5 ms·

Yes, it's perfectly clear and always was. One country is illegally occupying territories outside its borders, illegally annexing them, transferring their civili

Yes, it's perfectly clear and always was. One country is illegally occupying territories outside its borders, illegally annexing them, transferring their civilian population there, ethnically cleansing the natives, enforcing apartheid against those who remain, using its soldiers to protect its citizens when they engage in pogroms against the natives, periodically bombing them, stealing their water, destroying their crops- all while enjoying full diplomatic and military support from the West. Those who resist are deemed "terrorists", condemned and vilified, and are "eliminated", together with any civilians, women and children who happen to be in the way. This has been going on for decades while the Western media ignores most of it, reporting acts of resistance and terrorism from the oppressed side as if they were motivated by ideological hatred, and in general depicting the situation as "complicated"- a position you're now repeating without a second thought.

pegasus 1y ago
That's because you choose to look to only that one side of the story. Keeps things nice and tidy, it's true.
- netsharc 1y ago
  You write as if you really really don't want to see that side of the story.
  - pegasus 1y ago
    ...because it's always the ones who only look onto one side of the story who conclude things are not cut and dry.
  - tdeck 1y ago
    What's more interesting to me is that folks who support Israel often act as though their audience hasn't heard all these arguments before, and have't been passively absorbing pro-Israel propaganda for most of their lives. At least for those of us in the US, almost all we heard growing up about Israel was couched in sympathetic and positive terms. It's not as though there's a lack of Zionist perspective in a country where all the recent heads of state and political party leaders have been ideological Zionists.
    - cmilton 1y ago
      How can we ever have a good faith argument if you believe anyone that says something supportive of Israel has been indoctrinated to do so "most of their lives"?
      - throwawaybob420 1y ago
        A good faith argument? Brother who is committing genocide against the Palestinians right now?
        cmilton 1y ago
        If you would kindly provide your definition of genocide, I will happily engage.
        netsharc 1y ago
        Ah, diverting the argument whether killing innocents (hundreds of thousands and counting) is fine or not to an argument about what a word means... whatever helps you sleep at night. Next you can argue that this number is wrong, and since you believe the number is lower, then... it's not a big deal. Ironically, who introduced the phrase "good faith argument" in this yelling-at-each-other?
        cmilton 1y ago
        This is going to be difficult if we just assume my positions before allowing me the opportunity. What would be an acceptable number to you?
        netsharc 1y ago
        An acceptable number for me is 15027 civilian deaths. A farcical answer for a farcical question (which is also deflecting from the actual issue). You seem to want to have an argument about the borders of discussion, and are moaning that blah A, blah B, blah C, that some bored people on the Internet who are on "the other side" of the argument is doing is preventing you to have a discussion. You're having a "fight" but it's not even about the genocide ("Wait, what's a genocide!?! Define that!"), but about the terms of discussion.
- throw310822 1y ago
  "That one side of the story" are the facts on the ground. - One side is occupying the other's lands, not the other way around. - One side has killed most people, not the other way around. - One side has illegally annexed the other's territory, not the other way around. - One side enforces apartheid, not the other way around. - One side regularly destroys the other's villages, not the other way around. - One side steals water, destroys greenhouses and olive groves, imposes blockades- not the other way around. - One side is rich, organised, well armed, and has the full support of the West, not the other way around.
  - throwaway_fjmr 1y ago
    [dead]
  - pegasus 1y ago
    There are other facts on the ground which go the other way, you just choose to ignore them. Like the fact that one side has offered a two-state solution, the other has refused it. Or that one side is much more democratic than the other. That one side has been openly and proudly promoting exterminating the other side wholesale for much longer, and much more vocally than the other side. You could use an LLM to come up with more examples, then verify accuracy yourself. But then what would be left of your comfortable illusions of clarity?
    - tdeck 1y ago
      > Like the fact that one side has offered a two-state solution, True. Hamas has offered this since 2017 [1] but Israel has never honestly offered it. And it's practically impossible anyway at this point with all the illegal (under international law) settlements in the west bank, supported by the IDF. Something you wouldn't do if you were trying to move toward a "two state solution", but something you would do if that was just talk intended to delay any implementation of Palestinian human rights in Israeli occupied territory while finalizing a drawn out campaign of ethnic cleansing as fast as you think the US will allow. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-char...

