5 ms·

How is that a refutation? If I want to understand any position I would look for first sources. Say I want to understand why Russian invaded Ukraine, I would se

How is that a refutation? If I want to understand any position I would look for first sources. Say I want to understand why Russian invaded Ukraine, I would seek out Russian sources. When I try to understand the Palestinian position, I seek out Palestinian sources. The beautiful thing about intellectual honesty and openness is that you don't have to agree with any position. You can expose yourself to things that deeply conflict with your personal values and walk away with a deeper understanding of why you value what you value, and how to refute ideas that you strongly disagree with. To dismiss a source because it is Israeli ironically gives fuel to the antisemitism charge. You're saying that the very reason to dismiss it, to not even bother entertaining its arguments is because it is Israeli and no other reason. Beyond that, you are even arguing that any claims of prejudice can be dismissed outright on the basis of one thing that one Israeli Minster once said [allegedly]. That is the very definition of prejudice.

eej71 1y ago
[flagged]
alexisread 1y ago
Quite simply Israelis and Jews are not the same group, otherwise you would be holding all Jews on the planet responsible for this genocide. Dismissing the source for being Israeli is not antisemitic. There are many examples of Israeli sources lying about the state of things, from the baseless claims against UNRWA to the unconscionable excuse of burying medics and the ambulances they were in, to avoid wild dogs eating them. Israeli sources rarely offer evidence to refute the claims presented in this report, and a cry of antisemitism, as stated, conflates Judeism with Israeli nationality, hence these sources are worthless at best.
- eej71 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - alexisread 1y ago
    Which are not validated by the UN, Norway etc. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148821 https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148821 If the claims were valid, countries would not have restarted funding to UNRWA. Simple. I note you've not denied the issues with claims of antisemitism which are important.
    - eej71 1y ago
      There is considerable evidence that there is a deep connection between members of Hamas and its extensive support network and UNRWA. Receipts: https://unwatch.org/report-unrwas-terrorgram/ https://unwatch.org/report-unrwas-terrorgram/ If that's not antisemitic, I'm not sure what would be in your mind. But I think for you, you are able to dismiss it because the rest of the world choose to not see it.
      - alexisread 1y ago
        I was referring to your conflation of Israelis with Jews, and calling dismissal of an Israeli news source antisemitic, which it is not. I'm saying that a biased Israeli news source is less valid than the actions of dozens of countries, which decided to restart funding. It is telling that UN votes for a ceasefire are only opposed by the US, Israel and a handful of client states. This is a genocide, and most countries seem to agree on that.
        eej71 1y ago
        First, I think you are conflating two different authors in this thread. Second, you dismissed what you deemed to be Israeli sources as "lying about the state of things, from the baseless claims against UNRWA". I brought up evidence otherwise - specifically that their claims are not baseless. Dismiss _that_ as biased all you want, but its just links to social media posts from Hamas members. Members of Hamas that also work for UNRWA in some fashion. We do agree that the US and Israel standing alone is telling. But we will disagree on what it means. For me it confirms just how morally bankrupt the United Nations is. I see no epistemological value in just conforming to the majority when I see clear evidence otherwise.
DaveExeter 1y ago
"To dismiss a source because it is Israeli ironically gives fuel to the antisemitism charge." We agree it is an Israeli source. All the unwatch site does is accuse Israel's critics of being antisemites. When you can't respond to the message, attack the messenger. Accuse them of being antisemitic and being funded by Hamas. The Israelis have taken it to the point of farce! https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/09/stop-antisemitism-ms-rachel-doj-investigation https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/09/stop-antisem...
- eej71 1y ago
  Receipts: https://unwatch.org/report-unrwas-terrorgram/ https://unwatch.org/report-unrwas-terrorgram/

eej71 1y ago

[flagged]

alexisread 1y ago

Quite simply Israelis and Jews are not the same group, otherwise you would be holding all Jews on the planet responsible for this genocide. Dismissing the source for being Israeli is not antisemitic. There are many examples of Israeli sources lying about the state of things, from the baseless claims against UNRWA to the unconscionable excuse of burying medics and the ambulances they were in, to avoid wild dogs eating them. Israeli sources rarely offer evidence to refute the claims presented in this report, and a cry of antisemitism, as stated, conflates Judeism with Israeli nationality, hence these sources are worthless at best.

eej71 1y ago
[flagged]
- alexisread 1y ago
  Which are not validated by the UN, Norway etc. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148821 https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148821 If the claims were valid, countries would not have restarted funding to UNRWA. Simple. I note you've not denied the issues with claims of antisemitism which are important.
  - eej71 1y ago
    There is considerable evidence that there is a deep connection between members of Hamas and its extensive support network and UNRWA. Receipts: https://unwatch.org/report-unrwas-terrorgram/ https://unwatch.org/report-unrwas-terrorgram/ If that's not antisemitic, I'm not sure what would be in your mind. But I think for you, you are able to dismiss it because the rest of the world choose to not see it.
    - alexisread 1y ago
      I was referring to your conflation of Israelis with Jews, and calling dismissal of an Israeli news source antisemitic, which it is not. I'm saying that a biased Israeli news source is less valid than the actions of dozens of countries, which decided to restart funding. It is telling that UN votes for a ceasefire are only opposed by the US, Israel and a handful of client states. This is a genocide, and most countries seem to agree on that.
      - eej71 1y ago
        First, I think you are conflating two different authors in this thread. Second, you dismissed what you deemed to be Israeli sources as "lying about the state of things, from the baseless claims against UNRWA". I brought up evidence otherwise - specifically that their claims are not baseless. Dismiss _that_ as biased all you want, but its just links to social media posts from Hamas members. Members of Hamas that also work for UNRWA in some fashion. We do agree that the US and Israel standing alone is telling. But we will disagree on what it means. For me it confirms just how morally bankrupt the United Nations is. I see no epistemological value in just conforming to the majority when I see clear evidence otherwise.

DaveExeter 1y ago

"To dismiss a source because it is Israeli ironically gives fuel to the antisemitism charge." We agree it is an Israeli source. All the unwatch site does is accuse Israel's critics of being antisemites. When you can't respond to the message, attack the messenger. Accuse them of being antisemitic and being funded by Hamas. The Israelis have taken it to the point of farce! https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/09/stop-antisemitism-ms-rachel-doj-investigation https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/09/stop-antisem...

eej71 1y ago
Receipts: https://unwatch.org/report-unrwas-terrorgram/ https://unwatch.org/report-unrwas-terrorgram/