CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is Israel an evil nation as defined by her actions?
Note to reader - No ones getting banned here, unless they really take the piss. This is a free and fair debate, with no moderation unless necessary.
All view points welcome if politely expressed. I dont care if you are AIPAC or a Nazi. Get your views out and well have a free for all. Just be (reasonably) polite on a personal level, and reasonably well worded, if you are arguing on a subject matter.
If I feel you are really taking the piss, I will warn you, in public, and give you the chance to re edit. If you are some kind of supremacist, be careful how you express this, and be reasonably polite when adressing other posters. I dont want to be reading holocaust jokes and comments about dirty muslims etc. I dont want to be reading racial insults about other posters. I dont care what you believe, and you are free to express those beliefs in the context of this debate - politely or impersonally. That is all.
Cheers.
---
As I see it.
1 Israel build on Palestinian land
2 Palestine seek recourse to international law, and are blocked by Americas veto, despite the fact the resolution is backed by the world.
3 Denied international justice Palestine defend their land with rockets, an escalation eventually killing 64 soldiers and 3 Israeli civilians.
4 Israel respond to the rockets by escalating a campaign of violence on the palestinian people, killing 1600 civilians and 300 children.
Critical points -
1 Palestine is denied sanctity of its land.
2 Palestine is denied international justice or recourse to justice.
3 Palestine is subject to a massively disproportionate massacre of its citizens.
Background -
Creation of the state of Israel, in someone elses land.
Action of Israel building on the Palestinian land.
Americas continued veto of resolutions with the worlds backing, seeking justice for Palestine
Biased American news networks distorting the events with a completely alice in wonderland version of perspective, compared to the rest of the world.
Massive institutional bias in Americas media, news, film industry and political infrastructure.
See above. Israel is acting as a child murdering, home invader and is universally detested outside of USA for her actions. Only Americas support enables Israel to continue to act as a mass murderer of civilians and an oppressor of human beings.
Is Israel an evil nation as defined by her actions?
This is completely polarizing the matter. Neither Israel nor Palestine are "evil" nations, you can cite flaws in their government, but that doesn't make their citizens, currency, cars, and trees "evil", as we would expect of a wholly "evil" nation.
1 Israel build on Palestinian land
I'm not sure what you mean by this! Are you saying that they are currently on land that has belonged to the Palestinians for thousands of years, or that the land has been Palestine's since its formation following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire? If the latter, would you include the emirate of Trans Jordan as also belonging to the modern Palestinian state?
2 Palestine seek recourse to international law, and are blocked by Americas veto, despite the fact the resolution is backed by the world.
How does this make Israel an evil nation?
3 Denied international justice Palestine defend their land with rockets, an escalation eventually killing 64 soldiers and 3 Israeli civilians.
4 Israel respond to the rockets by escalating a campaign of violence on the palestinian people, killing 1600 civilians and 300 children.
Israel has remained unscathed because most of the Palestinian missiles have been shot down. If they hadn't we would see easily ten thousand Israelis killed in a year of conflict. Israel's campaign has been retaliatory to the tens of thousands of rockets launched by Palestine in the past decade. The body count is low in Israel due to the fact that only a fraction of a fraction of the missiles launched towards them have managed to hit them.
Biased American news networks distorting the events with a completely alice in wonderland version of perspective, compared to the rest of the world. Massive institutional bias in Americas media, news, film industry and political infrastructure.
I can understand that these things are bad, but how on earth are these reasons that Israel an evil nation?
This does not depict the conflict on systemic terms. I'd continue on with your other points, but they just seem to be more or less reiterations of previous points.
Evil has some loose merit as a descriptor in politics, if not in pure science. Judged on her actions on a human level, we would argue that nazi Germany was evil. If you want to use oppressive, child murdering, dehumanising, international pariah, then feel free to substitute that in for evil.
1 Palestinian land as agreed upon today.
2 Its an axis of enablement. America has a veto and is using it to stand in the way of basic human rights resolutions that are supported by pretty much every nation on earth. definitely more than brought israel into being in the first place.
3 Lets talk about history, and ignore the perpetual cycle of oppression visited on the palestinians by israel, or the actual death totals that are incredibly sckewed to palestinian civilian dead, or the fact palestinians are simply routinely dehumanised and disregarded as human life, but israel and us media.
4 Israel is arguably a first world power, and is massacring 1000s of civilians and 100s of children, in a manner that would be wholly unacceptable for any first world power in the west. UK couldnt do it to Ireland. America couldnt do it to a neighbour. France couldnt do it. South Africa style, Serbia style dehumanising, genocidal mentality war crimes. Bottom line is the death totals paint israel as a terrorist to anyone not american or israeli.
5 zionist influence of american media and government is not something we are not allowed to talk about. no one is blaming jews, who often are at odds with israel too. but its ridiculous to pretend there is no connection between the fact that us media is routinely pro zionist, and is completely out of touch with world opinion and also reality. biased hannity style misrepresenation of the issue by hollywood, us media and the government is tantamount to propaganda, and its hallmarks are as odious and obvious today, as they were in pre war germany.
You're welcome. If a political debate springs up, I will usually join it.
1 Palestinian land as agreed upon today.
Agreed upon by whom?
2 Its an axis of enablement. America has a veto and is using it to stand in the way of basic human rights resolutions that are supported by pretty much every nation on earth. definitely more than brought israel into being in the first place.
Can you give an example of human rights resolutions that America has used veto power to stand in the way of? I understand that Israel is backed by the US, what I'm saying is that this isn't actual evidence that Israel is evil.
3 Lets talk about history,
I've already cited my argument with historical events.
and ignore the perpetual cycle of oppression visited on the palestinians by israel, or the actual death totals that are incredibly sckewed to palestinian civilian dead, or the fact palestinians are simply routinely dehumanised and disregarded as human life, but israel and us media.
The validity of these claims is absolutely an historical matter.
Of course, if it actually were, that wouldn't make Israel an evil nation.
and is massacring 1000s of civilians and 100s of children, in a manner that would be wholly unacceptable for any first world power in the west.
Again, can you give examples of this happening so that we can address this on a case by case basis rather than relying on generalizations?
UK couldnt do it to Ireland. America couldnt do it to a neighbour. France couldnt do it. South Africa style, Serbia style dehumanising, genocidal mentality war crimes.
They all absolutely could, and can at the present moment, will they is the crux of that particular matter
Bottom line is the death totals paint israel as a terrorist to anyone not american or israeli.
Death totals of which events?
5 zionist influence of american media and government is not something we are not allowed to talk about.
Okay, then how are you and I able to discuss it right now. I think you mean that it is discouraged from being discussed.
no one is blaming jews, who often are at odds with israel too.
Example?
but its ridiculous to pretend there is no connection between the fact that us media is routinely pro zionist, and is completely out of touch with world opinion and also reality.
1 The borders that the settlements are breaching are well established.
2 America has vetoed everything palestine has put before the UN to my knowledge.
Palestinian resolution specifically addresses settlement building and also acts of aggression to palestine.
3 Israel is in a state of perpetual oppresion of palestine. They are encroaching on their land, blocking aid, controlling all aspects of their life and power, and at the same time treating them like dogs and dehumanising them, for the next time they go and kill 1000s of civilians and 100s of kids.
4 Israel militarily has nukes, and economically has industry. It also has criminal amounts of "aid" in the guise of weapons it can use to kill women and kids.
2014 israel killed 1000s and 300 kids.
Uk couldnt kill 1000s of irish and 100s of kids, because of a rocket attack. Thats a different century.
Take the death total of this event. Palestinians dead 1800? kids dead 300. Israeli civilians dead - 3. Who is the real terrorist here?
5 Anyone who mentions zionism in the media is falsely associated with anti semitism. Its a shameful fig leaf to justify the same dehumanising and massacre of people, that anti nazis actually hate.
Its obvious that us media and government has a much stronger zonist lobby than palestinian one. Whilst biased media doesnt mean the subject of its favor is evil, the fact is, it is one tool of the oppressor, that is routinely used to obfuscate and mislead in this conflict. Even the idea of a Palestinian voice or pov, is derided, and people telling the truth on american websites and media are routinely shut out. Palestinians are painted as the terrorists by media, hollywood, and even government for killing 3 civilians. Meanwhile Israel does this
in a civilian area and no one is allowed to talk about it in government, film, or news.
USA is not an honest broker.
I think you should meet me half way on some of these points. I can accept you disagreeing with me, but if you contend a wholesale anti palestine bias in the mainstream american media, then thats a little disingenuous, and is only going to lead to me finding tons of essays on hollywood hating arabs, and videos of fox et al completely misrepresenting this conflict and shutting down any counter argument to their propaganda. The whole thing is not framed in neutral context in america. It is framed as them mooslims vs our white friends in arabia.
1 The borders that the settlements are breaching are well established.
They were, of course. I'm still not sure of which Palestinian/Israeli borders you're referring to.
2 America has vetoed everything palestine has put before the UN to my knowledge.
I understand that the US currently refuses to recognize Palestine as a state, and I disagree with that, but that is not a matter of civil rights, or a valid reason why the Israeli gov't is evil.
Palestinian resolution specifically addresses settlement building and also
How is this evidence that Israel is an evil nation?
acts of aggression to palestine.
Which acts of aggression and by whom?
3 Israel is in a state of perpetual oppresion of palestine. They are encroaching on their land, blocking aid, controlling all aspects of their life and power, and at the same time treating them like dogs and dehumanising them,
I've already asked for you to give specific examples of how they are encroaching on their land, treating them like dogs, dehumanizing them, or controlling all aspects of their life and power?
for the next time they go and kill 1000s of civilians and 100s of kids.
