To say all pro-Palestinians should watch Fauda on Netflix?

[FuadaFan]

Now it is a drama about how the Israeli security services deal with the conflict but it is apparently pretty accurate and is amazingly well produced and acted.

Season 5, which covers Oct 7th has just come out after a long delay.

I've had to take a break after episode 7 because it's so distressing but it still doesn't even come close to what happened that day.

I think it's gives a clearer idea as to the truth of what has been going on and it does try to give a perspective from both sides.

I think every pro-Palestinian should watch it.

AIBU?

https://x.com/VividProwess/status/2099091470070518232/video/1

PoV of an actual Palestinian BTW.

That is not how the law works. Its innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until you prove yourself innocent. The nonsensical "rape dogs" story was from a third hand anonymous source. It is also biologically impossible.

International War crimes legislation requires actual proof of wrongdoing. Anonymous, unverifiable sources aren't generally accepted in court.

I have absolutely zero idea why you think anything in my post suggests I think Israelis are “white people”.

Or why you have pointed out that Palestinians are not ethnically homogeneous when that was the point I was addressing in my post.

I’m not sure if you are following the thread of conversations you are commenting on.

Please reread the conversation to understand the point I was making, which is not negated by the very obvious fact you have stated of which everyone is well aware.

As the other person said: every army in history has killed women and children. Israel is by no means unique in this. In fact, its estimated 150,000 civilians were killed in the Iraq War. More than twice the number in Gaza- and yet I don't recall anyone accusing Britain of "genocide".

Also, it bears mentioning: one isn't necessarily "innocent" purely by virtue of being female or being under 18. Child soldiers exist: there is extensive evidence of Hamas training and using children as young as 13 in combat.

A woman coordinated and planned a bombing in a cafe in Jerusalem in 2001 which killed 16 people. Her name was Ahlam Tamimi. A relative of Ahed Tamimi, the prominent Palestinian "activist". Here she is bragging about what she did on Jordanian TV.
Imagine if the UK had to release someone who did this and they were boasting on Irish TV a few weeks later.

@Cricketduckout said “The accusations of rape stand”. Do you really believe no accusation of rape can be made unless and until there is a trial and conviction?

So all rapes carried out in war around the world should not be spoken because there are no trials or convictions? Do you believe the true rape incidence in the UK is the rate of convictions for rape and all other rapes should not be talked about because they have not been proven in court?

That is how civil law works.
Here is breakdown that explains it better.

www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/tort-law/defamation-is-the-publication-of-a-statement-law-essays.php

It made this point because of the inevitable and erroneous comparisons with apartheid South Africa. In reality, Arab Israelis have full civil and legal rights as do other minorities including Druze and Armenians. There are more famously, more Arab PhD students in Israel then Jews in the entire Arab world.

If you want the "Apartheid State" look no further than Gaza and the West Bank. No Jews are legally allowed to set foot there. Non- Muslims are barely tolerated and frequently persecuted. Back in the early 2000s Hamas famously banned Christians from celebrating Christmas in Gaza.

That's about slander and defamation. Nobody is going to be convicted of rape purely on the basis of an allegation.

Ah, you’re going for slightly watered down version of the Vaturi approach.

I see.

Accusation comes before trial and conviction. My context was clear: a person is not legally dubbed a "rapist" unless convicted. The dog rape story would never even reach a court because of the standard for evidence required.

It was, as stated from an anonymous source who said they heard it from someone who heard it from somebody else. It is, in other words, purely a rumour.

But on this subject, its interesting to contrast how Israelis who say they were raped by their captors are treated both by the UN and the media. Their testimonies are frequently dismissed, they are accused of lying.

I am not sure if you are addressing me or Englishlady but in any case, my statement that the accusations stand is in the context of the nyt piece - to relay that the publication has not retracted the article or any of its contents.

So you made a point saying my post suggests I believe Israelis are “white people” for reasons which have nothing to do with anything I said but because you think it’s a point worth making?

I used South Africa to make a specific point about racism not requiring the people who are suffering the racism to all be of a specific or single ethnicity, not to suggest that Israelis are “white people”. Do you want to suggest I believe Palestinians are black people? It makes as much sense.

