Did you write the press release for that and so feel like you could just take the copy and circulate it wherever you want without being accused of copyright infringement? It’s literally the top 500 Bajillion search results on Google. Reminds me of that buzzword “wrapup smear”.
I love Post-Modern JukeBox 
I appreciate your concern. 
Not for profit posting is permitted under their terms of use.
Isn’t it annoying when someone post something you don’t agree with and you have to find something wrong with it? 
Ichthus is a warrior for the cause of Zion. She believes in what she’s doing. Relentlessly.
If the cause of Zion is person=person, damn straight I am.
That depends on who’s ox is being gored.
Let’s say that I could gore an ox. If I went crazy and did that, I’d feel insulted if no one held me accountable.
And if anyone held me accountable, and I kept goring, I’d feel insulted if nobody put me down.
.
Ukraine…
.
Also Ukraine…
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/06/sinwar-hamas-gaza-haniyeh-assassination/
“It remains unclear how Sinwar, in hiding and atop Israel’s most-wanted list, will carry out Haniyeh’s diplomatic duties…”
.
Wrong thread…
“It all depends on whose ox is being gored” means that a given event will be seen differently depending on the degree to which the viewer’s self-interest is involved. You took it literally. 
Actually, it was meant for you to substitute/replace the gore-agent with Hamas (or…Iran) (or…enemies of a two-state solution that does not lead to Israel’s demise), and the gore-victim with Israel.
If the world allows goring without accountability, the world is complicit.
If the world calls accountability goring, the world is insane.
Both sides have committed atrocities. The policy of apartheid by the Israelis has worsened over the decades. By blaming one side and ignoring the other you have documented your bias in post after post and violated your own principle of person=person.
1 Like
Hamas blames Israel for Hamas using humans as shields—that is what is documented.
Humans should avoid being used as shields by Hamas at all cost.
Said what I said.
That is a “whataboutism” defense. The subject here is your judgment of the situation in terms of “person=person. When you apply the principle selectively it loses all meaning. You recognize the person of unborn fetuses. But you ignore the persons of the children of Gaza who are allegedly used as human shields and blown up indiscriminately by Israeli missiles. You ignore the 70 years of Israeli escalating apartheid against Palestinian persons. When it comes to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, you value the lives some persons more than others. You have failed to conscientiously apply your own principle to the situation. Why?
I said humans should avoid being used as human shields. That’s acknowledging them as persons.
Hamas should be held accountable. That acknowledges them as persons.
Israel has the right to defend herself without being accused of doing what her victimizers are doing. That acknowledges them as persons.
I’m still talking to you because I acknowledge you as a person even though you don’t have the self-recognition to even correctly represent what I’m saying.
And I suppose this is my final warning. If I can remember it.
That’s mighty big of you.
To me there seems to be a gap in your consciousness where innocent Palestinians are concerned. You resort to “rights” language. “Israel has a right.”
Imagine if a terrorist embedded himself in a school where you or someone you love were a child or a teacher and the police or the military bombed the school killing you and terrorist. Would you say they had a right to do that because, I don’t know, maybe the terrorist wronged some of their people or they wanted to make the neighborhood safe for the future? How is that different from what the IDF is doing in Palestine. How could that possibly that with your person=person ideal?
1 Like
Let us suppose that you are a child or a teacher in a school and an armed terrorist invades the school and uses you as a shield. Let us further suppose that the government decides that the way to handle the situation is to hit the school with a missile. How would you go about avoiding that situation?
Does the government have a right to defend itself by killing a teacher or child as collateral damage with a missile in order to kill a terrorist? Assuming the innocence of children and teachers in these schools how is the situation different when child or teacher is in Gaza? If your acknowledgement of personhood doesn’t entitle innocent people the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without being killed as collateral damage, what good is it?