Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

The UNRWA has any proven links with Hamas, and their education is famously anti-Israel.

They have staff publicly expressing political views, using textbooks with problematic content, and politicised staff unions that make threats against UNRWA management.

"In Gaza, UNRWA's neutrality challenges included the size of the operation, with most personnel being locally recruited and also recipients of UNRWA services, the review said.

From 2017 to 2022, the report said the annual number of allegations of neutrality being breached at UNRWA ranged from seven to 55.

But between January 2022 and February 2024, UN investigators received 151 allegations, most related to social media posts "made public by external sources," it said."

This time I took the information from a strongly anti-Israel source, the ABC https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-23/ ... /103756518. So, you can be sure that this article does all it can to defend the UNRWA.

Funny how sources are never questioned unless a person disagrees.

These accusations are minor, at best. Funny how you didn't mention that. And it's also funny how you seem not to see or read anything inconvenient, like this question:

If teachers were recruited in occupied France during WW2, say 13000 of them, do you think they could've kept the number of those who preached hate toward Nazis down to 14? I think not.

Change my mention of "14" to 151 if you like; the question still stands...

[Sy Borg]

I would say I read a lot more inconvenient material than you do. That's why I quoted from the ABC, because you always believe pro-Palestine organisations and dismiss all others as "propaganda" (which you did to me more than once in this thread). Of course the ABC would never detail the worst of the RNRWA. Like The Guardian and the BBC, the ABC displays obvious biases. They tend to provide correct information that is carefully curated to not include inconvenient truths - like the fact that Hamas started this war with strategic intent, and the continuation of the war has been as much Hamas's choice as Israel's.

The reason you are wrong here is that you have chosen a side, and you never considered an alternative. I am simply observing a breakdown of world order due to the erosion of the US hegemony. Now China wants Taiwan back. Russia wants Ukraine back. And the bloc that was once the Ottoman empire wants Israel back. Each has their own way of militarily engaging on this mission of reunification.

Logically, an anti-Semite will oppose the dissolution of Ukraine and Taiwan, but support the dissolution of Israel.

[Pattern-chaser]

I would say I read a lot more inconvenient material than you do. That's why I quoted from the ABC, because you always believe pro-Palestine organisations and dismiss all others as "propaganda" (which you did to me more than once in this thread).

I would doubt, or even dismiss, accusations made without evidence or other back-up. Whoever made them, and for whatever purpose.

Israel throws accusations around as it wishes, but can't provide evidence because there isn't any evidence to confirm *lies*.

Any and all such propaganda should be dismissed.

[Sy Borg]

I would say I read a lot more inconvenient material than you do. That's why I quoted from the ABC, because you always believe pro-Palestine organisations and dismiss all others as "propaganda" (which you did to me more than once in this thread).

I would doubt, or even dismiss, accusations made without evidence or other back-up. Whoever made them, and for whatever purpose.

Israel throws accusations around as it wishes, but can't provide evidence because there isn't any evidence to confirm *lies*.

Any and all such propaganda should be dismissed.

The UN, the Guardian, the BBC are all just as biased as Time of Israel and Haartz but you think the former three that busily disseminate Arab propaganda are fact.

[Belinda]

I would say I read a lot more inconvenient material than you do. That's why I quoted from the ABC, because you always believe pro-Palestine organisations and dismiss all others as "propaganda" (which you did to me more than once in this thread).

I would doubt, or even dismiss, accusations made without evidence or other back-up. Whoever made them, and for whatever purpose.

Israel throws accusations around as it wishes, but can't provide evidence because there isn't any evidence to confirm *lies*.

Any and all such propaganda should be dismissed.

The UN, the Guardian, the BBC are all just as biased as Time of Israel and Haartz but you think the former three that busily disseminate Arab propaganda are fact.

While it's true that every interpretation is biased to some extent no matter how honest the story teller tries to be, there is a test that can help us to select the better interpretation.
Disinterested interpreters seek only to inform ,i.e. those we sometimes call 'the free press'. Other interpreters' interests are vested in profiting themselves.
Aljazeera has been banned in Israel so it follows the Israeli press is not free unless it follows political directives.The banning of books, art, and journalism is the action of a right wing and fascist state.

[amorphos_ii]

^^ It is mostly a religious conflict as well as cultural, both of which are a mirage. yes it is complicated but that doesn't mean we can negate such things from the argument.