pegasus 1y ago

That's because you choose to look to only that one side of the story. Keeps things nice and tidy, it's true.

netsharc 1y ago
You write as if you really really don't want to see that side of the story.
- pegasus 1y ago
  ...because it's always the ones who only look onto one side of the story who conclude things are not cut and dry.
- tdeck 1y ago
  What's more interesting to me is that folks who support Israel often act as though their audience hasn't heard all these arguments before, and have't been passively absorbing pro-Israel propaganda for most of their lives. At least for those of us in the US, almost all we heard growing up about Israel was couched in sympathetic and positive terms. It's not as though there's a lack of Zionist perspective in a country where all the recent heads of state and political party leaders have been ideological Zionists.
  - cmilton 1y ago
    How can we ever have a good faith argument if you believe anyone that says something supportive of Israel has been indoctrinated to do so "most of their lives"?
    - throwawaybob420 1y ago
      A good faith argument? Brother who is committing genocide against the Palestinians right now?
      - cmilton 1y ago
        If you would kindly provide your definition of genocide, I will happily engage.
        netsharc 1y ago
        Ah, diverting the argument whether killing innocents (hundreds of thousands and counting) is fine or not to an argument about what a word means... whatever helps you sleep at night. Next you can argue that this number is wrong, and since you believe the number is lower, then... it's not a big deal. Ironically, who introduced the phrase "good faith argument" in this yelling-at-each-other?
        cmilton 1y ago
        This is going to be difficult if we just assume my positions before allowing me the opportunity. What would be an acceptable number to you?
        netsharc 1y ago
        An acceptable number for me is 15027 civilian deaths. A farcical answer for a farcical question (which is also deflecting from the actual issue). You seem to want to have an argument about the borders of discussion, and are moaning that blah A, blah B, blah C, that some bored people on the Internet who are on "the other side" of the argument is doing is preventing you to have a discussion. You're having a "fight" but it's not even about the genocide ("Wait, what's a genocide!?! Define that!"), but about the terms of discussion.
throw310822 1y ago
"That one side of the story" are the facts on the ground. - One side is occupying the other's lands, not the other way around. - One side has killed most people, not the other way around. - One side has illegally annexed the other's territory, not the other way around. - One side enforces apartheid, not the other way around. - One side regularly destroys the other's villages, not the other way around. - One side steals water, destroys greenhouses and olive groves, imposes blockades- not the other way around. - One side is rich, organised, well armed, and has the full support of the West, not the other way around.
- throwaway_fjmr 1y ago
  [dead]
- pegasus 1y ago
  There are other facts on the ground which go the other way, you just choose to ignore them. Like the fact that one side has offered a two-state solution, the other has refused it. Or that one side is much more democratic than the other. That one side has been openly and proudly promoting exterminating the other side wholesale for much longer, and much more vocally than the other side. You could use an LLM to come up with more examples, then verify accuracy yourself. But then what would be left of your comfortable illusions of clarity?
  - tdeck 1y ago
    > Like the fact that one side has offered a two-state solution, True. Hamas has offered this since 2017 [1] but Israel has never honestly offered it. And it's practically impossible anyway at this point with all the illegal (under international law) settlements in the west bank, supported by the IDF. Something you wouldn't do if you were trying to move toward a "two state solution", but something you would do if that was just talk intended to delay any implementation of Palestinian human rights in Israeli occupied territory while finalizing a drawn out campaign of ethnic cleansing as fast as you think the US will allow. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-char...