Is the green party starting to regret it's association with Islamists?

[mids2019]

The green party, ostensibly about climate protection and general progressive values seems to have gotten into bed with Islamist sympathisers and the amount of anti semitism and basic hatred of their own country is now obvious.

The green party now at least locally are known as a party that has sympathies towards all manner of Islamist causes including Hamas's objective to wipe Israel of the face of the Earth.

Wouldn't be surprised if they produce a motion declaring climate change a Jewish conspiracy........

Click on show quote history. It is in my quote yesterday at 09.50.

Don't just tell me. Tell the UN who are investigating it and eminent Genocide scholars like Omer Bartov.

What assumptions are you making about "us lot" that reminded you of us when you read the article?

Speaking for myself, I am an English person living in the UK and have no connection with Israel or even Judaism.

What relevance then is an article about using our votes in the Israel election?

@Squeezingwildoranges Q. If it was just a normal battle I wonder why Ben Gurion felt the need to apologise and distance himself from it.

A. Politics.
The fact that Abdullah's friendship was of strategic importance to the Jews might explain why the Jewish Agency sent him a conciliatory message. It was their way of indicating to him that they did not consider him an enemy, and that they continued to honour the agreement made with him in November1947.
In addition, although Abdullah was monarch of Transjordan, he was also the uncrowned leader of Palestine's Arabs.
Thus Abdullah was the person to whom to address any apology concerning the 'barbaric acts' committed against the Arabs of Deir Yassin who were not Jordanian subjects.
It seems that the Jewish Agency wanted to make it clear that it dissociated itself not only from the acts of the 'dissidents' at Deir Yassin, but also from their declaration concerning the liberation of Jerusalem and the entire country.

That doesn’t actually change the fact that if Hamas had not attacked on Oct 7th, with no achievable military aim (so does not qualify as war/self defence or anything of that sort in law), not only would there have been zero deaths of Israeli citizens whether by friendly fire or not, but the IDF would not have entered Gaza, there would be no widespread destruction there, no Gazans living in tents, no hospitals out of action, no “yellow line”, etc etc.

IOW the damage done to Gaza and Gazans is ALL down to Hamas’ desire to murder and terrorise Israeli civilians.

And since you can’t tell us what action Israel should have taken in response to that attack, it seems you believe that Israel, unlike any other country in the world, should just stand by and let its civilians be raped, kidnapped or murdered. Because its army is more powerful than the military force attacking its civilians!

That’s not a reasonable thing to expect of a country.

And this is why the Greens are doomed. Most British people will look at comments like this and make a judgment on Hamas. Most British people will listen to Jewish historians and realise Jews have never been treated as equals in the ME. Most British people can look at the Pakistan question and realise the double standard. Most British people know full well what would happen to Jews in an Arab majority state.

Despite the appalling actions of Israel and some truly awful Israeli politicians, Israel has a right to exist. Arguments against this are selective and pedantic and consider one view of history. The people who put forward the point of view that Zionism is racism do not seek balance and are dogmatic in not considering both sides.
The Greens will alienate all but their devoted followers.

This line in particular
bloodthirsty bullies who only know how to scream

Milstein isn't a neutral academic, he's a right wing provocateur whose entire thesis relies on a conspiracy theory that the Israeli left framed the Israeli right. He didn't deny Deir Yassin out of historical objectivity, he did it to protect the legacy of right wing militias and to argue that Palestinian identity is built on a lie. He is hardly an impartial source and personally I prefer to rely on the words of the actual Irgun and Lehi operatives who took part in the massacre. The accounts in the documentary "Born in Deir Yassin" are chilling especially seeing old men laughing and boasting about how they carried out the massacre.

Exactly this.

Unless it's a comment about how extremists sneak into power due to voter apathy as happened with the greens.
Or possibly an endorsement of 'first past the post' vs proportional representation which can give activists more power in government.

Must admit I used to be in favour of PR in the UK but no longer do since I've seen how it can benefit those with extreme views (like it has in Israel).

In response to IRA terrorist attacks, I wonder why Britain didn't just flatten Belfast with more explosives than the combined explosive power of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Surely if it's an acceptable response in Gaza it would have been acceptable to kill thousands of civilians, mostly women and children, in Northern Ireland to get rid of the IRA.

