What free speech platforms exist in America when it comes to criticism of the Israeli government?

[DudleySmith]

I won’t launch personal attacks on people for criticizing a Muslim government. I refuse to use the type of aggressive insulting language against you that you use against me. Maybe that’s because of my Catholic upbringing and the values my parents instilled me. Folks like you and Rosie lack civility

Apparently you think it’s OK to personally attack people for defending Candace Owens for being unjustly fired and you think it’s OK to personally attack people for criticizing these Israeli government or perceived support of Palestinian people.

Vermin need to know they're vermin, and you're no different. I don't see anything about Hamas apologists and fans that rate 'civility' and they more than deserve to be 'insulted', like all sociopaths. Those of who took 'Intro To Logic 102' instead of just 101 for the free elective A know that ad homs are perfectly valid when they're true and and feral animals who defend Hamas and terrroists are indeed pieces of shit and need to be deported or interned.

So piss on what you 'refuse' and your fake claim of 'Catholic upbringing'; you have no moral principles and certainly no objectivity.

 

[irosie91]

Polls are meaningless if we can not read the questions the pollsters ask and see the methodology.

elektra has made a valid point-----I AM SURPRISED

 

[elektra]

That’s your opinion. Other polls suggest Hamas has 10% popular support. But anyway Hamas is not the only conservative government in the world there is quite a few of them.

Hamas is not a conservative government. Feel free to educate me.

 

[FranklinRoosevelt_FTW]

It may very well be. A pet peeve of mine, when someone gives a link and refuses to quote what they believe is in the link and comment on said quote.

Many times the links prove the person who provided the link as not knowing the subject. I find that to be true almost a 100% of the time. People who link do not know hence they use google. Maybe you know, but my experience is those who link do not know, have not read beyond the title of the link in the google/bing search resulting in the actual content not being relevant to their opinion. Most of the time links prove the person wrong that provided the link.

It might be in the link, I say it is not. I have to go with my experience and believe you have not read your link otherwise you would of quoted and commented on the quote from your link.

Your OP, your prerogative, to add as much relevant information as you think you need to make your point. If it is not in the OP, the point is not made and remains as opinion or conjecture. That is regardless if the link to something else is fact or not.

It was posted a few posts ago , but here it is again

Greene argued on X that the bill "could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the gospel that says Jesus was handed over" for crucifixion with involvement of some Jewish authorities, including Herod.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., voted against the bill for similar reasons, pointing to the same example of antisemitism, which many Jews consider harmful.

"The Bible is clear," he wrote on X. "There is no myth or controversy around this."

House passes antisemitism bill with broad bipartisan support amid campus arrests

The Antisemitism Awareness Act would require the Education Department to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism.

www.nbcnews.com

The main issue is free speech. People will have various opinions on various topics whatever the topic might be. But the issue is free speech and if a platform claims to support it or not. The daily wire in the hill and I’m sure many others claim to support free speech. But at least the daily wire and the hill can not in good faith claim to support free speech because of firing Candace Owens and Gray

There’s no reason to keep reiterating my comment. I respect what you’re doing in this thread and I have cleared up that I am not here to personally insult you. I am not here in any way to demean you. I’m sorry if there’s any misunderstanding it is not my intention to talk down to you and that is not how I feel.

Myself And many others will criticize Black Lives Matter, but we will not go against free speech and prevent those types of people from getting on a platform if we had our own television or podcast platform. And that is the major difference between supporters of free speech/civility and those who are against free speech and similar American values or values of civility ie Christian values.

In short a segment of pro Israel, people are against civility and free speech. On the other hand, some pro Israel, people and prop Palestinian people will have a conversation with those that they disagree with without resorting to name-calling or suppressing their free speech.

 

[DudleySmith]

Hamas is not a conservative government. Feel free to educate me.

We can also find the election results where they elected Hamas, and then note those that didn't vote for Hamas largely voted for even worse vermin, so there is that as well.