------------

I don’t condone how the Palestinians act either, they have been virtually imprisoned since 1847 or at least it must feel like that. When people are treated in a barbaric fashion that will make such things happen.

I do think that Israel feigned weakness and drew Hamas out, ergo they caused this war. That is also barbarism.

What worries me most is that I think the west will keep pushing people around until they have total dominion over the world. I don’t think they are even bothered by the prospect of nuclear war. When Iran fired 300 missiles at Israel I think the west considered that to be a show, one where we apparently don’t have to worry about ballistic nor cruise missiles anymore. This is extremely dangerous.

I don’t want the west to totally own it, that would be unbalanced. Not to mention that they pick on the unfortunate in their societies – which is satanism.

[Sy Borg]

I would say I read a lot more inconvenient material than you do. That's why I quoted from the ABC, because you always believe pro-Palestine organisations and dismiss all others as "propaganda" (which you did to me more than once in this thread).

I would doubt, or even dismiss, accusations made without evidence or other back-up. Whoever made them, and for whatever purpose.

Israel throws accusations around as it wishes, but can't provide evidence because there isn't any evidence to confirm *lies*.

Any and all such propaganda should be dismissed.

The UN, the Guardian, the BBC are all just as biased as Time of Israel and Haartz but you think the former three that busily disseminate Arab propaganda are fact.

While it's true that every interpretation is biased to some extent no matter how honest the story teller tries to be, there is a test that can help us to select the better interpretation.
Disinterested interpreters seek only to inform ,i.e. those we sometimes call 'the free press'. Other interpreters' interests are vested in profiting themselves.
Aljazeera has been banned in Israel so it follows the Israeli press is not free unless it follows political directives.The banning of books, art, and journalism is the action of a right wing and fascist state.

I used to believe the Guardian and the BBC as much as you do. Then I realise that, while their facts tended to be correct, they were oh-so-carefully curated to provide a biased viewpoint. They conned me for a long time, but the penny finally dropped. The "free press" is free to manipulate us in almost any way that it wants - and it does.

The UN is absolutely biased. Their over-focus on Israel is akin to a tax commissioner who devoted half the department's resources to Elon Musk, ignoring most of the other 2,700 billionaires in the world.

[Sy Borg]

^^ It is mostly a religious conflict as well as cultural, both of which are a mirage. yes it is complicated but that doesn't mean we can negate such things from the argument.

------------

I don’t condone how the Palestinians act either, they have been virtually imprisoned since 1847 or at least it must feel like that. When people are treated in a barbaric fashion that will make such things happen.

I do think that Israel feigned weakness and drew Hamas out, ergo they caused this war. That is also barbarism.

What worries me most is that I think the west will keep pushing people around until they have total dominion over the world. I don’t think they are even bothered by the prospect of nuclear war. When Iran fired 300 missiles at Israel I think the west considered that to be a show, one where we apparently don’t have to worry about ballistic nor cruise missiles anymore. This is extremely dangerous.

I don’t want the west to totally own it, that would be unbalanced. Not to mention that they pick on the unfortunate in their societies – which is satanism.

They have not been imprisoned. Until recently, many happily worked in Israel, making a good living. Alas, Hamas provides no opportunities for Palestinians an, as you say, their iron-fist hardline rule has made Palestine like a prison.

I would not worry about the west. I would not worry about the east. They are just doing what societies always do - they are competing. To paint one result or another to be a disaster on a global scale is, sorry, simply naive.

As far as I can tell, China, Russia and their Islamic and African debt-trap "friends" are competing strongly against the US, Europe and Australasia ... no, heck, let's call it what it is ...

Easasia vs Oceania ... Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania, who are allies with Eurasia ...

No, Eastasia have always been allies of Eurasia, and they have always been at war with Oceania ...

No, Oceania and Eastasia have always been at war with Eurasia ...

People just keep swallowing it, never learning, never seeing that the whole of life is a competition. What is cooperation in a world where one must kill or exploit others to survive? Cooperation is just allying with others so as to better compete against other groups.

Orwell was a genius. He saw the dynamic at play long ago and laid it out, the endless shifting power struggles as alliances are made and broken, as wars and truces are declared. What he did not pick up is the ability of each faction to reach into the minds of their enemies, creating groundswells of resistance.