Can you please cite a specific example of when this has happened? After that, we can address how this makes Israel an evil nation.
4 Israel militarily has nukes, and economically has industry. It also has criminal amounts of "aid" in the guise of weapons it can use to kill women and kids. 2014 israel killed 1000s and 300 kids.
Weapons are still sometimes used as "aid", it's not always food and blankets
Uk couldnt kill 1000s of irish and 100s of kids, because of a rocket attack. Thats a different century.
They wouldn't kill people by the thousands over a single rocket attack, but they certainly could.
Take the death total of this event. Palestinians dead 1800? kids dead 300. Israeli civilians dead - 3. Who is the real terrorist here?
The one that has attempted to kill several times more people, but has failed to and lacks the power to do so, but perseveres in their attempts at killing for.... terrorizing people?
5 Anyone who mentions zionism in the media is falsely associated with anti semitism. Its a shameful fig leaf to justify the same dehumanising and massacre of people, that anti nazis actually hate. Its obvious that us media and government has a much stronger zonist lobby than palestinian one. Whilst biased media doesnt mean the subject of its favor is evil, the fact is, it is one tool of the oppressor, that is routinely used to obfuscate and mislead in this conflict.
Again, I'm aware of this, it's just not evidence that Israel is evil.
Even the idea of a Palestinian voice or pov, is derided, and people telling the truth on american websites and media are routinely shut out. Palestinians are painted as the terrorists by media, hollywood, and even government for killing 3 civilians. Meanwhile Israel does this in a civilian area and no one is allowed to talk about it in government, film, or news.
I agree that this was a horrible tragedy, and that the Israeli gov't is at fault, but just about every nation would be evil if committing this sort of atrocity was the requisite.
Palestinians are painted as the terrorists by media, hollywood, and even government for killing 3 civilians. Meanwhile Israel does this in a civilian area and no one is allowed to talk about it in government, film, or news.
It's not just for the killing of three civilians, it's for promising to commit a genocide against the Israelis, for (twice) declaring war on Israel, and having a high density of the population that harbors extremist Islamic views.
I think you should meet me half way on some of these points.
I have already agreed with you from the get-go that our media is biased against Palestine, and that Palestine is not totally at blame (neither is Israel fully innocent). That's part of what I meant by not polarizing the matter. I'm arguing that Israel is not an "evil nation" compromised of "scum".
I can accept you disagreeing with me, but if you contend a wholesale anti palestine bias in the mainstream american media, then thats a little disingenuous, and is only going to lead to me finding tons of essays on hollywood hating arabs, and videos of fox et al completely misrepresenting this conflict and shutting down any counter argument to their propaganda. The whole thing is not framed in neutral context in america. It is framed as them mooslims vs our white friends in arabia.
I have never argued that the media has been impartial in this matter, I do, however, find your assertion that the "us media and the government is tantamount to propaganda," is too far fetched.And it would lead to a very confused Stickers trying to explain that people who're involved in hollywood (and media in general) not behaving themselves or pushing an agenda does not make a sovereign nation across the Atlantic evil and comprised of scum. It also does not mean that everything that hollywood and the media itself shovels out is propaganda.
2 actually having a big brother who propaganderizes his people and holds a perma veto for you, blocking any legal recourse is an instrument of evil imho.
There are numerous instances of resolutions being blocked, that are there to condemn israels treatment of palestinians.
3 I gave examples. Aid embargos. Controlling the electricity. A domestic and international campaign of dehumanisation and propaganda. AIPAC turning america into a block to international justice. Repeated violations of UN and international law. A incredibly sckewed civilian death total. A continued and progressive campaign of settlement building on palestinian land. Take your pick.
Israel just killed 1800 people and 300 kids in the last month.
4 hmmm. except palestinian aid isnt even allowed to contain food. Israel will turn the ships around even though there are no weapons on board.
UK couldnt realistically go out and kill 1000s of irish in 2014. It was hard enough getting away with it last century. Having a doomsday bomb that hurts your enemies and kills you in the process, doesnt really equal having a weapon.
What would be the fallout? London gets burned to the ground, open season on the CBD. Open season on the UK. Open season on anything even remotely attached to a UK flag. An inferno in northern ireland. A civil war that would stretch the military past breaking point. A complete and irrevocable damage to the reputation, industry, economy, tourism, cbd, etc, of the UK...Im pretty sure neither the queen, nor the government, nor even the military would be up for that one. Thats why big nations dont fuck with their neighbours in western europe. They are too smart, and also possible morally better than that. Why do you think the UK went out of its way to help bail out the irish economy? Trade and relations. The irish for her part, have been one of the best nations p4p in putting in the hard graft to get out of the recession and now have a p4p better GDP than the UK.
The terrorist is the one out there actually killing 1000s of innocents and 100s of children. Now the one wishing the other side dead for doing so.
5 It is when AIPAC are involved in an orchestrated and perpetual attack on anyone criticising israel, domestically in both america and israel and internationally too. AIPAC can not be divorced from the state of israel, when they are fundamentally part of the problem. They are a bigger part of israeli politics than mossad.
You go on to draw on history as a justifier of today. It is not.
I do not assert that Jews or Israelites are categorically scum, and i dont have a Hamas poster on the wall, any more than a che one. Im a humanist, and i believe that Israel and Hamas shouldn't drawn in a caricature of moral equivalence. One just killed 1000s of people and 100s of kids in a land they are oppressing. The other fired some rockets at them.
I think anyone who isn't american or Israeli, would see US media as propaganda in this conflict. It hilarious that CNN gets shit for being "pro terrorist". The fact is the rest of planet earth are demonstrably anti Israel in this context. That doesn't make Hamas the good guys. But if its between the Palestinian people and the government of Israel, Israel is the scum of the earth, and frankly that is reflected in too many polls to mention. Even the media of the western europe, which is about the most pro Zionist you could possibly find outside america, is radically different to american media. That is because they are telling the truth. More or less.
There are obvious and undeniable links between american media and hollywood and aipac. Its not an NWO conspiracy theory. they have rallies and shit storms whenever anyone criticises israel. they have campaign donations and pressure groups. Its an old boys network. Business as usual. Its not even news to anyone outside america.
I have enjoyed debating with you, but of course there are fundamental differences in our understanding of this issue.
Israel is in the process of perpetually fucked up and encroaching behaviour to palestine, and slaughters women and kids when palestine reacts.
American media is absolutely, brain meltingly alice in wonderland on this whole conflict and is diametrically oppostite to the rest of the planet on this issue.
Western europe doesnt want to see israel burn. They just want israel to stop massacring human being, like they are livestock, and stop oppressing their neighbours and/or countryment.
Israel is South Africa in the 80s as far as most of the world is concerned, with a sprinkling of prime serbia, and lying through your teeth "troubles" era britain mixed in.
It is a dirty scummy country, full of people who although privately morally decent, are the monsters of history on this issue. america is just brainwashed and sleepwalking through history with a rabid dog running around with its collar on.
Honestly. Listen to the planet for once. We arent anti semitic and most of us arent muslim. sort your shit out, or you will wind up on the wrong side of history.
that is pretty much the view from the 95% of the planet that isnt american. And given the level of barbarism involved, it is pretty fuckin charitable that anyone sees the israelis as in any way civilised at all. A mad rabid dog, tearing chunks out of its neighbours and threatening the whole region would be a more prescient characature. And thats before we get into mossad with their james bond shit and apiac with their CIA cloak and dagger, immoral, supremacist shit.
Israel has always been looked at as a first world nation of sorts. Civilised.
Its getting to the point where israel is starting to look bat shit insane, even by the low standards set by a legitimized "terrorist" organisation like hamas.
No one with any interest in the well being of israel, wants this modern nazi image of israel, playing out from the radical underground, repulsed humanist, and point scoring neo nazi background, into the mainstream, everyday worldwide association of the nation, any more that it already has done.
It might be based on actions that were initially to scare the middle east, but to a multi polar world, a europe made up of big league nations, and an america that is rapidly losing its patience, it isnt scary. Its fuckin repulsive.
You're right, we have been over this. I again ask for an example of a commonly accepted border, with you only providing an article showing the UN's disapproval of Israel's expansion.
2 actually having a big brother who propaganderizes his people and holds a perma veto for you, blocking any legal recourse is an instrument of evil imho.
There are numerous instances of resolutions being blocked, that are there to condemn israels treatment of palestinians.
Again, you're repeating yourself without addressing my claim. This is neither evidence that Israel is evil, or that the vetoes are a matter of civil rights.
3 I gave examples. Aid embargos. Controlling the electricity. A domestic and international campaign of dehumanisation and propaganda. AIPAC turning america into a block to international justice. Repeated violations of UN and international law. A incredibly sckewed civilian death total. A continued and progressive campaign of settlement building on palestinian land. Take your pick.
Israel just killed 1800 people and 300 kids in the last month.
The terrorist is the one out there actually killing 1000s of innocents and 100s of children. Now the one wishing the other side dead for doing so.
One just killed 1000s of people and 100s of kids in a land they are oppressing. The other fired some rockets at them.
I'm aware that you've given mention to these things earlier, but if committing crimes of a comparable severity as stated above makes Israel evil, then many many more first world nations must also be evil terrorists, which is what makes this is a ridiculous measure of "evil". Instead of repeating the above again and again, you try can refuting this claim.
