Jump to content

Morch

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    12,743
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8,280 Excellent

About Morch

  • Rank
    Sorrow floats

Previous Fields

  • Location
    Thailand

Recent Profile Visitors

17,376 profile views
  1. How is it a spin or a straw-man, when you it accurately describes your "accounts"? You do not differentiate between casualties, you refuse to accept not all were innocent, peaceful protestors. You deny Hamas involvement, when this becomes unattainable you claim it doesn't matter anyway. Deflection follows deflection. I notice that you try to play the emotional angle, as if it somehow conveys credibility. Being an emotional exhibitionist (even a fake one) is not a requirement. Regarding the infant - do try to keep up, or at least keep the lame spins down a bit. The Gazan doctor's report was contradicting the "official" version of the Hamas run Ministry of Health in Gaza. It was corroborated by the infant's own family.
  2. No, that would be you misrepresenting things yet again. I am not denying that there are casualties. I do doubt that the figures are accurate, based on past experience. There is no wholesale denial, as you often engage in. There are no "spurious grounds" - the affiliation of sources and track record speak for themselves. Examples of such (which were addressed on previous posts) would be adding Hamas operatives killed in an unrelated explosion and nowhere near the protests being added to the casualty lists, or that infant story you milk - which isn't quite what you make of it. There would also be Hamas and Islamic Jihad personnel killed while carrying out attacks - something which you insist on denying. Apparently, you are the only one allowed wholesale denials, whereas those not embracing your narrative should not even raise doubts. Troll on.
  3. And there are other Yemenites fighting the Houthis. It's a civil war, and a proxy war.
  4. It is quite telling that you lump all casualties together. If one was to accept your pushed narrative - none of them acted violently, none tried to breach the fence, none carried out attacks, none were Hamas personnel. Everyone was on a fun day out enjoying a "peaceful" protest. You routinely deny or ignore any reports not in line with your pushed narrative, be them issued by the Hamas itself or Israel. But somehow, accepting as gospel each report that does support your point of view. Casualty figures, for example, are all issued by the Hamas or by the Hamas run Ministry of Health in Gaza. Neither known to be a paragon of accuracy and truth on these matters. And yet - presented as unquestionable, undisputed fact. Or the infant - which you fail to mention had a precondition, and wasn't supposed to be there anyway (according to her own family!). Milking casualties and fatalities for every ounce of PR value, is something you routinely do. Pretty much in line with Hamas strategy. Casualties are supposedly good for promoting the "cause".
  5. It would be refreshing, if you'd bother addressing points others make, instead of endlessly engaging in lame deflections and spins. There was no denial of casualties. I did not say that the IDF did not kill anyone. Those are lies you made up. For someone who refuses to accept any report whatsoever not in line with your adopted narrative, the faux objection above is preposterous. The questionable track record of both the Hamas, and the Hamas run Ministry of Health in Gaza when reporting casualty figures is nothing new. That you wish to accept it as gospel doesn't change things. Obviously, no comment on the previous post....
  6. @farcanell Could also point out casualty reports are based on the Hamas run Ministry of Health in Gaza. Somehow these are accepted without any doubts, regardless of track record.
  7. "I don't like Trump but...." Pull the other one.
  8. You've been persistently ignoring facts on this topic, and keep repeating "alternative facts" as if they are true. Your "end of argument" nonsense is just that - nonsense. Here are some actual facts: The Gaza Strip wasn't always under a blockade - fact. The blockade on the Gaza Strip is directly related to the Hamas agenda, policies and actions - fact. Hamas is widely considered a terrorist organization, this precludes many possibilities with regard to aid - fact. The blockade is maintained by both Israel and Egypt - fact. The Palestinian Authority got economic sanctions in place, related to the Hamas rule - fact. Hamas is the main obstacle with regard to providing aid to the Gaza Strip - fact. Hamas uses materials and funds intended for civilian purposes to promote military projects - fact. Hamas stance vs. Israel and the PA is the root of most energy supply issues in the Gaza Strip - fact. Hamas routinely engages Israel, regardless of being fully aware of the consequences - fact. And no, Trump isn't the only one supporting Israel on this. It's one thing to say Israel is responsible, quite another to pretend it is solely responsible.
  9. Funny I have no such issues, while looking at it from Thailand. Perhaps trolls got issues using Google? http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/alldocs.aspx ("Violations of international law in the context of large-scale civilian protests in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem" - currently 5th from the top). This being the 4th instance on recent topics (Hamas involvement/casualties, Lack of non-lethal means, Infant suffering a precondition, and the current bit), I think it can be called a pattern: 1. Deny facts. 2. Presented with factual reports, attempt to reject source on spurious grounds. 3. Reports are confirmed again. 4. Deny regardless, ignore, or claim it doesn't matter anyway. So now we're at the step 4: Seems like after all the faux talk regarding the investigation needing to be even handed etc., you now declare Hamas does not have to be mentioned, and it's only Israel that's at fault. Do make up your mind. Countries not accepting the narrative pushed is a "tame poodles", whereas "human-rights focused countries" such as most who supported the above, are apparently alright. Guess the great "humanist" thing is also conditional...
