Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East

Israel calling Francesca Albanese a witch!?

289 replies

Everexpanding · 29/10/2025 16:17

I understand anti semite was losing its power to silence but now Israel is calling Francesca Albanese a witch??? At a meeting of the UN?
Has the Israeli government lost it’s mind

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 12:28

Twiglets1 · 08/11/2025 12:23

Why does it feel like a personal attack when I repeat back what you have said about Hamas and Israel?

Me suggesting to others that debating with someone with those views is pointless is obviously me expressing my opinion which I believe is still allowed on MN.

"Everything beyond these two beliefs is just noise." is a personal attack! At no point have I expressed any derogatory remarks about your debating skills.

Twiglets1 · 08/11/2025 12:23

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 12:09

I get you don't want to debate but that smacks as a personal attack to me. I don't think MNHQ approves of that.

Why does it feel like a personal attack when I repeat back what you have said about Hamas and Israel?

Me suggesting to others that debating with someone with those views is pointless is obviously me expressing my opinion which I believe is still allowed on MN.

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 12:09

Twiglets1 · 08/11/2025 12:00

Guys there is no point arguing with someone who throws doubt on the suggestion that Hamas has something to hide and who will bluntly say that Israel is worse than Hamas.

Everything beyond these two beliefs is just noise.

I get you don't want to debate but that smacks as a personal attack to me. I don't think MNHQ approves of that.

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 12:07

NikkiPotnick · 08/11/2025 11:55

If you want to say you think there's no possible way to know what Hamas would do to foreign independent journalists if allowed in, no doubt we all accept that this is your sincerely held belief. Something doesn't have to be non-deluded to not be in good faith, after all. But with that in mind, why did you previously elevate one of the apparently equal possibilities above the others? If you intend to continue in this conversation, this is something you're going to have to address.

I actually have no problem with people saying they want to focus only on what is currently happening, and therefore as things stand they'll criticise just Israel for not allowing independent journos in. That is a reasonable position, if you stick to it. Means not engaging in speculation, or giving more prominence to one hypothetical than others.

The reason I would say that if I have to bet, I would bet it is true is precisely because Israel won't allow international journalists in. They are demonstrating that they have something to hide.

Have you not considered that is not just me who would like to see international journalists in but the journalists themselves who are chomping at the bit to get in.

Twiglets1 · 08/11/2025 12:00

Guys there is no point arguing with someone who throws doubt on the suggestion that Hamas has something to hide and who will bluntly say that Israel is worse than Hamas.

Everything beyond these two beliefs is just noise.

NikkiPotnick · 08/11/2025 11:55

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 11:31

The only people who would block access to independent verification are the ones who have something to hide. As it is at the moment, we only "know" that Israel are doing that. If Hamas were to do the same thing we would "know" that they had something to hide. That in itself is a form of verification as we would "know" they are lying. Right now you are pointlessly talking about what ifs and making a massive assumption that Hamas would block the journalists.

If you want to say you think there's no possible way to know what Hamas would do to foreign independent journalists if allowed in, no doubt we all accept that this is your sincerely held belief. Something doesn't have to be non-deluded to not be in good faith, after all. But with that in mind, why did you previously elevate one of the apparently equal possibilities above the others? If you intend to continue in this conversation, this is something you're going to have to address.

I actually have no problem with people saying they want to focus only on what is currently happening, and therefore as things stand they'll criticise just Israel for not allowing independent journos in. That is a reasonable position, if you stick to it. Means not engaging in speculation, or giving more prominence to one hypothetical than others.

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 11:37

CircleSquared · 08/11/2025 11:17

It’s an analogy. I chose unicorns thinking it couldn’t be twisted to say it’s an additional commentary on Israel/Gaza but here we are.

I am not at all stating the images coming out of Gaza are fake.

My only point is that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. In this case, claiming the 83%.

You have openly acknowledged you’ve no idea if it’s true and don’t seem to disagree that the statistics are manipulated. Yet if you had to choose one way or the other you’d assume it’s true.

I hope you’re never on a jury!

If you look at my first point on this thread I said the whole article is unverified. I have also said I don't take any figures coming out of Gaza from anyone as fact as both sides have a motive to lie so no, without actual verification, the figures are nothing more than a possibility. What I specifically said was if I had to bet, I stress had to, not declare as proof, then looking at the devastation in Gaza and all the reports from international doctors who are the closest we're going to get to verification, I would bet on them being true.

