[CONSOLIDATED] Israel & Palestine Hamas conflict updates [History Discussion and stirring against any religion NOT ALLOWED]

[NTB2DO]

---

So as far as the rest of the us is concerned sham is in agreement with the rest of us

----

Your statement "sham (Shan) is in agreement with the rest of "us".. Can you elaborate, 'in agreement" on what exactly?

And your "us" refers to?

 

[coern]

yes, Shan is talking in hypotheticals.

'In the context of what is now happening in Gaza: Israel has a right of self-defence. But this right does not extend to indiscriminate killing of civilians, or mass displacement of entire populations. Collective punishment is also illegal.'​

why you link to ST instead of Shan's facebook post. aren't his own words more powerful that what ST tells you?



if he wasn't talking in hypotheticals, he would say something entirely different. Shan's current phrasing satisfies both the Hamas supporters in SG (so they won't stir, sibei troublesome lot), and will not offend the Israeli ambassador.

Indeed Shan didn't explicitly say Israel has committed acts of indiscriminate killing.. But did you notice he had added, "in the context of what is now happening in Gaza"?

So you sure he's just talking in "hypotheticals"?

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...indiscriminate-killing-of-civilians-shanmugam

 

[NTB2DO]

yes, Shan is talking in hypotheticals.

'In the context of what is now happening in Gaza: Israel has a right of self-defence. But this right does not extend to indiscriminate killing of civilians, or mass displacement of entire populations. Collective punishment is also illegal.'​

why you link to ST instead of Shan's facebook post. aren't his own words more powerful that what ST tells you?



if he wasn't talking in hypotheticals, he would say something entirely different. Shan's current phrasing satisfies both the Hamas supporters in SG (so they won't stir, sibei troublesome lot), and will not offend the Israeli ambassador.

So then why did he even mention "does not extend to indiscriminate killing of civilians, or mass displacement of entire populations"?

Why on earth would a politician - esp. someone like Shan - use such "hypothetical' statement on another which SG has always enjoyed cordial relationship with?

 

[coern]

because there are allegations of such - so he is stating his & SG's stand on such allegations.

So then why did he even mention "does not extend to indiscriminate killing of civilians, or mass displacement of entire populations"?

Why on earth would a politician - esp. someone like Shan - use such "hypothetical' statement on another which SG has always enjoyed cordial relationship with?

do note that Shan is not *accusing* Israel of doing these.

can you tell the difference?

 

[NTB2DO]

because there are allegations of such - so he is stating his & SG's stand on such allegations.



do note that Shan is not *accusing* Israel of doing these.

can you tell the difference?

Of cos he wouldn't. Even if he thinks so, he'll never say it explicitly, don't you agree?

Also note that he didn't say he was addressing some "allegations", he said "in the context of what is happening in Gaza."

 

[enigmastar]

Of cos he wouldn't. Even if he thinks so, he'll never say it explicitly, don't you agree?

I don't know why u and the other guy keep arguing over a clear statement. He did not say Israel has committed acts of indiscriminate killing. Full stop. We are not him, how are we able to guess what is he thinking?

 

[NTB2DO]

I don't know why u and the other guy keep arguing over a clear statement. He did not say Israel has committed acts of indiscriminate killing. Full stop. We are not him, how are we able to guess what is he thinking?

Did I say that he said Israel has committed acts of indiscriminate killing?

I already said that as a politician, he would never make such an explicit statement, regardless of how he thinks.

But his use of "in the context of what is happening in Gaza" is telling.

 

[coern]

glad you understand that Shan did not "say it explicitly". we are on the same page.

Of cos he wouldn't. Even if he thinks so, he'll never say it explicitly, don't you agree?

Also note that he didn't say he was addressing some "allegations", he said "in the context of what is happening in Gaza."

 

[enigmastar]

So then why did he even mention "does not extend to indiscriminate killing of civilians, or mass displacement of entire populations"?

Why on earth would a politician - esp. someone like Shan - use such "hypothetical' statement on another which SG has always enjoyed cordial relationship with?

Did I say that he said Israel has committed acts of indiscriminate killing?

So what are you suggesting when u mention he said "does not extend to indiscriminate killing of civilians, or mass displacement of entire populations"? Are you trying to cast doubt over a clear statement?

 

[NTB2DO]

So what are you suggesting when u mention he said "does not extend to indiscriminate killing of civilians, or mass displacement of entire populations"? Are you trying to cast doubt over a clear statement?

See my edited post (the one you cited).

 

[coern]

politician don't make explicit statement?

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...rifies-position-condemns-hamas-acts-of-terror

I guess that is true in some cases, as WP took until 6th November to explicitly condemn Hamas's acts of terror (instead of referring to it as a "military operation")...

Did I say that he said Israel has committed acts of indiscriminate killing?

I already said that as a politician, he would never make such an explicit statement, regardless of how he thinks.

But his use of "in the context of what is happening in Gaza" is telling.

 

[NTB2DO]

politician don't make explicit statement?

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...rifies-position-condemns-hamas-acts-of-terror

I guess that is true in some cases, as WP took until 6th November to explicitly condemn Hamas's acts of terror (instead of referring to it as a "military operation")...

OK, correction. Politicians do make explicit statement.. In some cases.