 

[irosie91]

We can also find the election results where they elected Hamas, and then note those that didn't vote for Hamas largely voted for even worse vermin, so there is that as well.

so true----conclusions or judgments can be made on valid bit of evidence

 

[elektra]

Nice collection pal

Years of collecting, much so I could understand, know, refute, posts on message boards. One would quote a sentence in a link to an opinion piece, revisionist history. I would find the book, read it, find the quote and see the context. I would also find numerous other books on from different people, different perspectives, to determine what the facts of the matter, are.

Some books are random purchases. Some random purchases resulted in being excellent sources and relevant.

I also downloaded well over 200 books from, google books. The only google books that can be downloaded are the books where the copyright is expired. Is that the accurate term, expired. My google books are thus scanned copies of books that are from prior to 1919?

Hence, I say the term Palestinian, historically was not used to describe people of the geographical area known as Palestine

 

[elektra]

We can also find the election results where they elected Hamas, and then note those that didn't vote for Hamas largely voted for even worse vermin, so there is that as well.

Moslem woman in Moslem Sharia Law countries do not vote. Which is a point that I think should have been in this OP.

 

[DudleySmith]

During the Ottoman years it was part of 'Greater Syria', and they referred to themselves as Syrians.

 

[DudleySmith]

Moslem woman in Moslem Sharia Law countries do not vote. Which is a point that I think should have been in this OP.

Wouldn't have been a lot of difference. Maybe in Iran, but rarely with Arabs.

 

[elektra]

It’s in line with civilized behavior. Calling somebody a supporter of terrorism, simply for being born in a certain area is unacceptable in the civilized world.

Whether they be German, Italian, Japanese, Palestinian, Israeli that’s unacceptable.

It is free speech.
In this case, calling Palestinians in Gaza as supporters of terror seems very much to be factual. How is it that there were zero whistle blowers, exposing the Oct. 6th attack.

And, there is an entire group of people in Gaza, the women, who must support what the men, dictate. Then there is the question of the schools and the bigotry taught in the schools.

People are not calling people terrorists simply for being born in an area. That is too broad of statement and a stereotype of said statement.

We are speaking of people born in Gaza, who are taught a very different set of values as well as a revisionist history of the palestine. The people are also Moslems which dictates much in Gaza, in a very different way than in other parts of the moslem world.

Sorry, you are making a generalized statement which ignores the specifics of the conversation.

 

[irosie91]

Years of collecting, much so I could understand, know, refute, posts on message boards. One would quote a sentence in a link to an opinion piece, revisionist history. I would find the book, read it, find the quote and see the context. I would also find numerous other books on from different people, different perspectives, to determine what the facts of the matter, are.

Some books are random purchases. Some random purchases resulted in being excellent sources and relevant.

I also downloaded well over 200 books from, google books. The only google books that can be downloaded are the books where the copyright is expired. Is that the accurate term, expired. My google books are thus scanned copies of books that are from prior to 1919?

Hence, I say the term Palestinian, historically was not used to describe people of the geographical area known as Palestine

you are wrong (or lying) The term "palestinian" appears in many places
pre 1948 and ALWAYS refers to either jews or jewish institutions. The term
"palestinian" appears on the government papers (British mandate
palestine) of my husband ----1942, because he was a jewish infant who, having been rescued
from a shariah shit hole-----entered "palestine" at that time. Had he been
a muslim or christian or parsee ----his papers would have designated him
either "arab" or "armenian" or even "syrian or ??? I have no idea what they would have called a parsee. These are facts to which I would swear
under Oath in a REAL court of law-----but the issue is not an aspect of my
usual role as "expert witness"

 

[Moonglow]

How’s your day going ?

Wunderbar

 

[elektra]

During the Ottoman years it was part of 'Greater Syria', and they referred to themselves as Syrians.

I not only agree but can provide a reference confirning the fact you posted.

 

[whitehall]

Why are left wingers and phony right wingers confused about the most important freedom the genius Founding Fathers created in the 1st Amendment? The government can only do so much so we expect the mainstream media to condemn atrocious examples of "free" speech but when they don't we are left with a political agenda.

