Israel/Palestine thread

And they call the zionists crybabies in those videos?

yowza

To spell it out to you the problem with claiming racial superiority in some regards is you then have to allow the claims of racial inferiority in other regards, and we definitely don't want people to start doing that.

It's the same as when white supremacists think it's really clever to claim that black people are better at sprinting, hoping to get agreement on this so that they can then make claims about black inferiority in other ways.

Btw what do you think the Arabs called the Jews in the 20's, 30's and 40's (going back from there)?

They just called them "the Jews". "Yahudi"

There was no other word.

I don't claim racial superiority. I claim the Jews beat back the invasion of 5 hostile countries to win their homeland. That's all I claim. That's all history claims too.

5 countries found out. Surely we can just agree that's real. As real as say Germany and Japan finding out.

Btw that THIS is the hill you're trying to die on and not videos about "zionist crybabies" is.....something.

I'm not dying on some cliched hill or watching some stupid video.

Gosh I'm stumped, why don't you tell me.

Ethnic cleansing isn’t for the weak, you got that right. Takes hard men to murder women and children

Long before "River to the Sea" or "From water to water, Palestine is Arab," as it goes in Arabic; the common refrain was, "The English to the sea and the Jews to the grave."

If they actually care about resolving the issue on terms that aren't disastrous to the Palestinians, at some point Western leftists are going to have to acknowledge that 100 years of Arab genocidal rhetoric and actions, along with maximalist demands, are a giant hurdle that needs to be acknowledged and dealt with.

And 100 years of being losers doesn't actually confer any moral high ground. Your actual moral values are what confer a moral high ground. And Palestinians/Arabs have demonstrated nothing positive in this direction.

must... not... internet argue... with people justifying bombing kids, hospitals, and apartment buildings

I did with the map

You are actually allowed to bomb any of those buildings when they're used as launch points by your enemy. We know they are, the UN even has made those accusations public and published reports on it.

As to the rest, at present the IDF just moved 1M civilians to safe zones in 2 weeks. If we can't acknowledge what that represents, we aren't having an honest discussion.

Is being in favor of affirmative action racist so, for the same reasons reversed?

Sounds kinda like ethnic cleansing to me.

lol if they aren't moved and killed, it's genocide

if they ARE moved and saved (and brought to humanitarian corridors) to go get the terrorists/hostages/tunnels/weapons, it's ethnic cleansing

The riggage is indeed strong.

The point is that forcing a million people from their land under penalty of death isn't cool, sry.

They are still on their land. And nothing is under penalty of death.

Seems like if Israel had done this from the word go, we might have had even less deaths. This seemingly, is the only way. Fwiw they did do this once before in the North.

OK what happens to them if they don't leave their homes.

It isn't cool, but it's Hamas causing that, take it to them.

Yes they want ro claim any set of action which gives hope of Hamas eradication is criminal.

Which means telling every terrorist group in the world for the next 100 years that the only thing they need to get away with as much terror as they want is finding enough human shields to hide among.

Truly absurdly disastrous long term consequences for everyone if we don't let Israel eradicate Hamas at any civilian cost

So you do support genocide.

Nothing wrong with that. Just own it like Dunyain.

Again the bad faith. Everytime? Accepting a worst case scenario if nothing else is possible as necessary isn't "support".

Italy lost 500k men in WW1. Saying "it was a necessary sacrifice" doesn't mean "supporting the assassination of 500k Italian men".

You know that. So why do you frame your post like this? Why the absolute bad faith?

I support whatever set of actions guarantees Hamas eradication as the moral imperative above all in the region; among them, the set which minimizes civilian deaths.

There is NO NUMBER of civilian deaths that would make me tell "ok then let Hamas live and prosper" because we need terrorist groups to never have an option to prosper if only they get their hands on enough civilians.

And btw no amount of civilian deaths would be genocide anyway, lacking genocidal intent

Try to think larger than the fairly irrelevant (if we were all rational) IP conflict.

Think Pakistani nuclear bombs falling in the hands of terrorists, yet unable to use them. Every hour could be the last before they have access and are capable of striking with them.

Think the only option is us bombing a 1m city to dust, where the bombs are. Before they move them and/or become capable of using them.

What we are deciding now here is if we will be able to make that decision quickly without ifs and buts.

And any similar decision in the following decades

They hate the branding for some semantic reason.