Horace V. Wigglesworth

I've done nothing of the sort, and you're an apologist for genocide.

This is ridiculous mental gymnastics to justify the extermination of Palestinians. Just because you substitute the word "Palestinian" for "Hamas" doesn't mean you have a moral argument for mass murder and ethnic cleansing of those people.

This is a war of extermination by Israel against *all* Palestinians, irrespective of their support or opposition to Hamas, and as such I'll refer to it as a war between Israel and Palestine, not as a war between specific political parties within Israel/Palestine.

Poll shows Palestinians back Oct. 7 attack on Israel, support for Hamas rises Almost three in four Palestinians believe the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on Israel was correct, and the ensuing Gaza war has lifted support for the Islamist group both there and in the West Bank, a survey from a respected Palestinian polling institute found.

There's is nothing indefensible about resisting genocide. Armed resistance to Israeli occupation is supported by an overwhelming majority of all Palestinians, in Gaza and the West Bank. The vast majority of Palestinians supported the October 7th actions.

www.reuters.com/world/middle...

You have absolutely no evidence at all that this led to a "small number of deaths" that's you just making an assumption, one that aims to minimise the crimes carried out by Israel. It *could* be a small number. It *could* be hundreds. No-one has confirmed either way.

Hamas is a political party within Palestine. The war is not against them, it is against every Palestinian. Substituting the word "Palestinian" for "Hamas" is a rhetorical strategy used by genocide proponents to justify killing Palestinians en masse.

That's because the war is not against Hamas, it's against the Palestinians. Referring to a nation of people as being "Hamas" is just a way for Israel's apologists to justify murdering civilians by accusing them of being "terrorists".

I'm sorry but you claimed earlier than the Hannibal Directive being issued by Israel was a "fringe conspiracy theory" are you now withdrawing that claim or do you stick by it?

There's no "confirmation" because admitting you killed hundreds of people would be somewhat politically damaging. If you wish to give Israel the benefit of the doubt, go ahead, but it's very revealing you do that for Israel but have a different standard for the Palestinians.

Only if you regard the Nazi regime occupying Poland as a legitimate one.

IDF used protocol that may have risked civilian lives in Hamas attack – report Haaretz shows Hannibal directive employed at three sites to prevent kidnapping of soldiers during 7 October assault

This is not a fringe conspiracy theory, it has been reported in mainstream news outlets throughout the world.

Here's another "fringe" source - The Guardian, reporting the same information

www.theguardian.com/world/articl...

IDF ordered Hannibal directive on October 7 to prevent Hamas taking soldiers captive 'There Was Crazy Hysteria, and Decisions Started Being Made Without Verified Information': Documents and Testimonies Obtained by Haaretz Reveal the Hannibal Operational Order, Which Directs the Use of...

This is a story from Haaretz, the leading centre-left newspaper in Israel, confirming that the IDF ordered the Hannibal Directive.

www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...

But you would support the use of armed force in principle against the Israeli occupation of Gaza, yes?

Last I heard the vast majority of the civilian casualties were due to the IDF invoking the Hannibal directive and sending attack helicopters to kill people.

You do support the right of the people of Gaza to armed resistance against Israel, in accordance, with international law, correct?

Israel has no right to "defend itself" against those it is occupying, any more than the Nazis had a right to "defend themselves" from the people in the Warsaw Ghetto.

That the people of Gaza have the right to use armed force to resist the illegal occupation of their homeland. And that you should support that right, just as you would for those in the Warsaw Ghetto and those in Ukraine.

Genocide apologist. People like you are why Democrats lose.

lol whatever you do, don't go looking for NAFO accounts then!

Good job I'm not here arguing for the indiscriminate murder of civilians then. Especially since that's Israel's modus operandi.

I've not said a word about justifying killing civilians. You're just putting words in my mouth.

Occupied people have the right to fight back against their occupiers. Ukrainians have that right, the people of the Warsaw ghetto have that right, as do the people blockaded into Gaza.

Occupied Palestine

And the Palestinians were fighting the Zionist regime in their own country, what of it?

Got a good example of this in my mentions the other day funnily enough:

bsky.app/profile/ohwh...

They know to keep their criticisms vague and limited to things that are utterly subjective and impossible to prove or disprove, because if they engage in debate with the left on matters that have an emperical founding they will get their arses handed to them, so they swerve that.

They can't openly say "I don't support Corbyn because I'd rather a thousand disabled children die every day rather than pay a single penny more on my mortgage" but they can say "I didn't feel like Corbyn was savvy enough and didn't have his heart in it" because they're unfalsifiable statements.

There will be no pleasing these people. They like to use normative and subjective categories to critique politicians, like they're frustrated theatre critics, because they can be applied to *anyone* who ideologically deviates from the narrow post-Thatcher orthodoxy this country clings to.

*It turns out, dear reader, that they do in fact dislike Corbyn's policies

"Oh well Tony Benn was a viscount, why can't you have someone more proletarian, whose got real hands on experience of leading strikes, who knows what it's like to come from a working class background"

*Arthur Scargill raises his hand

"NO! NOT LIKE THAT!

*Bob Crow turns to camera

"NOOOOOOO!!"

You can't win with these people. Tony Benn was the best parliamentary operator of his era, he was considered the heir apparent to Harold Wilson when he was still a centre-left Fabian type in the 60's, and the moment he moved the left all of a sudden he wasn't "serious" any more.

"Why isn't Tony Benn more of an outsider? He's from the Westminster circus, he's too savvy and smooth and posh to be an authentic leader, can't you find a sincere backbencher instead of him?"