Israel / Palestine

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

AndyRM

Elder Goth
Dutch white mixed other to be precise other is unknown also just to clarify.

No but if people link/defend/or otherwise glorify terrorist i think it's fair to point that out, if i link/defend or otherwise glorify Isreali terrorirst you lot would be the first to point out. And i have been vindicated i told you lot having criminals about of the flotilla thing trying to breach the Isreal naval blockade was a bad thing, first lie was there where no terrorist on board multiple have been identified.(on international terrorist list in case you wanna go the "but isreal only calls them terrorist route)
i posted multiple times from the other side of Palestine, those who fight or fought(as now been killed) against Hamas. Those who welcomed America/Isreal is not that i suddenly don't support that side anymore its just time consuming because there is so much fake news/old news with different narratives etc. going around and i dont have that much time these days.
But to read that like you do now i don't get to be honest. Yes i say i people repeat a certain lie that is very much a propaganda line created by Hamas but how is that different then you lot calling Isreal out for their lies? and yes if you without looking at the bigger picture repeat Hamas lies you are indeed being pro-Hamas whether you intent to do that or not.
Same with all those Hamas flags during pro palestina protest, sometimes together with the gay/pride flags because nothing says you don't understand the care values of a group of Hamas better then that.
Hamas does not like us, they are not yet like Isis but if they ever reach their goal of destroying Isreal the rest of the west will be next. Just like Isis has planned, t they all use religion as a weapon of war. Children as a toy of propaganda, media as recruitment toy.



I don't alwasy see that more often then not i see jew hatred returning, from never being fully gone.

Seriously. Give your head a wobble.

We know that Hamas are a terrorist group, nobody, ever has been supporting them or their acts on this thread.

Equally, we know that Jews are not responsible for the acts of Netanyahu and the condemnation of that government is reasonable.
 

Ian H

Pharaoh
Israel's Supreme Court overturned several decisions by the Central Elections Committee on Friday, allowing two Arab-majority parties and one lawmaker to run in the October election.

Last week, the committee, controlled by members of PM Netanyahu's coalition, voted to disqualify the United Arab List party and the Joint List – an alliance of Israel's remaining Arab parties – and lawmakers Ofer Cassif of the Arab-Jewish Hadash party and the chairman of the Palestinian nationalist Balad party, Sami Abu Shehadeh.

The court voted unanimously to overturn the committee's decision on both parties, while Abu Shehadeh told the court he is withdrawing his candidacy after court president Justice Isaac Amit signaled it is inclined to permit his disqualification.

The election committee struck down Abu Shehadeh's candidacy over an article he wrote a day after the Hamas-led massacre on October 7, 2023, which the committee said constituted support for armed struggle or the actions of a terrorist organization against Israel. The attorney general and state prosecutor agreed, and backed ratifying the committee's decision.

His withdrawal means the justices will no longer need to rule on whether a candidate can be barred from running based on a single publication rather than an accumulation of evidence indicating consistent support for terrorism.

Abu Shahadeh decided to withdraw only after the court's suggestion, Balad said, adding that it had effectively disqualified him before issuing its formal ruling. This "raises serious questions about the limits of political legitimacy afforded to Arab citizens, and about the use of disqualifications to narrow the scope of Arab political activity," the party said.

The decision on Cassif was approved with two of the nine justices opposing on the basis that his statements and actions, both directly and indirectly, could be considered support for an armed struggle against the State of Israel.

[Haaretz]
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

AndyRM

Elder Goth
Israel's Supreme Court overturned several decisions by the Central Elections Committee on Friday, allowing two Arab-majority parties and one lawmaker to run in the October election.

Last week, the committee, controlled by members of PM Netanyahu's coalition, voted to disqualify the United Arab List party and the Joint List – an alliance of Israel's remaining Arab parties – and lawmakers Ofer Cassif of the Arab-Jewish Hadash party and the chairman of the Palestinian nationalist Balad party, Sami Abu Shehadeh.

The court voted unanimously to overturn the committee's decision on both parties, while Abu Shehadeh told the court he is withdrawing his candidacy after court president Justice Isaac Amit signaled it is inclined to permit his disqualification.

The election committee struck down Abu Shehadeh's candidacy over an article he wrote a day after the Hamas-led massacre on October 7, 2023, which the committee said constituted support for armed struggle or the actions of a terrorist organization against Israel. The attorney general and state prosecutor agreed, and backed ratifying the committee's decision.

His withdrawal means the justices will no longer need to rule on whether a candidate can be barred from running based on a single publication rather than an accumulation of evidence indicating consistent support for terrorism.

Abu Shahadeh decided to withdraw only after the court's suggestion, Balad said, adding that it had effectively disqualified him before issuing its formal ruling. This "raises serious questions about the limits of political legitimacy afforded to Arab citizens, and about the use of disqualifications to narrow the scope of Arab political activity," the party said.

The decision on Cassif was approved with two of the nine justices opposing on the basis that his statements and actions, both directly and indirectly, could be considered support for an armed struggle against the State of Israel.

[Haaretz]

Settle your farm Ian. This reads dangerously anti Semitic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

Ian H

Pharaoh
Settle your farm Ian. This reads dangerously anti Semitic.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told lawyers to begin defamation proceedings against an Israeli newspaper over reports that the leader of the United Arab Emirates warned him that Hamas was planning an operation just days before the 7 October 2023 attacks.
According to book extracts published by Haaretz, UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan had a phone call with Netanyahu that September...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kxwm870g1o
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

Psamathe

Squire
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told lawyers to begin defamation proceedings against an Israeli newspaper over reports that the leader of the United Arab Emirates warned him that Hamas was planning an operation just days before the 7 October 2023 attacks.
According to book extracts published by Haaretz, UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan had a phone call with Netanyahu that September...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kxwm870g1o
In the UK reporters have rights to protect their sources and that can mean not revealing the document they used to get reported information from (where revealing the document would jeopardise revealing the source - at least my non-legal understanding.

Does anybody know if reporters in Israel have similar protections, "Public Interest" protections, etc. and/or is the start of defamation just a PR move to raise public suspicions about the allegations (given that nothing will even get a court hearing before the elections).
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

briantrumpet

Timewaster
At some point, surely they've got to realise that this law is an ass.

1792227555669.png
 

PurplePenguin

Über Member
You'd think so, wouldn't you. But then you would have thought that Israel effectively forcing the closure of a British consulate would be a big deal, but it didn't seem to be. So here we are.

They compromised on something to stop it being a big deal.
 

PurplePenguin

Über Member
And what compromise would that be? Genuinely curious.

Can't remember exactly, but if Israel expelled diplomats then the UK would have expelled some from London which wasn't an ideal situation for either side. Instead the UK has reduced the number of staff working there presumably with a view to seeing what happens in the forthcoming elections.
 

C R

Squire
Can't remember exactly, but if Israel expelled diplomats then the UK would have expelled some from London which wasn't an ideal situation for either side. Instead the UK has reduced the number of staff working there presumably with a view to seeing what happens in the forthcoming elections.

That's not a compromise, that's the UK caving in.
 
Top Bottom