What would be the fallout? London gets burned to the ground, open season on the CBD. Open season on the UK. Open season on anything even remotely attached to a UK flag. An inferno in northern ireland. A civil war that would stretch the military past breaking point. A complete and irrevocable damage to the reputation, industry, economy, tourism, cbd, etc, of the UK...Im pretty sure neither the queen, nor the government, nor even the military would be up for that one. Thats why big nations dont fuck with their neighbours in western europe. They are too smart, and also possible morally better than that. Why do you think the UK went out of its way to help bail out the irish economy? Trade and relations. The irish for her part, have been one of the best nations p4p in putting in the hard graft to get out of the recession and now have a p4p better GDP than the UK.
This is not addressing whether or not they could accomplish this, just an explanation on what would happen after it is done. I'll take this as accepting my clam that, regardless of what happens afterwards, any nation is capable of doing this.
5 It is when AIPAC are involved in an orchestrated and perpetual attack on anyone criticising israel, domestically in both america and israel and internationally too. AIPAC can not be divorced from the state of israel, when they are fundamentally part of the problem. They are a bigger part of israeli politics than mossad.
Provided, they have influence on Israeli and US politics. However, AIPAC insulting those who attack Israel is not an example of Israel perpetually oppresing palestine, "encroaching on their (Palestine's) land, blocking aid, controlling all aspects of their life and power, and at the same time treating them like dogs and dehumanising them,". You're begging the question once more and not addressing my claims.
You go on to draw on history as a justifier of today. It is not.
No, I am not. I have never said that. For like, the fourth time, quote me saying this, and we can address that.
I do not assert that Jews or Israelites are categorically scum,
Great! My primary focus is to argue that Israel is not a nation of scum.
and i dont have a Hamas poster on the wall, any more than a che one. Im a humanist, and i believe that Israel and Hamas shouldn't drawn in a caricature of moral equivalence.
Something that you, and everyone else on the site has in common.
There are obvious and undeniable links between american media and hollywood and aipac. Its not an NWO conspiracy theory. they have rallies and shit storms whenever anyone criticises israel. they have campaign donations and pressure groups. Its an old boys network. Business as usual. Its not even news to anyone outside america.
American media is absolutely, brain meltingly alice in wonderland on this whole conflict and is diametrically oppostite to the rest of the planet on this issue.
I'm aware, I just feel that it is far fetched to say that "us media and the government is tantamount to propaganda".
I have enjoyed debating with you, but of course there are fundamental differences in our understanding of this issue.
Thanks. You as well.
Honestly. Listen to the planet for once. We arent anti semitic and most of us arent muslim. sort your shit out, or you will wind up on the wrong side of history.
2 There is evidence of a connection between Israel and USA, and lobbying to prevent palestinian recourse to law.
3 Once again, you cant go into history, to justify the sins of today. Thats a silly argument that can justify anything. Holocaust, nuclear attack, genocide...
4 They literally arent capable of doing it, because doing it requires a level of consent in first world nations, that is never going to be achieved given the low level provocation displayed. The mad man doesnt have the key to the gun cabinet in most first world nations.
5 AIPAC doesnt "insult" people who attack israel. They harass and attack anyone who criticises Israel. Theres a big difference. And yes it is an example of Israel oppressing palestine, as AIPAC is made up of people who are considered citizen worthy for Israel, or friends of Israel. Not everyone in Hamas is a militant, but your very arguments depend on group culpability. Stretching group culpability for israel, to american hard liners and AIPAC is an honest interpretation of events. Its a fundamental part of the problem.
You do bring up history to justify the present, completely out of context for contemporary 1st world values.
Israel is a nation that is scum, judged on her actions. Calling israel a nation of scum insinuates the people are scum, which is a generalisation. I am arguing that the sum of the political entity known as israel's actions are scum and evil.
You are drawing a comparison between an oppressed nation that killed 3 people and a rich one that has just killed 300-450 kids and 1800+ people, in the last month. I dont believe supporting palestine = supporting hamas. Supporting civilisation and humanity in this instance = condemning israel and supporting palestine.
I have enjoyed debating you, once again.
I think we have reached an impasse though.
As long as Israel is fucking with palestine, in the ways ive described, that is not peace, but submission. And we all know, they will never submit to israel.
If you're referring to the article, it's only an example of what isn't accepted as the border
2 There is evidence of a connection between Israel and USA, and lobbying to prevent palestinian recourse to law.
Yes, there is. That just doesn't make Israel evil without adding an insane number of other nations to the list.
3 Once again, you cant go into history, to justify the sins of today. Thats a silly argument that can justify anything. Holocaust, nuclear attack, genocide...
You do bring up history to justify the present, completely out of context for contemporary 1st world values.
Once, again... I'm not trying to. What I am claiming is that these are also evil deeds, just deeming nation "evil" is such a broad sweeping claim that we haven't even used these events as justification to call other nations "evil".
4 They literally arent capable of doing it, because doing it requires a level of consent in first world nations, that is never going to be achieved given the low level provocation displayed. The mad man doesnt have the key to the gun cabinet in most first world nations.
They aren't capable of not facing consequences afterwards, sure. That doesn't mean that they are incapable of the act alone.
5 AIPAC doesnt "insult" people who attack israel. They harass and attack anyone who criticises Israel. Theres a big difference. And yes it is an example of Israel oppressing palestine, as AIPAC is made up of people who are considered citizen worthy for Israel, or friends of Israel. Not everyone in Hamas is a militant, but your very arguments depend on group culpability. Stretching group culpability for israel, to american hard liners and AIPAC is an honest interpretation of events. Its a fundamental part of the problem.
Insulting is a general term. Slander and libel are all mostly done by insulting. Harassment also done by insulting.
Israel is a nation that is scum, judged on her actions. Calling israel a nation of scum insinuates the people are scum, which is a generalisation. I am arguing that the sum of the political entity known as israel's actions are scum and evil.
Right, then Israel is not an evil nation. Israel's political actions are not deterministic of Israel being "evil" or "not evil".
The first two were just Jon Stewart making a joke about how questioning zionism leads to backlash (which is true) ie didn't happen.
The third is has people about half way through talking about how protesters in the israeli occupied west half of Jerusalem are being met with violence. Although this is a perfectly good example of jews being at odds with israel, it is not proof that this is happening often.
The fourth one really has nothing to do with jews protesting the israeli gov't and being met with backlash, it's actually just a comparison of the israeli government's actions to those of the nazis.
There is a culture of jewish protests against israeli aggression. I dont know how prevalent it is in USA, but its pretty well known across europe and the uk.
He isn't exactly in conflict with, or being harassed by the Israeli gov't.
There is a culture of jewish protests against israeli aggression. I dont know how prevalent it is in USA, but its pretty well known across europe and the uk.
Again, they are not in conflict.
There are quite a few jews who resent the recent actions of the Israeli state, or even the legitimacy of her sovereignty. Unless, of course by "at odds" you meant that they simply disagree with each other.
Not every anti zionist is a nazi or a terrorist or a self hating jew...
Not every Israeli supporter is a zionazi, or a religious supremacist, or a war mongering child murderer.
I think the crux of this issue, for those of us outside the US or Israel, is
1 massively disproportionate civilian death total
2 Israeli encroachment on commonly agreed and recognised palestinian land
3 Actual oppression of a populous through control and disrespect for human rights
4 culture of dehumanisation and thinly veiled supremacist ideas - non human v civilized etc.
5 The use of USA to validate this bullshit, and to act as israels sponsor and their drug dealer, as to paraphrase the today show.
6 effective blocking of palestines recourse to law
Theres a few other things for sure, and of course hamas are not exactly defined by their passivity and liberal western values, but the bottom line is Israel is meant to be a western state, with good values, and at the same time it is acting as a tyrant and a dehumanising slaughterer of civilians.
Not every anti zionist is a nazi or a terrorist or a self hating jew... Not every Israeli supporter is a zionazi, or a religious supremacist, or a war mongering child murderer.
1 massively disproportionate civilian death total
If we're going to determine how "evil" a nation is, we should go by their attempts to kill people, not just the rate of success. Again, Palestine has fired a far greater volume of missiles, Israel is simply much more capable of shooting it down.
2 Israeli encroachment on commonly agreed and recognised palestinian land
Again... Agreed upon by whom?
3 Actual oppression of a populous through control and disrespect for human rights 4 culture of dehumanisation and thinly veiled supremacist ideas - non human v civilized etc. 5 The use of USA to validate this bullshit, and to act as israels sponsor and their drug dealer, as to paraphrase the today show. 6 effective blocking of palestines recourse to law
All bad things, but like I've said, which nation wouldn't be evil if we used this as the metric?
1 I tend to judge people on their actions. Everything else is talk. Israel killed 1800 people and 300 CHILDREN. I dont use capitals a lot. But CHILDREN deserves to be capitalised in any war. Hamas killed 3 (CHILDREN?) and 64 Israeli forces.
Propaganda doesnt justify calling one guy a terrorist in an asymmetrical war, for killing 3 (CHILDREN?), and calling the other one a responsible freedom loving top 1st world government for killing 1800 people and 300 CHILDREN.
Leveling towns isnt terrorism? The palestinian people have been perpetually terrorised for voting the wrong way in a "free and fair election". Bin laden would be proud of Israeli efforts to minimise civilian slaughter.