To that end, I understand the Russia and China have programs in place to disseminate Palestine propaganda in the west, leveraging the schism. I have no doubt that the CIA has equivalent pro-democracy programs to cause dissent in other nations too.

[Belinda]

I would doubt, or even dismiss, accusations made without evidence or other back-up. Whoever made them, and for whatever purpose.

Israel throws accusations around as it wishes, but can't provide evidence because there isn't any evidence to confirm *lies*.

Any and all such propaganda should be dismissed.

The UN, the Guardian, the BBC are all just as biased as Time of Israel and Haartz but you think the former three that busily disseminate Arab propaganda are fact.

While it's true that every interpretation is biased to some extent no matter how honest the story teller tries to be, there is a test that can help us to select the better interpretation.
Disinterested interpreters seek only to inform ,i.e. those we sometimes call 'the free press'. Other interpreters' interests are vested in profiting themselves.
Aljazeera has been banned in Israel so it follows the Israeli press is not free unless it follows political directives.The banning of books, art, and journalism is the action of a right wing and fascist state.

I used to believe the Guardian and the BBC as much as you do. Then I realise that, while their facts tended to be correct, they were oh-so-carefully curated to provide a biased viewpoint. They conned me for a long time, but the penny finally dropped. The "free press" is free to manipulate us in almost any way that it wants - and it does.

The UN is absolutely biased. Their over-focus on Israel is akin to a tax commissioner who devoted half the department's resources to Elon Musk, ignoring most of the other 2,700 billionaires in the world.

My post that you quoted was about interpretation of facts, and motivation for manipulation or for disinterestedness. The Guardian seeks to please its readers who pay for the newspaper. The readers require authenticity therefore the paper would be doing itself a disservice if it were inauthentic.
Which newspaper do you prefer?

[Sy Borg]

The UN, the Guardian, the BBC are all just as biased as Time of Israel and Haartz but you think the former three that busily disseminate Arab propaganda are fact.

While it's true that every interpretation is biased to some extent no matter how honest the story teller tries to be, there is a test that can help us to select the better interpretation.
Disinterested interpreters seek only to inform ,i.e. those we sometimes call 'the free press'. Other interpreters' interests are vested in profiting themselves.
Aljazeera has been banned in Israel so it follows the Israeli press is not free unless it follows political directives.The banning of books, art, and journalism is the action of a right wing and fascist state.

I used to believe the Guardian and the BBC as much as you do. Then I realise that, while their facts tended to be correct, they were oh-so-carefully curated to provide a biased viewpoint. They conned me for a long time, but the penny finally dropped. The "free press" is free to manipulate us in almost any way that it wants - and it does.

The UN is absolutely biased. Their over-focus on Israel is akin to a tax commissioner who devoted half the department's resources to Elon Musk, ignoring most of the other 2,700 billionaires in the world.

My post that you quoted was about interpretation of facts, and motivation for manipulation or for disinterestedness. The Guardian seeks to please its readers who pay for the newspaper. The readers require authenticity therefore the paper would be doing itself a disservice if it were inauthentic.
Which newspaper do you prefer?

I distrust them all, so I tend to check most of them out. That way I receive multiple angles.

The Guardian does a fair impression of objectivity while retaining a centre left bias, and with occasional bursts of leftist extremism such as with Palestine.

[Belinda]

While it's true that every interpretation is biased to some extent no matter how honest the story teller tries to be, there is a test that can help us to select the better interpretation.
Disinterested interpreters seek only to inform ,i.e. those we sometimes call 'the free press'. Other interpreters' interests are vested in profiting themselves.
Aljazeera has been banned in Israel so it follows the Israeli press is not free unless it follows political directives.The banning of books, art, and journalism is the action of a right wing and fascist state.

I used to believe the Guardian and the BBC as much as you do. Then I realise that, while their facts tended to be correct, they were oh-so-carefully curated to provide a biased viewpoint. They conned me for a long time, but the penny finally dropped. The "free press" is free to manipulate us in almost any way that it wants - and it does.

The UN is absolutely biased. Their over-focus on Israel is akin to a tax commissioner who devoted half the department's resources to Elon Musk, ignoring most of the other 2,700 billionaires in the world.

My post that you quoted was about interpretation of facts, and motivation for manipulation or for disinterestedness. The Guardian seeks to please its readers who pay for the newspaper. The readers require authenticity therefore the paper would be doing itself a disservice if it were inauthentic.
Which newspaper do you prefer?