 

[jerry_doit]

Aiyo so much on what he Shan said literally and implied. Its pointless discussion. What Israel is doing might seem grotesque to you. What shan is doing against drug traffickers might seem grotesque to the world. And like what jack Nicholson said in a few good men, "however grotesque it may seem to you, it save lives. So pick up a weapon and go stand post. I don't care what you think or do not think"

War is a grey area. You do things to maximise from your ctry point of view. Just like for sg death penalties for drug trafficking is justified

 

[NTB2DO]

Aiyo so much on what he Shan said literally and implied. Its pointless discussion. What Israel is doing might seem grotesque to you. What shan is doing against drug traffickers might seem grotesque to the world. And like what jack Nicholson said in a few good men, "however grotesque it may seem to you, it save lives. So pick up a weapon and go stand post. I don't care what you think or do not think"

War is a grey area. You do things to maximise from your ctry point of view. Just like for sg death penalties for drug trafficking is justified

Problems is, here there is a distinction between different human lives.

Your people's lives vs my people's lives. Nevermind that they are all human lives.

(BTW I'm talking about innocent lives, drug traffickers are not innocent.)

 

[eclipsemints]

 

[enigmastar]

Of cos he wouldn't. Even if he thinks so, he'll never say it explicitly, don't you agree?

Also note that he didn't say he was addressing some "allegations", he said "in the context of what is happening in Gaza."

In the context of what is happening in gaza can mean many thing, can mean a war is happening, people are dying , hostages are kept in gaza etc etc. Its is purposely kept vague . What we shouldn't do is speculate what it meant to support our case.

We should just take what he say that is clear，which is Israel has a right to self defend but this right does not extend to indiscriminate killing of civilians, or mass displacement of entire populations.

Basically it meant self defense does not include the things he listed but that doesn't mean he is saying Israel is doing it right now.

E.g police say you have a right to remain silent but that doesn't mean police are saying you are noisy or you are quiet at this moment.

 

[eclipsemints]

yes, Shan is talking in hypotheticals.

'In the context of what is now happening in Gaza: Israel has a right of self-defence. But this right does not extend to indiscriminate killing of civilians, or mass displacement of entire populations. Collective punishment is also illegal.'​

why you link to ST instead of Shan's facebook post. aren't his own words more powerful that what ST tells you?



if he wasn't talking in hypotheticals, he would say something entirely different. Shan's current phrasing satisfies both the Hamas supporters in SG (so they won't stir, sibei troublesome lot), and will not offend the Israeli ambassador.

you and others claim Shan's statement is pure hypothetical, you ever consider WHY he said what he said in the first place?

1) Indiscriminate killing of civilians ( extremely high civilian loses, woman and children especially)
2) Mass displacement of of entire population (already happened)
3) collective punishment (is happening now)

All these are already taken place and confirmed. That's why the UN security council passed the resolution 2712 for the humanitarian pause.

So by saying shan's statement is hypothetical, you meant to say all 3 points are just suggested theory or ideas that hasn't happened?

Sorry, but i don't think you understan dwhat you are typing even,

Indeed Shan didn't explicitly say Israel has committed acts of indiscriminate killing.. But did you notice he had added, "in the context of what is now happening in Gaza"?

So you sure he's just talking in "hypotheticals"?

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...indiscriminate-killing-of-civilians-shanmugam

If you just read what he said literally, he is saying Israel has committed indiscriminate killing of Palestinians but in another way.

it's the same thing bro.

Cheers

 

[NTB2DO]

In the context of what is happening in gaza can mean many thing, can mean a war is happening, people are dying , hostages are kept in gaza etc etc. Its is purposely kept vague . What we shouldn't do is speculate what it meant to support our case.

We should just take what he say that is clear，which is Israel has a right to self defend but but this right does not extend to indiscriminate killing of civilians, or mass displacement of entire populations.

Basically it meant self defense does not include the things he listed but that doesn't mean he is saying Israel is doing it right now.

E.g police say you have a right to remain silent but that doesn't mean police are saying you are noisy or you are quiet at this moment.

Not when he went on to say this:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...indiscriminate-killing-of-civilians-shanmugam

Mr Shanmugam said in a Facebook post on Nov 18: “The scale of the tragedy in Gaza is immense. Thousands being killed. Devastation (on) this scale is very difficult to accept.”

 

[enigmastar]

Not when he went on to say this:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...indiscriminate-killing-of-civilians-shanmugam

Mr Shanmugam said in a Facebook post on Nov 18: “The scale of the tragedy in Gaza is immense. Thousands being killed. Devastation (on) this scale is very difficult to accept.”

What are you trying to imply?

He is only saying thousands are being killed and there are devastation in gaza. Did he say something else??

Which war have nobody being killed and there are no devastation. Every death is difficult to accept which include Israel soldiers who should be living a normal life before being called up to serve his nation because of oct 7 masscare. Just ask their family if their young son being killed in gaza is a tragedy anot.

 

[NTB2DO]

What are you trying to imply?

He is only saying thousands are being killed and there are devastation in gaza. Did he say something else??

As reported by ST (refer to ST link). He did.

He also highlighted the Nov 18 opinion piece in The Straits Times by lawyer and community leader Ahmad Firdaus Daud, “Israel’s actions in Gaza have been disproportionate”.

Mr Firdaus noted that most of what Mr Kausikan wrote was factual, but took issue with his characterisation of Israel’s actions in Gaza.

It omitted key considerations under international law and does not reflect the principled approach taken in Singapore’s national position on this issue, said Mr Firdaus, who works with interfaith initiative Roses of Peace to advocate for peace and social harmony in Singapore.

And this is what Ahmad Firdaus Duad wrote in his opinion piece:

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/israel-s-actions-in-gaza-have-been-disproportionate

During the 10th Emergency Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on Oct 27, Singapore voted in favour of a resolution calling for an “immediate humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities” and condemning the violence against both Palestinian and Israeli civilians.
Israel ignored that resolution. It has dropped more than 25,000 tonnes of explosives on Gaza Strip and deployed thousands of soldiers and tanks in a ground invasion, striking hospitals, places of worship, refugee camps and UN shelters.