Palestinians. 
 

i feel like I’ve already answered this question. I’ve also clearly said I’m not on their side, or either side, and that I don’t particular care what they do or what happens to either side at this point. 
 

somehow that’s turned into several of you thinking in some pro-Israeli propagandist. If you’re not going to take what I say at face value, and instead make up what my opinions are for me, then I’m not sure how we’re supposed to productively discuss it 🤷‍♂️ 

 

both sides have so much blood on their hands, have a long history of war crimes or bullying or terrorist actions, and both sides lack in any credible effort or desire to be peaceful. 

add to it that I think the constant loop many of you are stuck in believing there is some peaceful resolution to pursue, is a waste of time. 

 

how anyone gloms onto one side as the righteous side is beyond me and laughably naive. But that’s just how I see things. 

[bearrock]

19 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

@tshile and @bearrock

 

I respect yall trying to clarify your stances and reason with me and other in this thread as it's evolved.

 

I feel like taking a breather and coming back to address your points.

 

In the meantime, I say we jus cut through all of it real quick and ask a yes or no question:

 

Should US stop giving military aid to Israel?

 

There are a lot of different protests right now and understandably a lot of different opinions in how we got to this point.

 

At some point though...where do we go from here?  I respect the need to clarify why to yes or no. Or even clarify conditions.

 

I'm at a Yes right now. 

 

I'll be back later, I need to focus on other things go make sure my emotions don't get the best of me and I'll still make sense where I stand on this complicated matter. 

 

Grey as any issue I've ever seen in a world that tries too hard to be black or white.

 

Yes. 100%

 

At the end of the day, it's just some rando disagreeing with you on a message board.  No worries if you feel like you got better things to do with your time than to go further down the debate.  I respect you as a poster and my difference of opinion on this issue with you doesn't change my opinion on that front at all (FWIW) and obviously doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this world in the grand scheme of things.  Sorry if I caused unnecessary stress for you or piled on your hectic life in anyway.  

[tshile]

Also - just to add

 

I recognize there is value in understanding the history. Many of you have made quite an effort to post clear historical facts about the overall conflict, even going back to pre-Israel days and discussing native Arab Jews and those times. 
 

and I appreciate that and I learn a lot from it. 
 

but at some point the question needs to be “how do we stop killing each other”

 

and I don’t believe you can have this long of a history, and use that history as the justification of present actions. Not if you sincerely are interested in putting a stop to the killing. 
 

it’s hard for me to take anyone seriously when they spend a significant part of their argument recapping history. It doesn’t matter what happened 10, 20, 50 years ago. Not if you’re interested in peace. If putting a stop to the killing is your true goal, then you have to accept the history exists but no longer has a hold on how you move forward. I think that’s a prerequisite for peace and I won’t have any hope in true peace until I see both sides accept that - and I haven’t seen either accept that yet. 

[ixcuincle]

54 minutes ago, tshile said:

@PeterMP

reading your posts, you do an awful lot of extending benefit of the doubt to Hamas. 
 

neither of us can predict the future, and history isn’t a great predictor,  but when it comes to this there is a long history of them feeling one way, and very little to support this benefit of the doubt you give them. 
 

at the end of the day your argument hangs on them removing explicit language that calls for the destruction of Israel. I hope it seems at least reasonable that this is not exactly reassuring of the claim you’re trying to make. 
 

it reminds me a lot of the argument that Hamas somehow has a legitimate “government” arm that’s worthy of any respect or to be treated like a legitimate government. 
 

 

oh I never thought it would go away (I don’t think I said that, but if I did I don’t think I meant it would just go away without escalation.) This latest escalation seemed the obvious path forward to me. 
 

which is why I said from the jump - you never need to take these college protestors seriously on topics like this. Like most young adults - they firmly believe they know it all and they base that on their 0 life experience as an adult. 
 

I posted about the protest I found myself in the middle of in Chicago last Saturday. That was a respectable protest. To me - that’s an effective way to do it.
 