  10. Yawn. Seriously doubt you couldn't find it. Here: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G18/136/13/PDF/G1813613.pdf?OpenElement Do you see any reference to the Hamas? Do you discern any other party, other than Israel, criticized? The scope is limited, the conclusions appear in the text (not to mention accompanying and related statements), protests were "peaceful", and it even includes a demands to stop the blockade, and allow free passage of persons etc. Or perhaps you're too familiar with posting one-sided rants that this seems balanced to you.
  11. I'm not "prejudicing" anything, the mandate does not include investigating Hamas. The investigations is not tasked with this at all. I am not assuming Hamas "is guilty of instigating the violence". There was violence on offer from both sides. To deny this is bizarre. To deny Hamas involvement, when Hamas itself acknowledges it, is bizarre. To ignore Hamas leaders's speeches before and during the protests, is bizarre. It is not "hard" to make those assumptions, unless one is clueless, intentionally obtuse and/or totally biased. Why would Israel be expected to cooperate with an investigation that focuses solely on one side? Once more, no actual criticism of the investigation's narrow mandate, no demands to investigate the Hamas, no calls for the Hamas to address anything. In short - unadulterated rubbish. The same goes for your Mavi Marmara bogus comment.
  12. Oooh..."blatant falsehood". Wait....no, waffle again. Was there anything in your posts to indicate criticism along these lines of the investigation already commissioned? Was there anything there casting doubt on the credibility and "independence" of the upcoming investigation? Learn to read? How about this - this isn't about the investigation examining Israel's claim regarding the Hamas, but rather the investigation not mandated or tasked with investigating either the Hamas itself or "Israeli's claims". So it would supposedly be "slammed internationally" if it did not "note" Israel's input - but no actual requirement to investigate the Hamas. You're not demanding anything, more like deflecting.
  13. Many, if not most Gazan families originally hail from Israel and the West Bank. Refugees from the 1948 war. For these people, home wasn't the Gaza Strip. So Israel's unilateral disengagement move from the Gaza Strip did not give these people their homes back. For "original" Gazans - perhaps.
  14. Having no reasonable comment regarding the commissioned investigation's mandate focusing solely on Israel, you go on yet another misleading tangent. I have no idea if one will be initiated in this case, but on several past occasions, Israel did conduct such investigations. Incidentally, that's one of the main reasons the ICC refrains - its involvement is more closely related to countries which cannot or will not carry credible investigations. Allow me to doubt that either way, your response to findings not in line with your hateful agenda will be appreciative or positive. The "from both sides" bit is amusing - do you imagine an Israeli judge will be able to conduct investigations in Gaza? Interview Hamas people, perhaps? And as per script, no demands of international investigation applied to the Hamas, and no expectation that it will conduct a credible one.
  15. Yeah, I'm aware you wave your visit as some sort of credential. Reminds me of tourists here going on about Thai politics. With all due respect to posting one-sided talking points, vehement rants and googled links, that's not quite what I referred to. I didn't "moan" about anything, I pointed out that the land is densely populated. You can twist that whichever way you like, but it will still remain a fact. Nothing hypocritical about it. Israelis and Palestinians do not "already live together" in the areas discussed. And your usual emotional spins are irrelevant. The same goes for the nonsense about you imply regarding the Forward article. And on we go... The links you posted to them two polls do not actually support your point or negate mine. Just another attempt to muddy the waters and deflect. Asserting that the re-settling the Palestinians in Israel does not constitute a "wrong" is something you "decided", and is not how things are perceived by Israelis. With regard to the first poll linked, you somehow conclude that since support for the two state solution allegedly decreased, the only option left is the one-state solution. Back in the real world, there are such things known as facts. Here are some - the link doesn't report figures related to a one-state solution. The figures that do appear mostly relate to the possibility of a confrontation or things dragging on. That you present a bogus, misleading "conclusion", while co-opting the poll and lecturing others about "research" is pretty much how you roll. If anything, the results highlight issues related to fear, trust and animosity. More supportive of the my early proposition - that sides aren't that keen living with each other. Another point worth making is that the poll was conducted on December 2017, after Trump's Jerusalem announcement. Positions and views are often polarized following such events, and thus reflected in poll results (addressed in the link itself). As for the second poll - disregarding the presentation (this is, after all, a far left website): the quote is a bit misleading. The actual figure related to support is 16.2% , and it too, is divided between two possible answers. Guess that would see some "nitpicking" or "pedantry" nonsense comment, but what's the use of linking figures, then? The article does a fair job of not disclosing how many responded negatively, except in one case - 60.8%. It would seem that the positive responses are presented in aggregated form (as in lumping together positive responses, without clear differentiation). The bit about Palestinian views on the right of return, cites one person and determines it is "representative". To cap - most Israelis aren't supportive of the right of return, and the source is somewhat dodgy. About your standard "new leadership" tagline, which is essentially hot air - it would be nice if you could actually have anything of substance to say about the Palestinian leadership (past, present and future), that isn't some general hollow musing. The same goes for your human rights campaigns hopes and slogans - nothing on how these actually relate to reality.
×