5 ms·

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

by pegasus 1y ago

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.
        cmilton 1y ago
        If we can't agree on terms, how do we make sure we understand each other? I want to understand what your expectations of Israel were after October 7th. I believe my questions have been very specific, but I realize you have no desire to have an actual discussion. Good day.
    - achierius 1y ago
      That's not what they're saying. They're saying that almost all Americans have been indoctrinated as such.
    - pseudocomposer 1y ago
      How can you have a good faith argument if you create strawman arguments instead of acknowledging the point the person was making? Everyone in the US and Europe has been indoctrinated to support Israel for most of their lives. That’s those who support Israel and those who don’t. If you went to literally any school, or watched any television, in the US or Europe any time in the last 7 decades, every lesson taught, every broadcast made, that could have involved Israel was pro-Israel and pro-Zionism. Not a single program or teacher has been able to share the viewpoint that religious ethnostates should not exist, or that the native Palestinian people didn’t deserve to be genocided to make room for one. If you expressed such a view, you’d be prevented from teaching or broadcasting. For decades.
      - cmilton 1y ago
        Are you suggesting that if you are from the US, you are unable to form an opinion of the facts that are presented from both sides? I did have to go to school some time ago, but I also gained access to the internet during that time that allows anyone to research both sides of a topic. There are tons of books available that provide descriptions from both sides. Why do I have to be on one side or the other? Is it because of my push back against a specific side, you assumed I aligned with the other?
        pseudocomposer 1y ago
        Are you a troll? Why do you keep willfully misrepresenting or twisting what others are saying into something slightly different? My point, that from the 1950s through the 2010s, no one in the US or Western Europe has been presented facts from both sides, and seeking out facts from the "wrong" side would result in social, financial, and possible criminal penalties, was incredibly clearly stated. Because of the way you keep twisting others' words, it seems pretty safe to assume you would side with the fascist religious ethnostate that's been committing a genocide for decades with the financing and approval of the US and EU state, military, financial, media, and educational apparatuses. People who oppose fascism don't communicate the way you have communicated in this thread.
        1y ago
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...

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.
        cmilton 1y ago
        If we can't agree on terms, how do we make sure we understand each other? I want to understand what your expectations of Israel were after October 7th. I believe my questions have been very specific, but I realize you have no desire to have an actual discussion. Good day.
  - achierius 1y ago
    That's not what they're saying. They're saying that almost all Americans have been indoctrinated as such.
  - pseudocomposer 1y ago
    How can you have a good faith argument if you create strawman arguments instead of acknowledging the point the person was making? Everyone in the US and Europe has been indoctrinated to support Israel for most of their lives. That’s those who support Israel and those who don’t. If you went to literally any school, or watched any television, in the US or Europe any time in the last 7 decades, every lesson taught, every broadcast made, that could have involved Israel was pro-Israel and pro-Zionism. Not a single program or teacher has been able to share the viewpoint that religious ethnostates should not exist, or that the native Palestinian people didn’t deserve to be genocided to make room for one. If you expressed such a view, you’d be prevented from teaching or broadcasting. For decades.
    - cmilton 1y ago
      Are you suggesting that if you are from the US, you are unable to form an opinion of the facts that are presented from both sides? I did have to go to school some time ago, but I also gained access to the internet during that time that allows anyone to research both sides of a topic. There are tons of books available that provide descriptions from both sides. Why do I have to be on one side or the other? Is it because of my push back against a specific side, you assumed I aligned with the other?
      - pseudocomposer 1y ago
        Are you a troll? Why do you keep willfully misrepresenting or twisting what others are saying into something slightly different? My point, that from the 1950s through the 2010s, no one in the US or Western Europe has been presented facts from both sides, and seeking out facts from the "wrong" side would result in social, financial, and possible criminal penalties, was incredibly clearly stated. Because of the way you keep twisting others' words, it seems pretty safe to assume you would side with the fascist religious ethnostate that's been committing a genocide for decades with the financing and approval of the US and EU state, military, financial, media, and educational apparatuses. People who oppose fascism don't communicate the way you have communicated in this thread.
        1y ago

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...