Pro-Palestine protesters on roof of Parliament House

More likely that the AI is just getting better

🔥🍆

Where did you get this from

You are responsible for the civilian deaths from counterattack when you: * Hide your military headquarters under a hospital. * Launch missiles from residences. * Place military weapons dumps in schools. * Invade a neighbouring territory and rape/murder civilians. * Steal food and medicine donated to those civilians. * Direct civilians into areas that have been forewarned of an immediate counterattack.

Just use generic slogans and generic signs. Stop with the River to the Sea crap and go with the generic Free Palestine. Making sure there is no confusion between supporting Hamas and supporting Palestine in general.

Its not that hard.

Protestors are never able to describe what kind of country a free Palestine will be. Who will lead it? Will it be a theocracy? Will it be a free and equal society? Or will the LGTBQ identifying Palestinians be thrown off buildings as they are? What will be the place of women? What are their intentions for a military? Will they be a democracy? How do they intend to co-exist with their neighbours? 

Did the protesters say they support Hamas

I read their signs. Supporting HAMAS is the only interpretation that makes sense.

They write "from the River to the Sea..." which we all know is the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, or for the more geographically challenged, is entirely Israel.

They list War Crimes but conspicuously excluded the HAMAS invasion of Israel on October 7, which triggered the Gaza counterattack by the IDF.

The signage is all HAMAS propaganda. Of course they support HAMAS.

I hate these excuses being made for using civilians as human shields.

If you operate your military facilities in civilian areas then you're the ones responsible for their deaths when a country you're at war with strikes your military facilities. That's why colocating civilian and military targets is against basic International Humanitarian Law.

To swap that around would be insane since it's basically giving the thumbs up to hide behind civilians. What you're suggesting is that nations have no responsibility to protect their civilians, and actually have an incentive to put them in harm's way.

It's particularly egregious when your soldiers aren't even marking themselves, instead operating in civilian clothing.

It's insane that somehow you've gotten to a point where you're considering basic responsibilities that a military needs to abide by as part of the humanitarian law as "hasbara propaganda". If the world allows Hamas a free pass simply because they're willing to put civilians in harms way then that will become the new normal.

What about the over 1000 people Israel killed in Palestine in 2023 before Oct 7?

Sure, but what about the 25,000 missiles HAMAS fired into Israeli residential areas after they withdrew from Gaza in 2005?

We can play this game right back to 1,500 BC, when Israel was Canaan and Palestine didn't exist.

I’m against genocide. As are the protestors. Don’t make it out like the protestors are for anything different...

No, they're not. The protestors are for the total eradication of Israel and its people. Their signs spell it out "from the river to the sea..."

These 2 posts sum up the hopelessness of this conflict.

“Hamas are terrorists, you can’t support them”

“Oh yeah, well Israel is just as bad”.

None of this leads anywhere.

Do you have a source for this that doesn't come from a news paper that is most certainly not an Israeli newspaper?

Because I guarantee it's fake news. Like, malicious propaganda levels of bullshit, made to absolve Hamas from a massacre that they were proud of, recorded, and boasted online about, now that "indiscriminantly killing israelis knowing damn well the response will be apocalyptic" is passe.

"What about what about what about"

The entire modern premise of Palestine as the Palestinians want it (not detached westerners) is predicated on the quite literal genocide of Israel. Like, the total, utter destruction of it and the murder of all the Jews inside it.

This was the case in '47-48 (before the idea of Palestine as a distinct nation had any real traction), it was true in '67, and it was most certainly true in '23.

By supporting this, you support genocide.

So you're deflecfing can't justify Israel's actions, nice.

https://www.cjpme.org/fs_007

“The Zionist Movement has long called Palestine “A land without a people, for a people without a land,” a slogan that galvanised Jews to move to Palestine and eventually led to the large-scale displacement of indigenous Palestinians.”

Not really comparable since Judaism was prevalent in the Middle East for 2,500 years before Islam even existed.

How would you feel about a European Celtic invasion of England? If say a bunch of Spanish people of Celtic heritage went to England with the argument that Celtic people's have a deeper historical claim than the current English culture that lives there. After all, the Pagans were there for a lot longer than the current lot, so do they have that right?

There’s a genuine link between Jews and the land of Israel.

I'm a Jew, and I find this notion pretty damn absurd. For all I know it's been actual millenia since my family left those lands, assuming we could even trace our line back to them! We have no way of knowing if my family line converted to Judaism long after the fall of historical Israel.

Also if the Jews have a genuine link, why don't the people who lived there a meer century ago get that same right extended to them? Are territorial claims from millia back more valid or something?