 

[elektra]

you are wrong (or lying) The term "palestinian" appears in many places
pre 1948 and ALWAYS refers to either jews or jewish institutions. The term
"palestinian" appears on the government papers (British mandate
palestine) of my husband ----1942, because he was a jewish infant who, having been rescued
from a shariah shit hole-----entered "palestine" at that time. Had he been
a muslim or christian or parsee ----his papers would have designated him
either "arab" or "armenian" or even "syrian or ??? I have no idea what they would have called a parsee. These are facts to which I would swear
under Oath in a REAL court of law-----but the issue is not an aspect of my
usual role as "expert witness"

You say it appears in many places but you can not offer one example.
Are you claiming that the British Mandate defines Jews, as being Palestinians. If that is the case, you are wrong.

I can reference article 7 of the British Mandate for Palestine, which only states that Jewish residents can become Palestinian citizens.

Article 7 also states that a Nationality law shall be established. Article 7 resulted in, "The Palestinian Citizenship Order, 1925." The Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925 in now way shape or form defined only Jews as Palestinians. In fact, the Palestinian Citizenship order followed the orders of the Ottoman Empire which called Turkish citizens residing in Palestine, Palestinians.

 

[irosie91]

You say it appears in many places but you can not offer one example.
Are you claiming that the British Mandate defines Jews, as being Palestinians. If that is the case, you are wrong.

I can reference article 7 of the British Mandate for Palestine, which only states that Jewish residents can become Palestinian citizens.

Article 7 also states that a Nationality law shall be established. Article 7 resulted in, "The Palestinian Citizenship Order, 1925." The Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925 in now way shape or form defined only Jews as Palestinians. In fact, the Palestinian Citizenship order followed the orders of the Ottoman Empire which called Turkish citizens residing in Palestine, Palestinians.

try again-----the 1925 law provided citizenship in Palestine---it did not confer
the moniker "PALESTINIAN" to any person other than jews nor did non-jews self ID as such. Turks did not call themselves "palestinians" nor did arabs or christians.

 

[elektra]

try again-----the 1925 law provided citizenship in Palestine---it did not confer
the moniker "PALESTINIAN" to any person other than jews nor did non-jews self ID as such. Turks did not call themselves "palestinians" nor did arabs or christians.

irosie, why is it that you never mentioned which article of the Mandate for Palestine defines only Jews as Palestinians? The only mention is of Palestinians is in Article 7. Why must I tell you that, it is because you are speculating.

"the 1925 law", it is not referred to as a law, irosie does not get the simple facts right, showing irosie has no knowledge of the British Mandate or the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.

 

[irosie91]

irosie, why is it that you never mentioned which article of the Mandate for Palestine defines only Jews as Palestinians? The only mention is of Palestinians is in Article 7. Why must I tell you that, it is because you are speculating.

"the 1925 law", it is not referred to as a law, irosie does not get the simple facts right, showing irosie has no knowledge of the British Mandate or the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.


View attachment 963314

your "knowledge" is based on nothing. Mine is based on first hand information. You remind me of lawyers who IMAGINE they know all about
Medicine and Neuroscience by reading case studies in law.

 

[elektra]

your "knowledge" is based on nothing. Mine is based on first hand information. You remind me of lawyers who IMAGINE they know all about
Medicine and Neuroscience by reading case studies in law.

I just referenced the British mandate article 7 and the Palestinian Citizenship Order, 1925

Great, you have first hand knowledge which means you can snap a picture and post the picture.

irosie, you have gone from everyone only referred to Jews as Palestinians, claiming to use national geographic as a source, or microfilm in libraries. Then irosie claims the British Mandate defines only jews as palesitinians, which would be article 7, which does not come close to stating only Jews are palestinians. Then we have irosie claiming that there are documents in irosie's home that prove only jews are palestinians, yet irosie can not give a picture of that document, either.

Where is the proof, irosie. Irosie claims ownership of proof, yet no pic, scan, nothing.