2 You contend that there is no commonly accepted border, because of the context of a wider dispute. I disagree. Anyone who wants to research this will see that im right. There is such a thing as commonly established palestinian land, arguably even to israel, but it has zero actual respect from israeli actions i-n p-e-a-c-e-t-i-m-e. In short their is no peacetime, just perpetual israeli rape of palestine interrupted by hamas rockets, mass slaughter from israel, and the odd US vetoed resolution at the united nations. Then every 4 years AIPAC stand as both parties in the american election, shoot down anyone that disagrees with the barbarism and the whole thing goes round again.
3 most first would nations didnt massacre 1800 people and 300 kids in the last quarter, on their own border, or (even worse) in their own land. Most first world nations do not have a glorified concentration camp in their own land either. America has guantanamo, a shity war in afghanistan and indian reservations. It doesnt go slaughtering indian reservations for firing rockets, and nor would it. Uk has northern ireland and falklands. It doesnt really hold that either are a parallel for israeli aggression here though. Both these geographical entities would secure a (local) voting majority for the status quo.
No big nation is blameless, but by far the biggest sin of most of the west, is arming terrorists with a pass, like saudi arabia and israel, and supporting these nations. Internet stasi and drone planes of course make up the bulk of the other sins.
1 I tend to judge people on their actions. Everything else is talk. Israel killed 1800 people and 300 CHILDREN. I dont use capitals a lot. But CHILDREN deserves to be capitalised in any war. Hamas killed 3 (CHILDREN?) and 64 Israeli forces.
This is not judging people by their actions, this is judging them by what their actions have accomplished. I have already pointed out that this metric would make many, many nations "evil", and that Palestine has fired far more missiles, and they simply get shot down.
Propaganda doesnt justify calling one guy a terrorist in an asymmetrical war, for killing 3 (CHILDREN?), and calling the other one a responsible freedom loving top 1st world government for killing 1800 people and 300 CHILDREN.
Did I ever say that "propaganda" justifies anything?
Leveling towns isnt terrorism? The palestinian people have been perpetually terrorised for voting the wrong way in a "free and fair election". Bin laden would be proud of Israeli efforts to minimise civilian slaughter.
Another. Loaded. Proposition. You asked me which one is the terrorist. That doesn't mean that leveling a town isn't terrorism.
2 You contend that there is no commonly accepted border, because of the context of a wider dispute. I disagree. Anyone who wants to research this will see that im right. There is such a thing as commonly established palestinian land, arguably even to israel, but it has zero actual respect from israeli actions i-n p-e-a-c-e-t-i-m-e. In short their is no peacetime, just perpetual israeli rape of palestine interrupted by hamas rockets, mass slaughter from israel, and the odd US vetoed resolution at the united nations. Then every 4 years AIPAC stand as both parties in the american election, shoot down anyone that disagrees with the barbarism and the whole thing goes round again.
I asked twice, "agreed upon by whom?". I ask that you provide what you feel is a "commonly agreed upon" border. If I did state that there is no "commonly accepted border, feel free to cite me and we will address that.
Anyone who wants to research this will see that im right.
A pervasive attitude in debate, known as "naive realism".
3 most first would nations didnt massacre 1800 people and 300 kids in the last quarter, on their own border, or (even worse) in their own land. Most first world nations do not have a glorified concentration camp in their own land either. America has guantanamo, a shity war in afghanistan and indian reservations. It doesnt go slaughtering indian reservations for firing rockets, and nor would it. Uk has northern ireland and falklands. It doesnt really hold that either are a parallel for israeli aggression here though. Both these geographical entities would secure a (local) voting majority for the status quo.
Less arguably Austrailia, and more arguably Canada (although that appears to be disputed).
(what doesn't need a link here)
Germany and Italy- Concentration camps
France (think of any of numerous radical gov't to take power and engage in political purge)
China- Great leap forward (acknowledged second world)
Russia- Purges under Stalin (acknowledged second world)
UK- Conquest of Irish land leading to great potato famine
So, yeah. "Most" is a fair enough assessment.
but by far the biggest sin of most of the west, is arming terrorists with a pass, like saudi arabia and israel, and supporting these nations. Internet stasi and drone planes of course make up the bulk of the other sins.
No, not even close. My links above are enough evidence of this, although they only describe the most significant (not all) purges on their own soil, which is not even the whole of evil deeds on their own soil, and doesn't include their evil acts outside of their own soil.
consequences speak to actions far more than intent does. we socially judge murderers on results of their actions, we dont lock people up for wishing them dead. although murder is murder, the only reason to assume israel has the authority to go out and kill 300 kids, in a biased and blinkered belief in their authority, which is once more, another circular argument in favor of israel.
ie israel was defending itself!
Someone throws a rock through my window, because im occupying their house, and denying them access to legal recourse, and cutting off their electricity and aid, etc. So i burn down their whole street.
Nope. Im going to jail for that one.
terrorism is a bullshit word, and frankly it should be applied to the people that trade on it, or discountinued for accurate language at this point.
define terrorism? scaring people? targetting innocents? allowing innocents to be part of your target? "lets use accurate language", is probably the best way of addressing this.
Israeli settlements[1] are the Israeli civilian communities[i] built on lands occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and in the Golan Heights. Settlements also existed in the Sinai and Gaza Strip until Israel evacuated the Sinai settlements following the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace agreement and from the Gaza Strip in 2005 under Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. Israel dismantled 18 settlements in the Sinai Peninsula in 1982, and all 21 in the Gaza Strip and 4 in the West Bank in 2005,[2] but continues to both expand its settlements and settle new areas in the West Bank,[3][4][5][6][7] despite being condemned by 158 out of 166 nations in one vote, and 160 nations out of 171 nations in a different vote, in the UN.
thank you wikipedia, the enemy of disingenuity everywhere ...
naive realism my ass.
Your examples of civilian slaughter by first world countries are all historical. It is specifically because of the prevalence of atrocity in our history, stemming from dehumanisation in disputes and naive supremacism, that we attack these things in our world today, especially when it features aggressors who cloak themselves in the bloody raincoat of holier than thou, western first world ally.
The potato famine was arguably worse than the holocaust. It doesnt mean its happening now.
consequences speak to actions far more than intent does. we socially judge murderers on results of their actions, we dont lock people up for wishing them dead. although murder is murder, the only reason to assume israel has the authority to go out and kill 300 kids, in a biased and blinkered belief in their authority, which is once more, another circular argument in favor of israel.
ie israel was defending itself!
Once more?! When did I say that Israel's authority gives them a moral credential?
In a matter of how they are understood to have happened, yes, they do. However, that does not mean that we should disregard Palestine's attempts of "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades.", or the far greater volume of missiles that Palestine has fired.
Someone throws a rock through my window, because im occupying their house, and denying them access to legal recourse, and cutting off their electricity and aid, etc. So i burn down their whole street.
Nope. Im going to jail for that one.
Well... This is a strange substitute for "commonly accepted border".
terrorism is a bullshit word, and frankly it should be applied to the people that trade on it, or discountinued for accurate language at this point.
define terrorism? scaring people? targetting innocents? allowing innocents to be part of your target? "lets use accurate language", is probably the best way of addressing this.
Palestine sending a far greater volume of missiles, despite failing to succeed, is still targeting innocents.
Israeli settlements[1] are the Israeli civilian communities[i] built on lands occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and in the Golan Heights. Settlements also existed in the Sinai and Gaza Strip until Israel evacuated the Sinai settlements following the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace agreement and from the Gaza Strip in 2005 under Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. Israel dismantled 18 settlements in the Sinai Peninsula in 1982, and all 21 in the Gaza Strip and 4 in the West Bank in 2005,[2] but continues to both expand its settlements and settle new areas in the West Bank,[3][4][5][6][7] despite being condemned by 158 out of 166 nations in one vote, and 160 nations out of 171 nations in a different vote, in the UN.
thank you wikipedia, the enemy of disingenuity everywhere ...
Close to being an example "commonly accepted borders" , but no cigar.
naive realism my ass.
Okay then.
Your examples of civilian slaughter by first world countries are all historical. It is specifically because of the prevalence of atrocity, stemming from dehumanisation in disputes and naive supremacism, that we attack these things in our world today, especially when it features aggressors who cloak themselves in the bloody raincoat of holier than thou, western first world ally.
The potato famine was arguably worse than the holocaust. It doesnt mean its happening now.
Yes, they are indeed historical. The 1800 citizens and 300 children being murdered is also historical, as they all deal in past events.
EDIT: For some reason, my arguments are in bold and yours were italicized. Fixed
1 nope. ie israel claimed self defence, while murdering 1800 people and 300 kids because someone killed 3 of their citizens.
History is full of great nations, built on the embers of hate and claims that they would annihilate the enemy, when they were in active conflict with them. Once again, look at the IRA and Northern Ireland. The irish are one of the few white nations that have never had an empire or shown any interest in its trappings. Yet, you put brits in their land, and they will burn down your house and blow up your shopping centre. 20 years of peace, and you have the queen appologising and martin mcguinnes shaking her hand.
I gave you a wikipedia definition of the commonly accepted borders. Its also backed by a massively lopsided series of votes at the UN, all vetoed by USA, im sure.
Im not going to sit here as an independent thinker and instinctive humanist, and say that hamas is beyond reproach. How about you consider hamas the legitimate government of their own land, and israel as a terrorist organisation attacking them, and then pivot back to your viewpoint, without the rampant brainwashing that killing 1000s is good when israel do it, and 3 people died "terrorism" when hamas do it.