I distrust them all, so I tend to check most of them out. That way I receive multiple angles.

The Guardian does a fair impression of objectivity while retaining a centre left bias, and with occasional bursts of leftist extremism such as with Palestine.

I applaud your scepticism. I too view Guardian as having a centre left bias which appeals to somebody who holds socialist principles. This morning the Guardian alleged that the director of Mossad plotted to intimidate the ICC prosecutor to persuade her to discontinue the investigation on Palestine.The allegations are hardly "leftist extremism" but factual, and are illicit to anyone, right or left , who respects the rule of law.

[Lagayascienza]

I saw that in the Guardian today, Belinda.

Apart from the ads, my left-leaning self loves The Guardian. And it's free. But I also read right-wing Murdoch rags like The Australian and The Weekend Australian, just for balance. However, I draw the line at Faux News. If I want something middle-of-the-road I'll go to the ABC or the BBC. They're free, too. I also enjoy The Conversation which is also free.

(In case anyone thinks I'm a skin-flint, I do make a point of tossing a donation to The Guardian and The Conversation when I can spare it.)

[amorphos_ii]

I have said enough seemingly anti Semitic stuff, so I will bow out of this debate now. I have been on nazi forums to get their arguments in the past, and found it difficult to disprove some of it. So thank you everyone for giving some answers!

As to the competition thing, well I hope its just that. I think the Chinese are playing the waiting game and developing. I think the west are well aware of this, which is why they may be thinking about hitting them now whilst they got the upper hand. I have always been anti nuclear war, but we may be getting past that with advancement in missile systems ~ which is worrying, because now nukes are not a deterrent.

My reason for not trusting the west is mostly economical, I don’t like ideologies that pick on the unfortunate, which to me is satanism and is a terrible advert for capitalism. If they were just decent and the media wasn’t full of propaganda and the financial sector constantly saying to make cuts, then I would be totally on their side. I am a capitalist - but with balance and decency! Is that too much to ask?

[Belinda]

I would doubt, or even dismiss, accusations made without evidence or other back-up. Whoever made them, and for whatever purpose.

Israel throws accusations around as it wishes, but can't provide evidence because there isn't any evidence to confirm *lies*.

Any and all such propaganda should be dismissed.

The UN, the Guardian, the BBC are all just as biased as Time of Israel and Haartz but you think the former three that busily disseminate Arab propaganda are fact.

While it's true that every interpretation is biased to some extent no matter how honest the story teller tries to be, there is a test that can help us to select the better interpretation.
Disinterested interpreters seek only to inform ,i.e. those we sometimes call 'the free press'. Other interpreters' interests are vested in profiting themselves.
Aljazeera has been banned in Israel so it follows the Israeli press is not free unless it follows political directives.The banning of books, art, and journalism is the action of a right wing and fascist state.

I used to believe the Guardian and the BBC as much as you do. Then I realise that, while their facts tended to be correct, they were oh-so-carefully curated to provide a biased viewpoint. They conned me for a long time, but the penny finally dropped. The "free press" is free to manipulate us in almost any way that it wants - and it does.

The UN is absolutely biased. Their over-focus on Israel is akin to a tax commissioner who devoted half the department's resources to Elon Musk, ignoring most of the other 2,700 billionaires in the world.

Who do you suppose such manipulation would serve? Any business that depends entirely on its customers (such as does the Guardian)is not going to lie and cheat if the owner wants to keep his customers.

[Sy Borg]

The UN, the Guardian, the BBC are all just as biased as Time of Israel and Haartz but you think the former three that busily disseminate Arab propaganda are fact.

While it's true that every interpretation is biased to some extent no matter how honest the story teller tries to be, there is a test that can help us to select the better interpretation.
Disinterested interpreters seek only to inform ,i.e. those we sometimes call 'the free press'. Other interpreters' interests are vested in profiting themselves.
Aljazeera has been banned in Israel so it follows the Israeli press is not free unless it follows political directives.The banning of books, art, and journalism is the action of a right wing and fascist state.

I used to believe the Guardian and the BBC as much as you do. Then I realise that, while their facts tended to be correct, they were oh-so-carefully curated to provide a biased viewpoint. They conned me for a long time, but the penny finally dropped. The "free press" is free to manipulate us in almost any way that it wants - and it does.