Maybe because the IRA didn’t attack Glastonbury, rape, kidnap and murder hundreds of concertgoers? Or break into dozens of Protestant homes in loyalist areas and do much the same?

The IRA attacked what it defined as legitimate targets - you can disagree with their definition but that’s still very different from randomly targeting a concert to murder as many people as possible.

In fact if they had attacked Glastonbury - and promised to do it again and again, I can guarantee you there would have been the expectation that the British Army be a LOT more proactive in stopping them. And rightly so.

And if crowds of nationalist civilians had come out into the streets of Derry and west Belfast to celebrate the attack and to spit on the hostages being paraded on trucks, I think the British population would have DEMANDED that the army go into those areas in force to get the people responsible.

And I’m from a nationalist community in Northern Ireland - and even I can see that those are not tactics that the IRA tended to use. Not because the IRA were nice people, but because they are actions that the nationalist community would not have supported.

Unlike Gaza, where children literally sang and danced as the bodies of murdered Israeli babies were handed to the Red Cross.

You haven't given me the chant, unless it's just those two words?

Some Qurans and other literature they give to children now even replace word Israel with Palestine.

Please explain to me how that is not claiming they have edited, which means rewritten, the Quran.

It is two words. You found it. Now what does Google say it means in English.

Bloody hell you are illiterate of British history if you think the British government would have responded to an Oct 7 attack in any way differently to Israel. You don’t think if the IRA had done what Hamas did they wouldn’t have razed parts of Belfast to the ground?
Oct 7th was outwith the bounds of terrorist attacks. 9/11 caused a full blown war which lasted decades and involved many countries and hundreds of thousands dead.

Can I just say I don’t know what the chant is and would really like someone to tell me. All this postering about who knows most is really annoying. I just want to know.

Apparently it's Mavet la Avraim. I've never heard or heard of it, it's just as hateful as the original words to From the river to the sea. Which I have heard many many times chanted by people ignorant of its origins.
Bit of barrel scraping there.
The Hebrew means "Death to Arabs" and as I say it's never been on my radar.
The original Arabic is "Palestine will be Arab" which is a pretty clear genocidal message and it's a mainstream chant beloved of white British bandwagon jumpers.
Obviously terrorists on both sides are going to wish death on the other side.
It's the person in the street I'm concerned about.

But you have removed the words that show that these are children’s editions and then pretended to believe that the poster hadn’t explicitly said “for children”.

The rest of us can all read though.

I think the fact that it is not widely know indicates it is not as widely used as from the river to the sea, but it might be in Israel - a bit of research is needed on my part.

I’m case everyone else has lost the will to live trying to follow your twisting of words, the reason this matters is because your “proof” that the poster’s claim was untrue was because it’s forbidden to change what’s in the Quran.

But clearly in children’s version of the Quran, generally in translation and accompanied by pictures which were not in the original, that isn’t true - children’s versions are heavily edited.

The word Palestine does not appear in the Quran, whereas Israel appears dozens of times - but as the links I posted selling children’s editions and other officially approved Islamic teaching material, the word Palestine IS used. FFS the editors say so themselves.

So why are you continuing to edit the poster’s words to make it appear that she said something she DID NOT SAY?

Nah don’t bother answering we all know why:
you’re obviously not someone who follows the adage that “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions". You prefer to try to adapt the facts to continue to fit your conclusions.

It might be in Israel but nobody is marching through the streets of London or Paris shouting it. That’s a significant difference.

Israel has always intended to clear out the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank one way or the other. October 7th gave them the green light in the eyes of their supporters. If Oct 7th hadn't happened, they would have eventually found another reason to do it. The intention was to drive them into the Sinai but Egypt put paid to that idea. They're now desperately looking for somewhere else to take them but unfortunately for Israel, it seems no one is willing to play ball, yet. Until such a time, Israel will keep up the pressure by corralling them into an ever shrinking area while keeping them in wretched living conditions until some country relents.

There is no such thing as a children's version of the Quran. There are adapted study guides and story books which are based on the Quran to make understanding it easier, especially for children, but these are not the Quran. Even translated versions of the Quran are not classified as the actual Quran. The Quran exists only in its original, literal Arabic form.