158 out of 166 nations in one vote, and 160 nations out of 171 nations in a different vote, in the UN.
thats more than voted to create the state of israel in the first place. if you dont believe thats legitimacy, then tell your boys to move out.
actually 1800 deaths and 300 kids being murdered isnt history, its contemporary.
history is generally considered the past, as in the historical past, not as in contemporary and ongoing disputes that are still being divulged.
i agree that the history of the middle east shapes this conflict, but so does the shit that happened in the last year or so, and the actual circumstances on the ground now. i dont think the contemporary plight of the palestinians as we type this, should be considered history.
1 nope. ie israel claimed self defence, while murdering 1800 people and 300 kids because someone killed 3 of their citizens.
History is full of great nations, built on the embers of hate and claims that they would annihilate the enemy, when they were in active conflict with them. Once again, look at the IRA and Northern Ireland. The irish are one of the few white nations that have never had an empire or shown any interest in its trappings. Yet, you put brits in their land, and they will burn down your house and blow up your shopping centre. 20 years of peace, and you have the queen appologising and martin mcguinnes shaking her hand.
I gave you a wikipedia definition of the commonly accepted borders. Its also backed by a massively lopsided series of votes at the UN, all vetoed by USA, im sure.
The wikipedia "definition" in italics that was copy pasted into your argument was a description of the UN's disapproval of Israel's expansion, not a description of "commonly accepted" borders.
What exactly in my first and second paragraph are you refuting?
Im not going to sit here as an independent thinker and instinctive humanist, and say that hamas is beyond reproach. How about you consider hamas the legitimate government of their own land, and israel as a terrorist organisation attacking them, and then pivot back to your viewpoint, without the rampant brainwashing that killing 1000s is good when israel do it, and 3 people died "terrorism" when hamas do it.
Strawman; I already said that the murder of 1800 citizens, 300 children, and the leveling of a village is bad. Also, before you accuse me of holding this viewpoint, you should provide evidence (ie cite where I said that it was good?) The claim that my viewpoint has "rampant brainwashing" is still ad-hom, and based on an unfounded accusation, it also does not address my arguments. Let's not turn this into a throwdown of insults.
158 out of 166 nations in one vote, and 160 nations out of 171 nations in a different vote, in the UN.
thats more than voted to create the state of israel in the first place. if you dont believe thats legitimacy, then tell your boys to move out.
My boys?
No, I was not raised by jews. I neither adopt nor have a positive view of judaism. I agree with UN's decision to establish the state of Israel. However, in arguing that I therefore must also agree with their other decisions because of this, you've committed the association fallacy:
Basic syllogism of the Association Fallacy:
Premise A is a B
Premise A is also a C
Conclusion Therefore, all Bs are Cs
Let:
Israels foundation = A
Stickers opinions = B
the UN's opinions = C
Premise: Israels foundation is approved of by Stickers opinions
Premise Israels foundation is also approved of by the UN's opinions
Conclusion Therefore, all of Stickers opinions are the UN's opinions
You may dismiss this as well with "my ass" if you please, but it is still here, clear as day.
actually 1800 deaths and 300 kids being murdered isnt history, its contemporary.
This is arguing semantics, through a false dichotomy. These two things are not mutually exclusive. Note that I did not deny that it is contemporary. Also, merriam webster begs to differ. By arguing that it is a matter of it being a contemporary or historical event, you've also committed the Black and White Fallacy.
history is generally considered the past, as in the historical past,
I have not argued against this.
not as in contemporary and ongoing disputes that are still being divulged.
i agree that the history of the middle east shapes this conflict, but so does the shit that happened in the last year or so, and the actual circumstances on the ground now. i dont think the contemporary plight of the palestinians as we type this, should be considered history.
The murders of 1800 citizens and 300 children is not an ongoing dispute, and is not going on as we type. Their deaths have been recorded, and I'm guessing that most of them have been buried (the proper way) by now. Either way, their deaths are an event, in the past, that have been recorded
Im not hear to insult you, but I do admonish the culture of lies and deceit that built an anti palestine, pro israel consensus in one country in the whole of the planet earth.
Stickers, "tell israel to move out" if you dont agree with the united nations legitimacy as an international mediator and system. How about that?
Arguing history vs contemporary is not semantics, its the critical issue. You are trying to justify the evil of today in a historical context that is completely and utterly archiac to the times we are in.
You logic on this point is about as good as " america used to have slaves so therefore I can have slaves now".
You judge nations on their actions in the times they are in. Not just set up false comparisons between supposedly first world nations today, and the barbarity of the past. Do you honestly maintain that israel could set up a holocaust and germany couldnt say anything, because of hitler? We learn from the past. Thats the whole point. If you ignore this international consensus, then thats a choice, but its a north korea choice, not a first world one.
People are still dying and being added to the total. It most definitely is a contemporary story.
Stickers, "tell israel to move out" if you dont agree with the united nations legitimacy as an international mediator and system. How about that?
The legitimacy of the united nations is irrelevant. It is possible for me to agree with them on one matter, and disagree on the other.
You logic on this point is about as good as " america used to have slaves so therefore I can have slaves now".
You judge nations on their actions in the times they are in. Not just set up false comparisons between supposedly first world nations today, and the barbarity of the past. Do you honestly maintain that israel could set up a holocaust and germany couldnt say anything, because of hitler? We learn from the past. Thats the whole point. If you ignore this international consensus, then thats a choice, but its a north korea choice, not a first world one.
No, my reasoning isn't that x, y, and z did a, so its okay. My reasoning is that if x and y are evil because of doing a, and z did a, then z must also be evil.
People are still dying and being added to the total. It most definitely is a contemporary story.
Yep, you definitely misunderstood. I've already said that they are not mutually exclusive, and that events can be both contemporary and historical.
We can start with cutting all aid to Israel, and waiting for them to earn it back, rather than the current plan of giving it to them off the cusp and then taking it away when they screwed up.
After that, I'm pretty sure that Israel will conquer Palestine by itself, then eventually retreat past the 1967 borders once controlling so many Palestines gets out of hand (again).
Two state solution. A demilitarised zone. A big fucking wall. Complete and irrevocable separation and total independence.
Then if Palestine attacks, Israel can stomp them, and let the arab league/ un or whoever, pick up the pieces.
Maybe this is something the weapons industries and the zionists dont want. but if you want peace and a 1st world israel, that can actually relax and have a booming nation industrially and functionally, then its desirable to 1 separate, and 2 promote palestinian independence.
"a 1st world israel, that can actually relax" - how good would that be.
"a functional palestine, whose economy, aid and independence allows its people to have stability, and pride, and some future of prosperity. " how good would that be?
Peace isnt a dream. It is the most profitable and functional solution in most circumstances.
I think you need 2 independent states. Beyond that point, you have a degree of legitimacy in the self defence argument. Its not self defence if you are already attacking them when they respond, and israels perpetual status and process is an attack. I dont think Israels existence is an attack, and I do think to some degree people who want jews to move out of israel as delusional. however the continued infringement on Palestinian sovereignty and basic rights as a people, is an attack.
If the IDF is so moral please explain why close to 2,000 Palestinians have been murdered by the IDF whereas less than 100 Israelis have been killed in the most recent conflict?
It could be that in Israel they actively encourage citizens to take cover in one of the many structures they have built to defend against rocket attack whereas Hamas actively encourages people to stay put and be martyrs for the cause of victim publicity.
all the proof is in the evidence, too many, and ironically self acclaimed morally superior and far from it, ironically carrying themselves as their past oppressors. the nation is being taught a rewritten history which is evident in their childrens schoolbooks which have strange teachings in them. look for the evidence and you will easily find.
First of all, I don't really support the absolutes in this debate. One should not be pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. With that being said, I believe Israel has the right to defend itself. I also believe they need to do a much better job of avoiding civilian deaths. However, the strategy of Hamas to use human shields and play the civilian death card to gain media support is despicable.
Have you forgotten that Hamas is a terrorist organization? They have launched thousands of rockets at Israel. Fortunately, not many have been harmed but their intent is clearly malicious.
My contention with the israel has the right to defend herself argument, is that 1 israel is in the a state of perpetual aggression against palestine, and their reaction to palestines right to defend herself is massive and disproportionate slaughter.
Israel is in their land, oppressing their people, and blocking their legal recourse.
So Israel is not defending itself in my humble opinion. Israel is escalating its own aggression, in the face of palestinian defending herself, against israels rape of her nation and peoples.
Human shields is a dehumanising propaganda slogan in my mind. human shields dont kill people. dropping a multitude of indescriminate bombs in civilians areas and killing kids on beaches with zero justification, like dogs, kill people.
Human shields is just a catch all excuse APAIC and Israel use to explain their own evil. "Human shields" "anti semitism" "divine right to the land" "uncivilised muslims"...these arent actual arguments. they are excuses the evil tell, that depend on trust from the listener, to explain away their evil.
If bin laden said "the world trade center was an important strategic target, but the americans used human shields" would that warrant a pass?
Israel just killed 300 kids and half the 9/11 total in less than a year. Hamas killed like 3 people.
Israel is a terrorist organisation. Hamas is a kindergarten tantrum by comparison.
One killed 3 and the other killed 300 kids. Dont act like you understand intent, and you can vouch for the kiddie murderer.
It takes a fundamental divorce from reality to make these assertions. If you were out there on the ground with 300 dead kids, you wouldnt be trusting skin tone and fox news to explain the discrepancy.
My contention with the israel has the right to defend herself argument, is that 1 israel is in the a state of perpetual aggression against palestine
How so?
and their reaction to palestines right to defend herself is massive and disproportionate slaughter.
