5 ms·

No, it is context for the sudden interest in a scandal discussed to death in Israel over 10 years ago. It's not about exposing some scandal, it's about framing

by mola 3y ago

No, it is context for the sudden interest in a scandal discussed to death in Israel over 10 years ago. It's not about exposing some scandal, it's about framing Israel as some psychotic evil thing thus legitimizing massacares such that happened on Oct7, and turning public opinion rabidly against Israel I'll be the last person to defend everything Israel does, but bloodthirsty evil we are not. Oh, and I'm not using emotional rhetoric, I'm really feeling these emotions. You have no idea what we have been through, and then seeing the barrage of unhinged lies and half truths being thrown against us really is scary and disheartening.

richbell 3y ago
> No, it is context for the sudden interest in a scandal discussed to death in Israel over 10 years ago. Do you have proof that Iran is responsible for the linked post? If not, I wouldn't consider that providing context. > It's not about exposing some scandal, it's about framing Israel as some psychotic evil thing thus legitimizing massacares such that happened on Oct7, and turning public opinion rabidly against Israel. How can you make that claim? Also, turning opinion against Isreal (by highlighting things they've done) and legitimizing killing innocents are not part and parcel. People being informed about both sides of a conflict is a good thing, isn't it? > Oh, and I'm not using emotional rhetoric, I'm really feeling these emotions. You have no idea what we have been through, and then seeing the barrage of unhinged lies and half truths being thrown against us really is scary and disheartening. I sympathize with you, but even if it's genuine it's still emotionally charged rhetoric. Your comment comes across as "this thing that happened 10 years ago doesn't matter because Hamas attacked Israel recently". It's a nonsequitor that makes your sentiment appear disingenuous, even if it isn't.
- mola 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - enterprise_cog 3y ago
    You’re just repeating hasbara talking points. River to the sea doesn’t mean ethnically cleansing, like Israel has done to Palestinians. It means a one state solution, with Arabs and Jews as equals. You choose to interpret it as a call for genocide, but I get why you do: projection. Quick question: how many of those dead on the 7th were due to IDF attacking Israelis? How many hostages have died from IAF airstrikes? You talk about brutal videos of the 7th, when you can see the same thing and worse every single day in Gaza. You talk about tragedy when 1000s of kids in Gaza have died and you don’t seem to care. Only Israelis dying matter to you. I wonder why.
nick_ 3y ago
But many Israelis are, even openly, bloodthirsty. This is well documented and trivial to find on mainstream social media platforms. Obviously (though I want spell it out because I genuinely do not want to upset you), the same is true of many Gazans and those who sympathize with their plight. Please do not, as you just did, imply that to criticize Israeli policies is to legitimize the horrors brought upon thousands of innocent civilians on Oct 7. That is a false dichotomy. Furthermore, a personal endeavour to split every hair on this topic while emotionally compromised will likely lead to a negative mental health outcome.

by mola 3y ago

richbell 3y ago

> No, it is context for the sudden interest in a scandal discussed to death in Israel over 10 years ago. Do you have proof that Iran is responsible for the linked post? If not, I wouldn't consider that providing context. > It's not about exposing some scandal, it's about framing Israel as some psychotic evil thing thus legitimizing massacares such that happened on Oct7, and turning public opinion rabidly against Israel. How can you make that claim? Also, turning opinion against Isreal (by highlighting things they've done) and legitimizing killing innocents are not part and parcel. People being informed about both sides of a conflict is a good thing, isn't it? > Oh, and I'm not using emotional rhetoric, I'm really feeling these emotions. You have no idea what we have been through, and then seeing the barrage of unhinged lies and half truths being thrown against us really is scary and disheartening. I sympathize with you, but even if it's genuine it's still emotionally charged rhetoric. Your comment comes across as "this thing that happened 10 years ago doesn't matter because Hamas attacked Israel recently". It's a nonsequitor that makes your sentiment appear disingenuous, even if it isn't.

mola 3y ago
[flagged]
- enterprise_cog 3y ago
  You’re just repeating hasbara talking points. River to the sea doesn’t mean ethnically cleansing, like Israel has done to Palestinians. It means a one state solution, with Arabs and Jews as equals. You choose to interpret it as a call for genocide, but I get why you do: projection. Quick question: how many of those dead on the 7th were due to IDF attacking Israelis? How many hostages have died from IAF airstrikes? You talk about brutal videos of the 7th, when you can see the same thing and worse every single day in Gaza. You talk about tragedy when 1000s of kids in Gaza have died and you don’t seem to care. Only Israelis dying matter to you. I wonder why.

nick_ 3y ago

But many Israelis are, even openly, bloodthirsty. This is well documented and trivial to find on mainstream social media platforms. Obviously (though I want spell it out because I genuinely do not want to upset you), the same is true of many Gazans and those who sympathize with their plight. Please do not, as you just did, imply that to criticize Israeli policies is to legitimize the horrors brought upon thousands of innocent civilians on Oct 7. That is a false dichotomy. Furthermore, a personal endeavour to split every hair on this topic while emotionally compromised will likely lead to a negative mental health outcome.