The UN is absolutely biased. Their over-focus on Israel is akin to a tax commissioner who devoted half the department's resources to Elon Musk, ignoring most of the other 2,700 billionaires in the world.

Who do you suppose such manipulation would serve? Any business that depends entirely on its customers (such as does the Guardian)is not going to lie and cheat if the owner wants to keep his customers.

1. Many academics have been brainwashed with the Marxist model that everyone is either an Oppressor or Oppressed. The former are assumed to always be bad, and the latter, good. There is a lack of emphasis on responsibility, and how people and state create their own fates with their decision, but blame their problems on others.

I know this because I was inculcated too. Thankfully, I philosophy helped me shake off those biased influences, allowing me to see situations more clearly, without the distractions of ideology.

2. As for the UN, a quarter of their members of anti-Semitic Muslims. Then there's China, Russia, and all of their many vassals and debt-trap hangers-on, who will always vote to undermine the west.

3. The Guardian is playing to its leftie audience, serving them the "tofu" news they love while Newsmax will toss red meat to its rhetorically carnivorous audience. None are credible. They are corporations. Corporations, by their nature, are not to be trusted.

Maybe you have not had to deal with corporations in recent times. There was a time when they cared what the public thought. If you had a problem, they might give you a year of freebies to preserve their good name. This system was eroded by cheaters, of course - the cheaters whom we on the left NEVER seem to call to account for ruining any benefits made available to the deserving.

Meanwhile, corporations became so huge that they no longer cared what individuals thought of them. The problem here is that that there are fundamental conflicts of interest between corporations and individuals. No corporation or organisation (including in government) can be trusted to tell the truth. They all have people hired to specifically massage the truth for the public. They hold meetings to decide on the spin. A corporation will only ever tell the unfiltered truth if that truth is in their favour, or if forced to do so at "lawyerpoint" (gunpoint in a modern civilised society).

That you trust mainstream media as unbaised looks like an old world view, looking at media as it was in the 1960s and 1970s, when journalistic integrity mattered. Times have changed. Almost all of those whom you once trusted, are no loner playing it straight. Even scientific institutions will create dodgy reports, presenting atypical samples as typical, providing endorsements for money, and being prepared to say or do just about anything to access that sweet, sweet corporate grant money. Thus, health corporations will promote junk and processed foods, and get in bed with the pharmaceutical industry ... and so on.

I found it profoundly disturbing when I first started realising that almost everything about society that I thought was true had been spin. I'd been duped - for decades - lured by the chance to signal my virtue, to show what a just and kind person I was. I was duped by misrepresentations and I became a misrepresenter myself. Oops.

Some time ago, I probably would have followed this Palestine mania, making up rationalisations for the obvious cognitive dissonance needed to hold that position. Now I just see it as groupthink. Think about it, why are Palestinian deaths such an emergency and Sudanese deaths aren't? Why wasn't it an emergency as about 377,000 Yemenis were killed thanks to Iran's Houthis? It's estimated that about 940,000 people were killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan in recent years.

But no one knows cares, not like they care about the evil, dirty Jews attacking innocent, sweet Palestinians. Why not?

Because they were not told to care by their (chosen) corporate masters in the media!

Politics is so changeable and easy to manipulate, I prefer to broaden my perspective. Thus, I don't see Russia v Ukraine - I see what's left of the Russian empire trying to bolster itself after hard times. I don't see China v Taiwan, I see what's left of the Chinese dynasty trying to bolster itself after hard times. I don't see Israel v Palestine, I see what's left of the Ottoman empire trying to bolster itself after hard times.

None of this is happening in isolation. With the end of the US hegemony (a situation no doubt cheered on by the anti-Israel crowd) world borders are once again called into question. China has taken almost all of the South China Sea. Where was the UN and its fifty or so resolutions made against Israel? They were completely silent. China is also currently salami-slicing (as Israel did) Bhutan and Nepal.

I wonder if other nations will try the Hamas method that has been incredibly successful. By sending missiles into Israel and kidnapping and torturing hundreds of hostages, and then playing the victim when Israel naturally retaliated, Hamas have achieved widespread international acclaim and recognition, and they have destroyed Israel's international support, laying the groundwork for the final removal of Jews from the ME.

A brilliant strategy. All they needed to do was not care about causalities, to treat their human shields as assets rather than as humans. Given how brutally Hamas has treated its own people (not just gays and women), their people's deaths are not important, only the political outcome.