So you're suggesting that they allow the thousands of rockets launched by Hamas to kill civilians instead of shooting them down in order to make the death totals proportionate? That's terrible.
Israel is in their land, oppressing their people, and blocking their legal recourse.
Can you elaborate a bit on this?
So Israel is not defending itself in my humble opinion. Israel is escalating its own aggression, in the face of palestinian defending herself, against israels rape of her nation and peoples.
Both sides are escalating aggression obviously, I would say both should be recognized at fault. Israel has given Hamas several opportunities to have a humanitarian ceasefire, but this has consistently been shattered by continued rocket fire. How does that make Israel the evil nation?
Human shields is a dehumanising propaganda slogan in my mind. human shields dont kill people. dropping a multitude of indescriminate bombs in civilians areas and killing kids on beaches with zero justification, like dogs, kill people.
If storing and firing rockets from schools and other civilian areas does not fall under "human shield", I don't know what does. Civilian deaths could be much lower if these actions were not taken.
Human shields is just a catch all excuse APAIC and Israel use to explain their own evil. "Human shields" "anti semitism" "divine right to the land" "uncivilised muslims"...these arent actual arguments. they are excuses the evil tell, that depend on trust from the listener, to explain away their evil.
It certainly doesn't justify the killing. I completely agree. However, I don't think Israel should subsequently be painted as an evil, terrorist nation because of it. If Israel wanted to kill the civilians in Gaza, the entire region would virtually be no more.
If bin laden said "the world trade center was an important strategic target, but the americans used human shields" would that warrant a pass?
In what world is that even remotely related? Don't ruin your argument with that nonsense.
Israel just killed 300 kids and half the 9/11 total in less than a year. Hamas killed like 3 people.
Israel is a terrorist organisation. Hamas is a kindergarten tantrum by comparison.
One killed 3 and the other killed 300 kids. Dont act like you understand intent, and you can vouch for the kiddie murderer.
What don't I understand about intent? Hamas has made it clear that want to destroy Israel completely. You're basically saying that because Israel defends itself and cares much more about its citizens, it is a terrorist organization...
It takes a fundamental divorce from reality to make these assertions. If you were out there on the ground with 300 dead kids, you wouldnt be trusting skin tone and fox news to explain the discrepancy.
What assertions? I understand your frustration at Israel. I agree that the civilian death toll is way too high. But let me ask you, what should Israel do differently? What's your solution to this problem? It's very easy to sit there and complain and demand for peace, but it really is only productive if you put forth an alternative.
2 non sequiter. you can do better than that. thats a pure fox news non sequiter.
3 asked and answered.
4 completely disproportionate. drawing moral relativism between 3 dead kids and 300. israel has given hamas several opportunities to take it up the ass and not protest.
5 human shields is a propaganda tool. its more the just a slogan, so ill meet you in the middle there. hamas are hardly meeting israel in the desert for a one on one. on the other hand, who fucked with who in the first place? would america tolerate occupation, dehumanisation backed up with mass murder, persecution, oppression and general and genuine ownage in their own land like palestine is meant to? its a gross misrepresentation of the context to take an assemetrical war in a civilian area that is very small, bomb the shit out of it, and call it human shields. if the uk had done something like this in northern ireland it would have set the atlantic ocean and probably london alight. as in the irish would have burned down the capital, and the americans would have supported them.
6 human shields is a bullshit misrepresentation of whats actually happening out there imho.
google "telegraph panorama of a town destroyed in gaza", and you will see where israel basically levelled a town. fuckin "human shields"...
7 exactly the same principle. kill 1000s and blame the victims...bin laden "didnt hate americans" he just killed 3000 of them on a political religious pretext that had zero to do with their everyday lives, and was based on a spurious and morally and historically disgusting grand narrative claim of group culpability.
dehumanisation. collateral damage. human shields. part of the machine.
dehamasinisation is a beautiful beautiful thing, if you are a war mongering child murderer, eager to justify your bullshit.
8 intent is hostage to bias. thats one of the first rules of war. representations of intent are completely poisoned by the biased nature of our sources.
we dont get hamas on american tv or owning all the channels. zionism, aipac and the jewish lobby is huge in american media and government.. palestine and muslims simply are not.
intent is hostage to the same people that are systematically dehumanizing anyone who is brown and disagrees with them as "an evil muslim" and who is white and disagrees with them as "anti semitic" and who is jewish and disagrees with them as "self loathing jews!". these people do not play fair, or truthful and are only interested in attacking obstacles to their propaganda and butchery.
the current israeli prime minister sported Death to Arafat banners in the middle of a peace talk. israel was built on terrorism that predated the un resolution that made israel, and was attacking the same brits that fought to free jews in ww2.
get it through your head, in the nicest way possible, intent is hostage to propaganda, and israeli intent is absolutely poisoned by the same propaganda on the PR side of the eqaution.
Have hamas dehumanised jews? I wouldnt be surprised.
Have Israel and her friends dehumanised and demonised all opposition. - "does a bear shit in the woods?
9 i would characterise my position as revulsion with israel. im not in a small nation. im in a big nation with 100s of nukes, just like israel. only we dont get foreign aid, dont have conscription and have a top 10 gdp.
we dont kill 1600 people in one go and 300 kids. britain has a dirty history and issues with terrorism. we also sell arms to some of the dirtiest nations on earth. britain wouldnt kill 1800 irish and 300 kids, if IRA started firing rockets, or killed 3 brits.
this situation needs sacred palestinian land, a demilitarised zone and a big wall. then you can invade if the rockets continue.
Israel have chosen option B. Build on their land. Oppress them. Use american veto to block and recourse to law, and use american political and media propaganda, to justify their bullshit. The massacre 1000s of them and 100s of their kids, if someone throws a brick through the window, and cunt off the UN and international law as anti semitic muslims, despite the fact you have the whole planet against you. America is israels only friend in this world. You only need to be american or israeli and turn on the internet to know this. ask any jewish person not living in israel or america what the entire planet thinks about this?
As for america, they are a big friend to have, but the world has turned and america simply isnt enough anymore, or reliable in her support, in the bigger picture.
Israel has real issues. Rather than becoming a 1st world nation, she would rather massacre hundreds of kids and further strain the one incredibly loyal and brainwashed friend she has in this whole world.
But this perpetual aggression is both ways, no? By that token, both sides are evil nations.
2 non sequiter. you can do better than that. thats a pure fox news non sequiter.
Fox News? I think that's the non sequiter. Both sides are launching thousands of rockets, but Israel is more capable of defending its civilians with air defense. I really hate this disproportionate response argument. Every war has disproportionate death tolls, that shouldn't be what makes one side evil and one the victim.
3 asked and answered.
Not at all.
4 completely disproportionate. drawing moral relativism between 3 dead kids and 300. israel has given hamas several opportunities to take it up the ass and not protest.
What? That's not at all what a cease fire entails...
5 human shields is a propaganda tool. its more the just a slogan, so ill meet you in the middle there. hamas are hardly meeting israel in the desert for a one on one. on the other hand, who fucked with who in the first place? would america tolerate occupation, dehumanisation backed up with mass murder, persecution, oppression and general and genuine ownage in their own land like palestine is meant to? its a gross misrepresentation of the context to take an assemetrical war in a civilian area that is very small, bomb the shit out of it, and call it human shields. if the uk had done something like this in northern ireland it would have set the atlantic ocean and probably london alight. as in the irish would have burned down the capital, and the americans would have supported them.
Israel has made efforts to send humanitarian aid to Gaza, yet Hamas has forcibly prevented it by not permitting civilians to utilize treatment at hospitals created by Israel for Palestinians. I would say that is the opposite of dehumanization. You're clearly ignoring all the measures that Israel takes to prevent civilian deaths. They consistently warn residents of subsequent bombing sites, while Hamas wants them to stay (again, often forcibly). http://www.jta.org/2014/07/13/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/hamas-calls-on-palestinian-civilians-to- remain-in-homes-in-face-of-israeli-warningss
Are you seeing where this is going? Hamas has no concern for their citizens except their deaths as martyrs.
7 exactly the same principle. kill 1000s and blame the victims...bin laden "didnt hate americans" he just killed 3000 of them on a political religious pretext that had zero to do with their everyday lives, and was based on a spurious and morally and historically disgusting grand narrative claim of group culpability.
The whole intent of 9/11 was to kill Americans and create terror! That's the bottom line. Israel is not celebrating the deaths of civilians in Gaza. This comparison is horribly misguided.
8 intent is hostage to bias. thats one of the first rules of war. representations of intent are completely poisoned by the biased nature of our sources.
we dont get hamas on american tv or owning all the channels. zionism, aipac and the jewish lobby is huge in american media and government.. palestine and muslims simply are not.
Right, but how does that contribute to Israel being evil? That's just media. Besides, recovered manuals have made it clear the intent and strategy of Hamas. Your denial of their clear utilization of human shields is where the bias lies. http://nypost.com/2014/08/05/hamas-manual-details-civilian-death-plan-israel/
intent is hostage to the same people that are systematically dehumanizing anyone who is brown and disagrees with them as "an evil muslim" and who is white and disagrees with them as "anti semitic" and who is jewish and disagrees with them as "self loathing jews!". these people do not play fair, or truthful and are only interested in attacking obstacles to their propaganda and butchery.
What people are you referring to, may I ask?
get it through your head, in the nicest way possible, intent is hostage to propaganda, and israeli intent is absolutely poisoned by the same propaganda on the PR side of the eqaution.
Have hamas dehumanised jews? I wouldnt be surprised.
