That seems to be the mode of operation these days, both here and in the media. Post a lie, let it spread through useful idiots, flail if you get called out on it. I'm absolutely certain it is deliberate.
Your bullying tactics of personal attacks won't work on me. The research I've done and continue to do is deep and thorough.
ah, the "good Jew" reference. A classic.
they don't deserve labels but you seem to enjoy loading up on those.
yeah..."journalists"
well, to start, 4 (or was it 5) on October 7th. It seems that any concern for journalists started after that.
so no one has been found guilty, the ICC (of which Israel is not a part) pursued arrest warrants to deflect attention from its own sex scandal, and one of the prime movers here, South Africa, (which pushed the ICJ to pursue the whole genocide canard) has had its own issues with the court. I hope you can see how making the claim that you did, "found guilty" could lead a reader to draw false conclusions. Unless you were asked for clarification by someone who knew you were wrong, would you have self-clarified so no one got the wrong idea?
see? Starting again with labels. You'll note that I answered your question and THEN asked you about your response to a similar question. You are avoiding answering. Why?
Not exactly civil war, but many years ago, when the political reality was different, Israel benefited from tension between the PA and Hamas and did take steps to help Hamas because that also maintained the state of relative peace between Israel and the Gaza entity. Overblown statements without explanation or qualification might lead people to misunderstandings so it is best to be more precise and eschew soundbites.
No, he said that no one will let it happen even if it is justified and moral. Nothing about "getting away with it". Again, misstating or misrepresenting the positions of others might pack some short term punch but if it can't stand even the most basic scrutiny, all it does is weaken your credibility.
www.timesofisrael.com
I do not believe for a single moment that you are confused between the terms "charged with a crime" and "found guilty of a crime". The latter, of course, encompassing: charged with, investigated, tried, and found guilty.
I did not omit it. Rather, I specifically and deliberately, drew attention to it. I directly addressed it (twice now) in my posts to you. Here's a third time. My assertion is that you intentionally included the term "foreign-funded" as a way of excluding other "genocides" for comparison. And you did this intentionally in order to apply the terms "longest" and "most brutal" to Israel. And you did this intentionally in order to weasel out of discussion of real genocides, leaving the impact of "most brutal" hanging on Israel for our useful idiots.
I didn't get frustrated. You are imputing emotions. Bad form, Peter.
already a loaded statement
are there individuals who espouse hateful, genocidal or bigoted positions? Yes, but they are one voice in a coalition and I can't throw out the entire government's position on X because one vote within it said so-and-so about Y.
why is that the elephant in the room. I have been clear about that -- the rational people say otherwise, this is a PR battle.
ooh, look, more loaded language..."condones" and "horrific atrocities" and "committed by the Netanyahu government" and then the final, false binary of "condemn."
Because complex questions demand nuanced answers. If you want soundbites look elsewhere
No...the fact that you made a claim about their being proven guilty and are now trying to shift focus after having been proven wrong is what started this off shoot conversation.
because you hadn't. If you had, I wouldn't be asking.
so that makes your initial claim even stranger. It is almost as if you should have known that your claim was wrong when you said it!
then, they would be useful. I have yet to see that be the case. Now they are expressions of your judgment and your vocabulary.
please try to follow along -- you presented a quote which said that the world wouldn't let anyone starve even if the cause was moral and just. Then you reiterated a question, beginning with "Again" which included (emphasis mine), "...Smotrich and his genocidal ilk who would starve about 2 million civilians if he could get away with it?" This is a definite causal statement presented as following the logic of the directly preceding quote which was used to clarify after the first time you presented this question. So you thought that this quote led to that claim the question. But it didn't
No it isn't, even if you want it to.
www.middleeasteye.net
This is a fallacious question, in that it pre-supposes an agreed upon foundation for the question, which is: Israel has committed horrific atrocities. In order to answer the question, both the questioner and the questionee would have to come to an agreement on what is intended by "horrific atrocities".
um...that's not true even a little. Every person who has been found "not guilty" in a criminal court after being arrested pursuant to a warrant would disagree
but since you didn't differentiate between it and the rest of your claim, you put it on equal footing in your presentation. Was this intentionally misleading or just intellectually laziness?
The harm is when you are discussing subjects while only moderately articulate. If you lack the clarity of understanding, the integrity to check facts, or the vocabulary to fully express nuance then you might be doing a lot of harm.
you are responding to a message in which the words "Jew" and "Jewish" and "Judaism" are not to be found. You are now defending yourself (placing yourself as the victim of accusation) against something that wasn't.
Still a fallacious question as we have yet to establish what the "horrific atrocities" are. What, exactly, are you accusing Israel of committing?