The NYT piece was in clear violation of Journalistic Standards. It printed a rumour as fact, without bothering to verify sources or check facts. That is why the court case is threatened. A newspaper refusing to retract a very clearly false story doesn't make it factual.

Apartheid in South Africa did indeed target one specific racial group. So its a bad analogy too.

I would also recommend you look at some of the things Palestinians say about Jews, and then come back and tell me they are not racist. Yes, Jewish is an ethnicity, not simply a religion.

Sorry for the confusion. I was addressing @EnglishLady02 and yes, it’s quite clear that you are saying that the accusations in the NYT remain, that’s what I meant.

I fail to see how pointing out we killed more than twice the number of civilians in Iraq as have died in Gaza constitutes advocating a "hardline" approach.

Also I'd recommend researching the statistics on "normal" civilian casualties in urban warfare. Its around 70-80%.

I think you are being disingenuous in your posts and are not conversing in good faith.

I said ethnicity in relation to SA. Now you’ve switched to race to make your point. Disingenuous.

I would also recommend you look at some of the things Palestinians say about Jews, and then come back and tell me they are not racist.

Where have I said anything about whether Palestinians are racist or not? Why are you correcting me on something I haven’t said?

Yes, Jewish is an ethnicity, not simply a religion.

Here we go again. Why are you telling me something extremely obvious that I know as if it is news to me when I have said nothing to indicate I am not aware of it? It’s such a bad faith tactic.

As politely as possibly, I am not sure you genuinely understand what "disingenuous" or "arguing in bad faith" means. You seem to be using both as fashionable buzzwords.

People often say "Jewish is a religion not a race" to absolve themselves or others of racism.

Your wider point though was to suggest Palestinians are being targeted purely on the basis of ethnicity. They are not. If they were, the presence of 2.2 million Arabs in Israel wouldn't make any sense.

This post is bad faith because EnglishLady02 pretends that my Vaturi approach comment was about the civilian death toll in Iraq when it is completely obvious it is in reference to saying that the slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinian children is acceptable because some are terrorists.

For anyone who doesn’t know Vaturi said "every child born in Gaza is already a terrorist".

I am referring to the slander and defamation case that Israel has said they will bring against the NYT.

In such a case, the onus will be on the Israeli government to prove that the contents of the article were written in malice.

I know exactly what they mean. I wouldn’t worry about being polite when you are arguing in bad faith and being disingenuous.

People often say "Jewish is a religion not a race" to absolve themselves or others of racism.

Yet I have said nothing of the sort, so your correcting little “yes” as if I had was unnecessary and in bad faith.

Rather than worrying about being polite, perhaps, if you’re going to reply to me, just do so on the basis of what I’ve actually said and then we can have a proper discussion.

Children dying in a conflict doesn't automatically prove deliberate targeting. 50% of the population of Gaza are under 18: it is therefore tragically inevitable that children will be killed.

My references to Iraq were a relevant comparison, used for illustrative purposes. Not because I thought you were talking about Iraq. We don't take the large number of children killed in Iraq as "evidence" of deliberate targeting, notwithstanding George Bush's comments about Shock and Awe.

Your position is therefore based on assumption and misrepresenting my argument. Both of these are logical fallacies. This is the definition of "arguing in bad faith". I will leave the reader to decide which of us was actually doing this

A bad faith argument is a dishonest discussion where a person's hidden goal is to trick, provoke, or "win" rather than to find the truth or reach an agreement.
The person pretending to have a serious discussion actually has a hidden agenda. They do not care about the facts or about changing their mind.

Key Signs of Bad Faith Arguments

• Moving the goalposts: Changing the rules or demands as soon as their original point is proven wrong.
• Ignoring facts: Pretending valid counterarguments or clear evidence do not exist.
• Asking insincere questions: Posing questions just to trap or mock the other person, not to learn the answer.

I mean you are misusing terminology which has a very specific meaning and application such as "Apartheid" and "genocide" as well as misrepresenting my argument. See above.