Have Israel and her friends dehumanised and demonised all opposition. - "does a bear shit in the woods?
There is propaganda in every war. Don't tell me that countries who fight do not characterize their opponent as evil and demonic. Quite honestly, you're just contributing to the problem by framing Israel as a terrorist state.
9 i would characterise my position as revulsion with israel. im not in a small nation. im in a big nation with 100s of nukes, just like israel. only we dont get foreign aid, dont have conscription and have a top 10 gdp.
we dont kill 1600 people in one go and 300 kids. britain has a dirty history and issues with terrorism. we also sell arms to some of the dirtiest nations on earth. britain wouldnt kill 1800 irish and 300 kids, if IRA started firing rockets, or killed 3 brits.
this situation needs sacred palestinian land, a demilitarised zone and a big wall. then you can invade if the rockets continue.
What do you mean by sacred palestinian land? Who would be in charge of constructing the wall?
Israel have chosen option B. Build on their land. Oppress them. Use american veto to block and recourse to law, and use american political and media propaganda, to justify their bullshit. The massacre 1000s of them and 100s of their kids, if someone throws a brick through the window, and cunt off the UN and international law as anti semitic muslims, despite the fact you have the whole planet against you. America is israels only friend in this world. You only need to be american or israeli and turn on the internet to know this. ask any jewish person not living in israel or america what the entire planet thinks about this?
As for america, they are a big friend to have, but the world has turned and america simply isnt enough anymore, or reliable in her support, in the bigger picture.
Israel has real issues. Rather than becoming a 1st world nation, she would rather massacre hundreds of kids and further strain the one incredibly loyal and brainwashed friend she has in this whole world.
That's ridiculous. Acting as though racism only flows one way is just ignorant. Practically all of Europe is showing anti-Semitic tendencies, as if Jews everywhere are an outcrop of Israel. Frankly, it hasn't really even gotten much coverage in the United States, so I question your contention that the American media is strictly pro-Israel.
As for your option B, do you believe that Israel should stop fighting and responding to attacks?
1 Nope. Only one is occupying the other and denying them their rights, perpetually.
2 You accuse my of wanting more israelis dead, because I mentioned the ridiculously disproportionate civilian death totals. Does the jewish uprising justify the holocaust? Your argument is silly.
3 many times.
4 You are saying both sides are bad. Only one killed 300 kids tho.
5 Israel has prevented aid to gaza by western european nations and attacked any number of innocuous and benevolent groups. Bin laden would be proud of israels efforts to prevent civilian deaths. They have killed half the 9/11 total in the last month. Human shields is a carte blanche excuse to kill 1000s of people. They are not human shields. They are human beings that Israel dropped a shit load of explosives on, and then blamed Hamas for their deaths. Blaming the victim is ridiculous. Hamas didn't kill them, Israel did. Its like bin laden blaming bush for 9/11.
Once again, Google "telegraph Israel destroy Gaza town" and look at the panoramic photo of a town levelled by Israel. Human shields? GTFO
7 The whole intent of 9/11 was to divide the great religions and inspire a jihaad by toppling a symbol of american imperial might. It was bloody art work, and symbolic terrorism. Painting flags with peoples lives. Thats why its evil and its also why OBL could and did make exactly the same blame the victim excuses to justify his bs.
The only thing thats terrible misguided is you A not realising half the 9/11 total just died, and B not seeing them as valid human beings, like you would the 9/11 victims. innocent is innocent. 300 kids didnt die on 9/11 either.
8 Its not "just media". American media is propaganda and israeli connects have a controlling hand and interest in american media. Thats why its completely different to the rest of the worlds media on this issue. You blaming hamas for israel dropping explosives on 1800 people and 300 children is where the bias lies. Blame the victim rhetoric... Hamas didnt kill those kids, Israel did.
9 Sovereignty is sacred.
10 Europe isnt anti semetic. Israel is getting shit for killing 100s of kids. Maybe stop killing 100s of kids and then tell me they hate israel for no reason.
There are far more anti black and anti muslim attacks in europe than anti semetic and as some of the strongest opposition to israels actions comes from western europe and even jewish people,. i dont think you have much of an argument here. If ukraine and a few muslim states hate you, then fair enough. when its nations like iceland and brazil and norway, then you dont have much of an argument. You need to ask yourself why the entire world outside of america, basically hates israel. Anti semitism doesn cut it. Its misunderstanding or its understanding something you dont,. And given the numbers involved, the breadth of nations with zero political affiliations and the fact that you are living in israels one ally, and drinking from the fountain of its demonstrably biased and poisoned media, Id make you the odd one out.
1 Nope. Only one is occupying the other and denying them their rights, perpetually.
What rights are being denied?
2 You accuse my of wanting more israelis dead, because I mentioned the ridiculously disproportionate civilian death totals. Does the jewish uprising justify the holocaust? Your argument is silly.
Well the crux of your argument is based on disproportionate death tolls. I'm making the case that Israel is much better at defending its citizens. Don't pretend Hamas wouldn't completely wipe out Israel if they had the weaponry that Israel does.
3 many times.
Alright, so just to be clear, you are making the case that because Israel effectively controls the borders of Gaza, it is an evil nation? Because if so, several dozen other nations around the world are also evil, the United States and Britain included.
4 You are saying both sides are bad. Only one killed 300 kids tho.
You missed the point completely.
5 Israel has prevented aid to gaza by western european nations and attacked any number of innocuous and benevolent groups. Bin laden would be proud of israels efforts to prevent civilian deaths. They have killed half the 9/11 total in the last month. Human shields is a carte blanche excuse to kill 1000s of people. They are not human shields. They are human beings that Israel dropped a shit load of explosives on, and then blamed Hamas for their deaths. Blaming the victim is ridiculous. Hamas didn't kill them, Israel did. Its like bin laden blaming bush for 9/11.
Alright, if you're going to blatantly ignore evidence I'm not going to continue this debate. They are human shields, and I'm not blaming the victim, I'm blaming Hamas. What part of storing weapons and firing from civilian areas and subsequently forcing citizens to remain in these zones to either be killed as martyrs or prevent the attacks is ethical?
Golda Meir was right. “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”
Once again, Google "telegraph Israel destroy Gaza town" and look at the panoramic photo of a town levelled by Israel. Human shields? GTFO
How is the destruction of a town evidence against human shields?
7 The whole intent of 9/11 was to divide the great religions and inspire a jihaad by toppling a symbol of american imperial might. It was bloody art work, and symbolic terrorism. Painting flags with peoples lives. Thats why its evil and its also why OBL could and did make exactly the same blame the victim excuses to justify his bs.
Once again, I'm not blaming the victim. Of course, electing Hamas was not a brilliant idea. The comparison is far-fetched.
The only thing thats terrible misguided is you A not realising half the 9/11 total just died, and B not seeing them as valid human beings, like you would the 9/11 victims. innocent is innocent. 300 kids didnt die on 9/11 either.
I have already recognized that their deaths are tragic, and their lives are just as important as mine.
8 Its not "just media". American media is propaganda and israeli connects have a controlling hand and interest in american media. Thats why its completely different to the rest of the worlds media on this issue. You blaming hamas for israel dropping explosives on 1800 people and 300 children is where the bias lies. Blame the victim rhetoric... Hamas didnt kill those kids, Israel did.
I just really wish you would understand that when someone launches thousands of rockets at you, you can't turn around and blame them for retaliating by doing the exact same thing!
There are far more anti black and anti muslim attacks in europe than anti semetic and as some of the strongest opposition to israels actions comes from western europe and even jewish people,. i dont think you have much of an argument here. If ukraine and a few muslim states hate you, then fair enough. when its nations like iceland and brazil and norway, then you dont have much of an argument. You need to ask yourself why the entire world outside of america, basically hates israel. Anti semitism doesn cut it. Its misunderstanding or its understanding something you dont,. And given the numbers involved, the breadth of nations with zero political affiliations and the fact that you are living in israels one ally, and drinking from the fountain of its demonstrably biased and poisoned media, Id make you the odd one out.
Argumentum ad populum. Just saying. I'm not saying most countries don't hate Israel. They have every right to hold that opinion. But when it escalates into anti-Semitism, there is a big problem.
Also the 300 dead kids, isnt an appeal to emotion or a fallacious argument. Its a fact. Israel slaughtered 300 children, in response to losing 3 people, in a war they are constantly instigating. Dont draw up rules of war, when Israel constantly avoids international justice and half their cabinet are banned from visiting european nations for war crimes. They are fucked up bro. When its 300 dead israeli kids, come back and tell me hamas was justified because israel took out 3 of theirs.
And acting like its some kind of fair war, when palestine is basically not allowed to be an independent nation, and its constantly being encroached upon by israel is bs too.
There are pretty much no Palestinians, most of them are Egyptians. If they can claim Israel's land then Italy can claim most of Europe because Rome once ruled it...
That was never Palestinian land. They forfeit that right to call it their land when they attacked the Jews in 1948.
2 Palestine seek recourse to international law, and are blocked by Americas veto, despite the fact the resolution is backed by the world.
By what account? Most of the European world supports Israelis rights to defend themselves.
3 Denied international justice Palestine defend their land with rockets, an escalation eventually killing 64 soldiers and 3 Israeli civilians.
Maybe you were kissing up to Obama at that time. May I help you while you take a break from smoking pot. The Palestinian terrorist attacked Israel first by kidnapping and killing 3 civilians.
4 Israel respond to the rockets by escalating a campaign of violence on the palestinian people, killing 1600 civilians and 300 children.