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 11:31

NikkiPotnick · 08/11/2025 11:18

Right, so with that in mind you don't actually elevate the possibility that Hamas will allow free enough access for independent death toll verification above any other?

In that case, you'll want to make sure you don't list it solo without caveating, as you did in the post I first replied to. Obviously you wouldn't want to be seen as giving more precedence to one supposedly possible outcome than any other. Especially when that outcome would require a significant behavioural change from things we do in fact know very well about Hamas.

The only people who would block access to independent verification are the ones who have something to hide. As it is at the moment, we only "know" that Israel are doing that. If Hamas were to do the same thing we would "know" that they had something to hide. That in itself is a form of verification as we would "know" they are lying. Right now you are pointlessly talking about what ifs and making a massive assumption that Hamas would block the journalists.

NikkiPotnick · 08/11/2025 11:18

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 11:10

I, that is me, have no idea what will happen if international journalists go into Gaza. There is a possibility that Hamas will block access to areas and try to censor what is reported. Anything is possible but I am not going to make that assumption until it happens. Point is, what we know now, not what we think, is it is Israel who are the ones blocking international journalists from reporting from Gaza. You may think Hamas will do the same but thinking is not the same as knowing.

Right, so with that in mind you don't actually elevate the possibility that Hamas will allow free enough access for independent death toll verification above any other?

In that case, you'll want to make sure you don't list it solo without caveating, as you did in the post I first replied to. Obviously you wouldn't want to be seen as giving more precedence to one supposedly possible outcome than any other. Especially when that outcome would require a significant behavioural change from things we do in fact know very well about Hamas.

CircleSquared · 08/11/2025 11:17

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 11:03

Unicorns?? No idea where to go with that. I categorically said, no one knows what the exact figures are. 83% is a figure which may or may not be true. I have no idea and I'm not sure if we will ever know. As far as your unicorn thing, are you trying to imply the images of the destruction in Gaza are fake?

It’s an analogy. I chose unicorns thinking it couldn’t be twisted to say it’s an additional commentary on Israel/Gaza but here we are.

I am not at all stating the images coming out of Gaza are fake.

My only point is that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. In this case, claiming the 83%.

You have openly acknowledged you’ve no idea if it’s true and don’t seem to disagree that the statistics are manipulated. Yet if you had to choose one way or the other you’d assume it’s true.

I hope you’re never on a jury!

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 11:10

NikkiPotnick · 08/11/2025 11:01

Upthread you said all these figures could be verified if Israel let international journos in. Now there's no way of knowing what would happen.

Which is it? You can only pick one. If you want to pretend it's completely up in the air what Hamas would do, that means you need to give exactly the same amount of credence to all possibilities, rather than elevating one above others.

I, that is me, have no idea what will happen if international journalists go into Gaza. There is a possibility that Hamas will block access to areas and try to censor what is reported. Anything is possible but I am not going to make that assumption until it happens. Point is, what we know now, not what we think, is it is Israel who are the ones blocking international journalists from reporting from Gaza. You may think Hamas will do the same but thinking is not the same as knowing.

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 11:03

CircleSquared · 08/11/2025 10:48

I don’t even know where to go with this.

if I argued that there’s a unicorn on the moon and here are some satellite images to prove it, and then you explained exactly how the satellite images had been manipulated and faked, wouldn’t it be bizarre for me to respond that your claims are unverified and therefore there must indeed be a unicorn? Because at the very least it would mean both claims are unverified and there’s no reason to believe any of it.

Even if one believes that Big Space are hiding something from us, why choose to accept it’s specifically a unicorn even after it’s been pointed out that it’s based on incorrect evidence?

I am not trying to convince you of the civilian casualty rate. I am pointing out that there is no reason to believe the 83%. The Guardian article itself states the 17% is only named Hamas combatants from the database.

I am not trying to convince you to support Israel. I am pointing out statistical manipulation and misinformation.

Unicorns?? No idea where to go with that. I categorically said, no one knows what the exact figures are. 83% is a figure which may or may not be true. I have no idea and I'm not sure if we will ever know. As far as your unicorn thing, are you trying to imply the images of the destruction in Gaza are fake?

NikkiPotnick · 08/11/2025 11:01

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 10:56

I'm going to try this one more time. No one knows how Hamas will react if the free press were allowed into Gaza. You are making assumptions based on nothing more than a visceral, not logical, decision. Now if the free press were allowed in and Hamas blocked them, that means they're hiding something but that is not something we will ever know until Israel stops blocking the free press from trying to report.