This stuff? I just hope they actually enforce the law on them. Universities have lost control of their campus and they’ve enabled this to happen as has been discussed throughout the thread. 

live look at protestors be like

 

 

lol these hippies always against the corporations MAN 

 

 

Edited April 30 by ixcuincle

[Skins24]

55 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

You do realize none of your response has anything to do with my question or your initial post.  What the Hamas charter physically says is independent of whether they are lying or not, and as the charter didn't change on Oct. 7th, what happened on Oct 7th has no bearing on what the charter physically says.  You made your initial post about what is in their charter.  Not about whether Hamas is being honest in their charter or what happened on Oct. 7.

 

Can you reason at that level?

 

****

 

But what the charter actually says about the destruction of Israel doesn't depend on any of that and is easily verifiable with a 5 second google search.)

 

In the context of anything relevant to the conversation, your initial post, my question, and anything I've said, your whole post is worthless.

No, my initial post was in response to the notion that - "Hamas realistically today is at least portraying itself as one of the more moderate armed anti-Israeli organizations in that they are no longer actively calling for the elimination Israel."

 

How one can come to this conclusion is beyond me. There's no evidence they're trying to portray themselves as such.

 

Your assumption that they are "no longer actively calling for the elimination of Israel" because it doesn't say so explicitly in their charter is equally misguided.

They are not not calling for the elimination of Israel. Their actual actions are 100% proof of that.

The original charter was tempered down as it was seen as too anti-Semitic. So now, per their charter, the enemy is Zionists vice all Jews. There is NO language in the document that affirms Israel's right to exist.

 

So we have:

A terrorist organization who's stated enemy are zionists, and who want to create a state that doesn't recognized Israel's right to exist, and just carried out the first invasion of Israel in decades. And the conclusion is - Hamas realistically today is at least portraying itself as one of the more moderate armed anti-Israeli organizations in that they are no longer actively calling for the elimination Israel

 

Please, please expound.

[Captain Wiggles]

13 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

live look at protestors be like

 

 

lol these hippies always against the corporations MAN 

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

51 minutes ago, Skins24 said:

No, my initial post was in response to the notion that - "Hamas realistically today is at least portraying itself as one of the more moderate armed anti-Israeli organizations in that they are no longer actively calling for the elimination Israel."

 

How one can come to this conclusion is beyond me. There's no evidence they're trying to portray themselves as such.

 

Your assumption that they are "no longer actively calling for the elimination of Israel" because it doesn't say so explicitly in their charter is equally misguided.

They are not not calling for the elimination of Israel. Their actual actions are 100% proof of that.

The original charter was tempered down as it was seen as too anti-Semitic. So now, per their charter, the enemy is Zionists vice all Jews. There is NO language in the document that affirms Israel's right to exist.

 

So we have:

A terrorist organization who's stated enemy are zionists, and who want to create a state that doesn't recognized Israel's right to exist, and just carried out the first invasion of Israel in decades. And the conclusion is - Hamas realistically today is at least portraying itself as one of the more moderate armed anti-Israeli organizations in that they are no longer actively calling for the elimination Israel

 

Please, please expound.

 

I have expounded.

 

That was your initial post.

 

"Also, they pretty much are still calling for the elimination of Isreal. Basically, the big difference between the first and second charters is that instead of the elimination of all Jews, they'll just settle for Israel..."

 

That statement isn't true.

  

1 hour ago, tshile said:

add to it that I think the constant loop many of you are stuck in believing there is some peaceful resolution to pursue, is a waste of time.

On one hand, I agree with this.  On the other hand, we are the most powerful country in the world, and we can do great things if we get ourselves organized.

 

Because of several things, including issues with our own electorate/political situation, I don't think there will be peace in the region (at least not in my life time).  But I'm also not willing to tell people that they/we should just give up.

 

*EDIT* Got my quoted posts mixed up.

 

(For what it is worth, I don't think you are an Israeli apologist.  I think you do focus to much on the latest attack.)

Edited April 30 by PeterMP

[tshile]

Just to quickly add - I’m very skeptical we can have that impact. I just think there’s too much baggage in our history in the region and our confrontational stances towards governments in the region. 
 

not saying you’re wrong - just explaining where my stance comes from.