Youâre embarrassing yourself there.
But calling the Jewish population of Israel Nazi bastards isnât?
What do you think the outcome for Jews in Israel would have been had the Arab states won any of the wars since 1948? What do you think the outcome would be today if Hamas were to prevail?
He is. And keeps doing so with deflection and whataboutery. Just like Murica protects Irael from investigation by the ICC or any sanction for their contravention of UN rulings.
I think things would have gone very badly for Israel.
How does that justify (allegedly) treating non-Jews as second class citizens? (Something you donât even seem to deny) some people might argue that it makes things more dangerous for Israeli Jews in the long run.
There is a very wide variety of opinion of TFK. It takes some going to convince every poster in the space of a few posts that youâre an absolute mentaller. Anyone who criticises Israel is a Nazi - congratulations youâve cracked the TFK code.
As I understand a lot kf young American Jews donât want to be associated with the place anymore. Certainly all my American Jewish friends hated the place, were very public about that. Personally Iâm fairly neutral on the conflict, thatâs not the point.
The UN 
2 Likes
I havenât called anyone a Nazi. By âgoing very badly for Israelâ I assume you mean genocide, as that would undoubtedly have been the outcome. Why would you doubt genocidal intent when itâs openly stated?
Surely in reality what Israel has done is at least close to, and arguably is, genocide?
Compared to actual genocides, like the Irish famine? No.
You donât seem to understand what âopenly statedâ means so respectfully Iâll end this conversation here.
Edit: also, you seem to conflate supporting Israel in historic wars with a refusal to criticise the treatment of non-Jews in Israel. A massive similarity with hard-core Ulster Loyalist opinion and I wonât engage further with this either.
I cite the UN definition below.
To me, itâs undeniable that Israel has intent to destroy the concept of a Palestinian people in part or in whole. Sure your suggested solution involves removing the Palestinian people entirely from the occupied territories. Surely thatâs genocidal intent on your part?
Appalling as the treatment of the British of the Irish during the famine was, it was not a deliberate attempt to destroy the Irish people, it was simply the logical consequences of the inhuman ideology of laissez-faire capitalism playing out, mixed with absolute disregard for the Irish poor.
On that subject, have a listen to this podcast. Iâll bullet point the answer for you: âNo.â
Anyway, hereâs the UN definition.
His efforts gave way to the adoption of the United Nations Genocide Convention in December 1948, which came into effect in January 1951.
Article Two of the convention defines genocide as âany of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as suchâ:
- Killing members of the group
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Is it a Monaghan thing to misrepresent what people say? I support Israelâs right to exist and itâs right to defend itself. I oppose their treatment of the arab population in Israel and in particular Palestinians in the occupied territories. These are not mutually exclusive.
1 Like
Very fair.
But you oppose Palestineâs right to exist and Palestineâs right to defend itself.
Well I beg your pardon then, I thought this debate began when @TheBlackSpot criticised Israelâs treatment of the non-jews and you immediately conflated that with an attack on Israelâs right to exist, as if they were absolutely mutually exclusive. I was obviously mistaken.
I support Palestineâs right to exist as a separate state to Israel, something like the Oslo agreement. Itâs a pity Arab states used Palestinians as pawns for decades and never supported this just outcome.
We will have to agree to disagree as this has been debated ad nauseum in the past. Under the standard definition of genocide âthe killing of a large number of people from a nation or ethnic group, with the aim of destroying that nation or groupâ, I would put the Irish famine firmly in that definition, and struggle to see how Israel for all itâs cruelty can be characterized as such. The evidence for this is the potato blight also impacted the mainland and poor people living on the mainland, yet their were no deaths recorded on the mainland (because they were fed with food shipped from Ireland). There is also the supporting evidence of the English parliament at the time who saw the growth of the Irish population as a large threat, and their characterization of the Irish population as animals.
I only mention this because under your previous handle you said you supported the concept of a Palestinian state, but on land currently belonging to another Arab state.
Israel did not abide by the Oslo accord.
Your fascination with the other Arab states is very strange. Itâs like youâre blaming other Arab states for the oppression of the Palestinian people, and blaming the Palestinian people for other Arab states not supporting them, actually it seems to me thatâs explicitly what youâre doing. Rather than focussing on, you know, Israelâs appalling treatment of the Palestinian people since 1948. Itâs a bit like blaming the Republic of Ireland government for Catholics in West Belfast in 1969 being burned out of their houses. Rather than, you know, the actual people who did it, and the rotten system that enabled it.
The reason the other Arab states do nothing is largely because of the USâs divide and conquer strategy against the Arab world, such as the 1979 agreement with Israel and the recent agreement with the UAE.
Apology accepted.
Do you accept Israel has the right to exist and to defend itself against external attack? If your answer is no then we have zero common ground and further discussion is pointless.