Upthread you said all these figures could be verified if Israel let international journos in. Now there's no way of knowing what would happen.

Which is it? You can only pick one. If you want to pretend it's completely up in the air what Hamas would do, that means you need to give exactly the same amount of credence to all possibilities, rather than elevating one above others.

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 10:56

NikkiPotnick · 08/11/2025 10:48

This is many things, but logical is not one of them.

You seem to be operating from the position that only one side can possibly have anything to hide. Clearly this is a failure of logic.

It is Israel's fault that they have chosen not to allow outside journalists into Gaza. They and they alone are responsible for that decision.

It does not follow from this that if Israel changed their minds, Hamas would then have a complete operational change and allow people to speak freely and report things they don't want spreading to the outside. But the only way your argument could make sense is if this obviously false premise were accepted to be correct.

If your view is that Hamas would have a magical change of approach to people saying things they don't like, you will need to explain why.

I'm going to try this one more time. No one knows how Hamas will react if the free press were allowed into Gaza. You are making assumptions based on nothing more than a visceral, not logical, decision. Now if the free press were allowed in and Hamas blocked them, that means they're hiding something but that is not something we will ever know until Israel stops blocking the free press from trying to report.

CircleSquared · 08/11/2025 10:48

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 10:31

I, and I don't think anyone else, has any idea of how many people, civilians and combatants are actually dead. I may have no reason to believe the 83% but then I also have no reason to disbelieve it. Looking at the state of Gaza though, if I were forced to make a bet, I would have to bet on it being correct.

I don’t even know where to go with this.

if I argued that there’s a unicorn on the moon and here are some satellite images to prove it, and then you explained exactly how the satellite images had been manipulated and faked, wouldn’t it be bizarre for me to respond that your claims are unverified and therefore there must indeed be a unicorn? Because at the very least it would mean both claims are unverified and there’s no reason to believe any of it.

Even if one believes that Big Space are hiding something from us, why choose to accept it’s specifically a unicorn even after it’s been pointed out that it’s based on incorrect evidence?

I am not trying to convince you of the civilian casualty rate. I am pointing out that there is no reason to believe the 83%. The Guardian article itself states the 17% is only named Hamas combatants from the database.

I am not trying to convince you to support Israel. I am pointing out statistical manipulation and misinformation.

NikkiPotnick · 08/11/2025 10:48

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 10:38

I am not advocating for Hamas's honesty or integrity. I am merely applying logic. If Hamas had something to hide, they would block the free press from reporting and we would know they were lying. If they did not have anything to hide, they would not block them. That is simply logical. As it stands, it is Israel who are blocking the free press so by that same logic, it must be Israel that has something to hide from the world.

This is many things, but logical is not one of them.

You seem to be operating from the position that only one side can possibly have anything to hide. Clearly this is a failure of logic.

It is Israel's fault that they have chosen not to allow outside journalists into Gaza. They and they alone are responsible for that decision.

It does not follow from this that if Israel changed their minds, Hamas would then have a complete operational change and allow people to speak freely and report things they don't want spreading to the outside. But the only way your argument could make sense is if this obviously false premise were accepted to be correct.

If your view is that Hamas would have a magical change of approach to people saying things they don't like, you will need to explain why.

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 10:46

CircleSquared · 08/11/2025 10:33

Over the last couple of years, various polls showed high support for Hamas amongst Palestinians and even specifically a large number that agreed with October 7th.

When you condemn Hamas do you make it clear that you’re including a large number of Palestinians too?

Absolutely, I condemn anyone who supports the murder and kidnap of civilians on October 7th. As far as polls that show support for Hamas amongst Palestinians are concerned, they would hardly be fair considering Israel is dropping tons of bombs on them. I think a poll before this conflict started would have shown Hamas as not being very popular and hanging on to power using intimidation. At the moment though, I think that the Palestinians feel the enemy of my enemy is my friend so will naturally show support for Hamas.

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 10:38

NikkiPotnick · 08/11/2025 10:31

Knowing what Hamas are like. They've got form for mistreating journalists who say inconvenient things as well as people who aren't journos but still insist on not agreeing with them, did you not know that?

If your position is genuinely that they would've gladly allowed the free press in to report on whatever they liked, you don't even have half a brain.