Firstly a religious tie does not make an ethnic or demographic tie to the land, the people of the Palestinian region also believed in polytheistic faiths prior to the establishment of Jewish faith however if I converted today to one of those faiths I couldn’t rightfully claim that the Israelis fuck off and make way for my rightful inheritance of the land.

Ironically the majority Muslim Palestinians are far more likely to be direct descendants of the Jewish populations that existed there 2500 years ago then the Jewish populations that now populate Israel. The Arab conquests didn’t lead to a widespread replacement of the traditional population with Arabic people, it led to a demographic shift inside the region based on cultural and religious assimilation not all of which was admittedly non violent pressure but to argue that the people whose families have lived there for nearly 1400 years are some sort of foreign invaders is false

Finally there is a general acceptance across the globe that due to our large scale ramifications colonialist movements had it is generally more harmful then beneficial to overturn the demographic shifts such movements have caused. No one with any real influence seriously advocates sending all the white Australians back to Europe or some other rhetoric. That being said there is a fairly accepted notion that the international community shouldn’t tolerate modern coloniser movements whcih Israel absolutely is. You could support Israel’s internationally recognised borders and they’d still be in breach of international law with regards to ethnic cleansing and colonisation because they actively settle and expel occupied Palestinian land

There's no such thing as a link between humans and land. There's no special connection passed down biologically.

Majority of the people were Palestinian Christians or Muslims for centuries before the Jewish population moved in. There was Jewish presence but it was very little until the mid 1800s when Zionism slowly gained popularity amongst Jewish Diaspora.

Early Zionist literature even talks about colonizing Palestine. It's an active colonial project.

My point was that without them the US would have ended the war already as they have done many times in the past. Once you start talking about “level zero” you open the Pandora’s Box of what happened prior to Oct. 7. Hamas would argue that Oct. 7 is justified by Qana, Deir Yassin, Sabra and Shatila, etc.

They are not hostages, they are prisoners.

This redefining of words and intentional misrepresentation is precisely the point I am making in-regards to this conflict.

When you can hold honest discourse, then progress can be made. If you find yourself unable to frame things honestly, then perhaps the position you find yourself holding does not have much merit.

They are not hostages in the same way as the kidnapped Israelis. Nobody in administrative detention is there purely because they were a Palestinian person near a groups of IDF troops.

What crime do you think any of the hostages committed? What crime are they accused of? Claiming equivalence here is absurd, none of the Israeli hostages are even accused of planning a crime against Gaza.

I'm a couple years younger than you, but otherwise in the same boat. Way too many people have opinions on this topic without actually doing some research first. Meanwhile I was sceptical of both sides from the beginning thanks to doing an entire semester on the history of the conflict in high school. It's also annoying how this conflict has taken all the airtime away from other, more important (for geopolitics) and more black and white conflicts, like what's happening in Ukraine.

I'm on my way out of my 30s and I'd put myself most likely in the same category as you. I grew up in inner city Melbourne, though I've lived all over Australia and I've been overseas now for the last few years. In my youth I only voted Greens, and as I got older, I started to preference Labor. I think the battle is between the aspirational and the practical. Too often passion clouds judgement and simplistic aspirational concepts prevail, but there has to be room for practicality otherwise it's just a self-serving opportunity to feel good about yourself while nothing changes. Too many of my friends never let go of the idealism and never embraced a more realistic perspective. I've always found it strange that people openly admit that half the population disagrees with them, but don't seem to take that into consideration when they are looking at solutions that require these people to accept and comply.

Israel are already committing genocide and apartheid against Palestine. This is fearmongering.

‘From the river to the sea’ – a Palestinian historian explores the meaning and intent of scrutinized slogan

https://theconversation.com/from-the-river-to-the-sea-a-palestinian-historian-explores-the-meaning-and-intent-of-scrutinized-slogan-217491

Perhaps colored by Hamas’ use of the phrase, some have claimed it is a genocidal call – the implication being that the slogan’s end is calling for Palestine to be “free from Jews.” It’s understandable where such fears come from, given the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7 that killed 1,200 people, according to the Israeli foreign ministry.

But the Arabic original, “Filastin hurra,” means liberated Palestine. “Free from” would be a different Arabic word altogether.

Other critics of the slogan insist that by denying Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, the phrase itself is antisemitic. Under such thinking, protesters should instead be calling for a Palestinian state that exists alongside Israel – and not one that replaces it.

But this would seemingly ignore the current reality. There is strong scholarly consensus that a two-state solution is no longer viable. They argue that the extent of settlement building in the West Bank and the economic conditions in Gaza have eaten away at the cohesion and viability of any envisioned Palestinian state.

I’d agree that Israel needs to abandon the settlers.

You want peace? Release the hostages.