Well they have 2 places to go. They can run into the ocean or run into the Israelis. Egypt has rejected their kind due to them being a pain in the ass to the Egyptians too. They are scum. They hide behind civilians as they shoot rockets.
Critical points -
1 Palestine is denied sanctity of its land.
Again, there is no such thing as Palestine. They ruined that by attacking the Jews in 1948.
2 Palestine is denied international justice or recourse to justice.
At least Israel didn't commit genocide like Serbia, Russia, and China has.
3 Palestine is subject to a massively disproportionate massacre of its citizens.
You don't pay attention to other world events do you? Typical closed minded democrat.
top marks for "as I see it". Ill go easy on your child murderer sympathiser ass.
1 Theres international borders and frankly, history is not your friend here. Occupying force blah blah blah. The borders do exist. Building settlements on their land is obviously fucked up.
2 Most of the world supported or abstained whenever Palestine have resolutions. America vetos for no reason other than axis of zion. Israel is uniformly unpopular in every nation on earth outside of USA.
Furthermore its not seen, frames or understood as israel defending itself, when it oppresses palestine and then massacres her people. its seen as a barbaric rogue state tyrant, living in the wrong century and basically shitting on the name of white western nations everywhere.
3 Palestinians didnt start it, anymore than a rape victim is starting it by slapping an inserted attacker. You are forgetting the institutional oppression and occupation, not to mention the settlement building, aid embargoes and just basically everything.
4 Scum is the nation killing 300 kids. Just because one nation is a white looking nation, and the other is mooslim, doesnt mean we judge on us media propaganda. israel kills 100 times as many civilians. same way the nazis were cleaner and whiter than the jews, they were still scum.
human shield myth is pure dehumanising propaganda. goebbles would be proud. they are engaging in assemetrical warfare, from a small poor state. doesnt justify killing 1000s of civilians and 100s of children.
Human shield isnt responsible for their deaths. Dropping plane loads of indiscriminate bombs into civilian areas and shooting up civilians like dogs is.
1 There actually is. its a recognised overseer state actually. maybe you missed that vote. the same people that brought israel into existence brought palestine into it too.
2 hmm. in the same way slavery isnt technically genocide. i think its pretty hard to deny apartheid and war crimes.
3 im not part of your political spectrum. i didnt chose the donkey. its not the worst massacre happening, in the last decade, but its a travesty for any civilised nation to be acting this way to a neighbour or a protectorate state.
this is the big problem. what is palestine to you? apartheid israel, or the land next door you are occupying? you cant have it both ways.
real talk. israels name is shit in this world, because of this, and it is in no way a sustainable situation for israel. its a situation that puts the whole nation on the chopping block of history.
First, you are comparing a single person to a group of people; how does that even make sense? In my comparison, I was using two recognized nations that are in conflict with each other.
Secondly, you basically made the last part of your dispute up out of thin air. The Jewish community is not at all known for being "uncivilized", having a (morally) bad reputation, and exhibiting religious extremism or terrorism; already 4/6 of the information presented on Jews is inaccurate. The last two pieces of information (Third world people, and ruining germany) are only possibly accurate if you yourself are from Nazi-Germany.
In my argument, I presented pieces of information that are considered facts to majority of the world. In your dispute, you basically made a very poor comparison to my argument in an attempt to support your own personal opinion on the debate topic (which I'm assuming is that Israel is "evil").
In conclusion you have failed very hard at debating, you obviously pro-Palestinian person.
The muslim community isnt known for being uncivilised by anyone other than you.
Propaganda isnt an argument.
Let use facts. Oh yeah, one group killed 1800 and 300 kids and the other one killed 3 people.
Oh yeah, and nazi propaganda might be bs, but so is USA propaganda today. Using world opinion as a metric, Israel is the uncivilised one in this conflict and that's a little more people than america and her 5% of the corporate media led world.
Also Hitler spoke for nazi germany and was elected democratically on an anti semitic platform. So once again, its not a silly point, because it addresses the central fallacy of your argument.
One last time, your argument isnt agreed by the majority of the world, who are actually polled and absolutely detest israel in every country on earth apart from america.
The muslim community isnt known for being uncivilised by anyone other than you.
Propaganda isnt an argument.
LoL, Seriously? Ask anybody on this site if there are human-rights abuse in Islam, and they will say yes in a heartbeat. You could also just google it and get let's see... 76 900 000 results. You are hilarious in your defense of Islam.
Let use facts. Oh yeah, one group killed 1800 and 300 kids and the other one killed 3 people
And? It is stupid to base your moral outlook of countries on the amount of casualties they inflict to the opposing side.
Using world opinion as a metric, Israel is the uncivilised one in this conflict and that's a little more people than america and her 5% of the corporate media led world.
Got a source for this world opinion? If anything, I think more people consider Gaza more uncivilized than Israel; like seriously, Gaza has a Muslim-extremist terrorist group as a government (Hamas). Oh and now you think the US is using mass-media to sway world opinion on this topic? Please, GTFO.
Also Hitler spoke for nazi germany and was elected democratically on an anti semitic platform.
And?
So once again, its not a silly point, because it addresses the central fallacy of your argument.
Which is?
One last time, your argument isnt agreed by the majority of the world
Sure.
who are actually polled
Because I'm pretty sure it is possible to get an accurate survey result containing the population of the entire world. You are idiotic.
and absolutely detest israel in every country on earth apart from america
I am done debating with you. Jesus, you are the first person who has gotten me really agitated on this site in a while. Your disputes and arguments are stupid, just like you. Please, GTFO.
that doesnt make sense when the palestinians arent able to gain access to build, they are being opressed and dictated to. lol you said gaza the country
I would always choose the civilized nation over the backwards and barbaric one. Palestinians are islamists and islamists are fascists.
Also it is a fact that Jews originate from the Israel/Palestine region and that Palestinians are Arabs who have settled in the area following its conquest.
Palestine doesn't exist. There never has been a Palestinian state in history. Palestine was merely a name given to the region by a Roman emperor long before the Arabs known as Palestinians arrived.
First if all: Israel gave their some of their land to the Palestinians. All the land they have was given to them by God. Not already occupied. That land was theirs (Israelites) to begin with.
Second of all: Israelites are not evil but strictly Moral and will not allow any evil acts from other nations. Israel is our ally( Americas). Israel warns other nations and its citizens. No way they are evil.
Im not jewish, so your religious fanatic argument, really just seems like a religious fanatic argument. You are saying they believe they have a holy right to displace a population, because its really their land, because are religious fundamentalists?
Not really a coherent argument.
The UN gave jews a place to live, so im not sure where you misplaced that fact...
You seem to be confusing a massive influx of european jews with some kind of claim to primacy over indigenous populous. This is ridiculous.
Secondly - claiming a whole people are moral is dumber than claiming they are all evil. I claimed the nation is evil through its actions, not that israelites are all evil or that jews are. I do think Americans and Israelis and perhaps even jews are being made complicit in evil, but thats a different matter.
Where is the morality in the actions of israel? Stealing land, religious fanaticism, killing children, dehumanisation, religious and racial supremacist theory, building further into stolen land, oppression, etc.
Sounds like racial and religious supremacists. Definitely not a good thing.
Israel is commiting evil acts, and then complaining about the response, and forgetting its own evil acts and escalations. Israels actions are far worse than palestines and their status is far more economically and strategically secure. Israel is its own enemy and its own destroyer.
Israel is an American ally, so im told, but all they have done is destroy americas image around the world. What else has israel contributed to america?> because it seems like a leech sucking the blood from an elephant and giving it AIDs in the process.
Israel isnt in a position to warn anyone. They are a tiny country, trading on aid, and an illegal nuke program. Without US support they would either A have to grow up and stop fucking with people or B go to total war in a world that will not tolerate a total war.
Out of all the nuclear nations, israel is the one that is in the most warfare, and is constantly at the heart of wars and trouble in the world.
A bunch of euro jews with zero connection to the land, displaced a load of arabs and zionist links to america to fund their dirty and barbarous campaign of oppression and violence. Modern israel has nothing to do with history, and everything to do with evil, and the worlds greatest poor me story for when people call a tyrant a tyrant.
That and cult zombie religious fanaticism of course.
also, your geographical primacy argument basically states, euro Americans should be supplanted by native Americans, who will then oppress them, and slaughter their kids if they rebel against this oppression. Native Americans will come from all corners of the continent and drive the europeans into essentially what equates to captivity as lesser humans. The native americans can then build into what little land the euros have left, deny them recourse to law, through an eskimo veto at the united nations, and all because they owned the land 1000s of years ago. Oh my bad, that was only 100s of years ago. Then they native americans can join their spiritual fathers and fulfill their birthright, even if they are actually not really native americans, have never lived in that part of the world, and have the most tenuous link possible to the region. In fact these eskimos can come in and actually fuck with people who have native american blood and dna, because they are of the religion of native americans and the others have become influenced by the europeans. Thats what you are saying. Basically in other news, the english can fuck off, because the irish where there first, and australia is now a black only continent too.
You retort to facts was that their deity told them to do it. I knew a guy who was skitzophrenic one time. He used the same line when he stabbed someone. I imagine this is why Israel is avoiding the international court of human rights, at all costs.
"Their deity told them to do it." I guess you are a big fan of 9/11 as well then...
Thats a silly addition. You used that one in the ISIS thread, and hamas and ISIS are not the same thing at all. ISIS have declared war on hamas for being too soft and not being a true muslim society of 12 century laws etc.