I am not advocating for Hamas's honesty or integrity. I am merely applying logic. If Hamas had something to hide, they would block the free press from reporting and we would know they were lying. If they did not have anything to hide, they would not block them. That is simply logical. As it stands, it is Israel who are blocking the free press so by that same logic, it must be Israel that has something to hide from the world.

CircleSquared · 08/11/2025 10:33

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 09:57

I actually did it on purpose as it lines up nicely with the beginning of this thread. Am I talking about every Israeli citizen or just the Israeli government and military. Obviously I do not include the likes of Gideon Levi or members of B'Selem in this and many other Israelis. Problem is though, in a poll by Pew Research Center in 2024, 39% of Israeli's said that the military response was about right whereas 34% said it wasn't strong enough. Only 19% said it had gone too far. As I said in an earlier post, by then Israel had dropped more bombs on Gaza than the allies had on Dresden. 72% of Israelis polled believed that all humanitarian aid to Gaza should be blocked and there is plenty of evidence of Israelis blocking aid trucks and smashing up the aid. So basically, my opinion may not include every single Israeli citizen but it seems to apply to a significant number of them.

Over the last couple of years, various polls showed high support for Hamas amongst Palestinians and even specifically a large number that agreed with October 7th.

When you condemn Hamas do you make it clear that you’re including a large number of Palestinians too?

WeCouldBeNiceToEachOther · 08/11/2025 10:32

Israel killed journalists at a hospital and claimed they were Hamas (they weren’t). They’re losing their grip on everything and people see them as what they are, so they resort to this.

NikkiPotnick · 08/11/2025 10:31

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 10:25

And your evidence for that is? If Hamas had blocked the press from reporting, we would have been told which would lead to the conclusion that it was Hamas that were lying. Of course we'll never know as it is actually Israel that is stopping the press from reporting.

Knowing what Hamas are like. They've got form for mistreating journalists who say inconvenient things as well as people who aren't journos but still insist on not agreeing with them, did you not know that?

If your position is genuinely that they would've gladly allowed the free press in to report on whatever they liked, you don't even have half a brain.

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 10:31

CircleSquared · 08/11/2025 10:24

The article is a rebuttal to the claim that 83% are civilians. The burden of proof is on the ones making such a claim. The article is pointing out flaws and inconsistencies in the original data and claims made from that data.

Still, I am pleased to hear you at least do not believe any of the data coming out and so have no reason to believe the 83% claim. That was the point of my post.

I, and I don't think anyone else, has any idea of how many people, civilians and combatants are actually dead. I may have no reason to believe the 83% but then I also have no reason to disbelieve it. Looking at the state of Gaza though, if I were forced to make a bet, I would have to bet on it being correct.

Twiglets1 · 08/11/2025 10:25

SharonEllis · 08/11/2025 09:53

Well then I think everyone can judge your ability to assess evidence and read your posts accordingly.

Yes ... no longer worth engaging with this individual.

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 10:25

NikkiPotnick · 08/11/2025 10:20

Of course all these figures could have been verified if international journalists were allowed to report from Gaza but as we know, Israel does not allow any international journalists into Gaza.

Doubt it. Hamas clearly wouldn't allow freedom of the press either, and obviously nobody could possibly believe the death stats they've given are correct. So any free press who were allowed in would be prevented from doing their jobs.

Israel are to blame for not allowing journalists in. But you can't be complaining about other people only having half a brain if you think they'd have been allowed to report freely by Hamas had Israel changed their stance.

And your evidence for that is? If Hamas had blocked the press from reporting, we would have been told which would lead to the conclusion that it was Hamas that were lying. Of course we'll never know as it is actually Israel that is stopping the press from reporting.

CircleSquared · 08/11/2025 10:24

Thedawnchorus · 08/11/2025 10:02

Explain to me how it could be verified when the only information that come out of Gaza is by Israel. I do not believe anything from Hamas or Israel/US without reliable independent verification as both have a motive to lie. I believe my eyes though and the fact that Jeremy Bowen and other journalists were not even allowed to film out of a plane flying over Gaza speaks volumes.

The article is a rebuttal to the claim that 83% are civilians. The burden of proof is on the ones making such a claim. The article is pointing out flaws and inconsistencies in the original data and claims made from that data.

Still, I am pleased to hear you at least do not believe any of the data coming out and so have no reason to believe the 83% claim. That was the point of my post.