Keep pretending it’s only virulent antisemites who have issues with how Israel conducts itself, that really makes you sound like the sane one.
You’re not going to turn me into an antisemite just by continually saying aloud your paranoid fantasies about what you think I want. Which bears absolutely no relation to anything I’ve ever said or done.
Do you have a fantasy that one day I’m just going to break down and say “Yes, I secretly think Israel has no right to exist, and BTW, all Jews must be killed” or some shit? Dream on. Never going to happen, no matter how much of a bloodlusting shitbag you’ve personally proven to be. All it does is make you look bad. And I mean, look at the company you’re keeping? Fucking Smapti? That’s the posting equivalent of sucking dick behind the dumpsters to get a fix, man. Have some self respect.
You’ve made it pretty clear that you think that Israel is a settler colonialist state with no right to exist.
I don’t think you want all the Jews to be killed; I’m not sure if you’re in denial as to what will happen if a one state Palestine is ever imposed, or if you just don’t particularly care. It also doesn’t matter very much whether you’re a useful idiot or just that rabidly anti “colonialist”.
ROFLMAO. Yeah, Smapti is the crazy one, stacked up against you and Banquet Buddy.
Also, this is very illustrative of exactly the kind of lying shit bag you are.
I’ve had plenty of reasonable conversations with people like iiandyiiii where we have both been critical of “how Israel conducts itself”. So clearly, I never did “pretend that only virulent antisemites” have a problem with it.
But you’ll lie and pretend I did, because that way you don’t have to engage with the fact that all of your bullshit hyperbole about what Israel will do to Gaza has been proven to be just that - bullshit hyperbole.
Smapti is much crazier and less rational than BB and MrD. One can engage them on facts, just as we’ve engaged on facts. Smapti doesn’t engage on facts.
Smapti engages with facts to a much greater degree than Banquet “155 people starve to death a day and magically disappear” Bear or Mr “Israel is going to annex Gaza” Dibble. I have no idea how anyone could even argue otherwise.
Well, it’s all pointless anyway, because Israel refuses to sign now. Howdi-Bibi and his Lik-hoods refuse to sign unless there is a specific term of time for the cease fire and unless they can get back to ‘slaughter house rules’ afterward.
I guess I imagined them calling Israel an apartheid state, declaring that the current war is a genocide, or (for BB specifically) insisting that the casualty count is many times greater than even Hamas’ Ministry of Health claims. None of those things really happened?
I imagined them insisting that Israel is a European Settler Colonialist state and that the Jews are not native to Israel?
Considering Israel’s long-term policy in the WB, I think “apartheid” is, if not fully accurate, a justifiable descriptor or comparison (as would be Jim Crow USA). Several international organizations have declared the ongoing war a genocide or ethnic cleansing; that doesn’t mean it’s true (I’m unsure, but I’m also not an expert and haven’t read everything), but it’s not an insane, ass-derived claim (and, notably, it does not require intent to exterminate all Palestinians, or all Gazans). I don’t know about the casualty stuff so I won’t comment on it.
Per the AP, Israel seems to reserve for itself the right to “a veto over which prisoners convicted of murder would be released in exchange for hostages”. It’s also my understanding the only prisoners released during phase 1 are women and children (i.e. teenagers up to 18 yo). I feel like that is important context.
Correct, and that’s what the current hiccup is about - Hamas changed their list to include two people we had vetoed. But it sounds like they’re going to relent on that.
But some of the people who were not vetoed are convicted murderers. Which, of course, is exactly who Hamas wants out - their best (remaining) soldiers. If we vetoed every convicted murderer, there wouldn’t be a deal. And maybe there shouldn’t be a deal, if it requires the release of terrorists with blood on their hands. Like I said, that’s how this mess started.
Who has advocated for a one-state solution? Criticism of the status quo, or even of certain two-state proposals, isn’t necessarily advocacy for one-state.
This moralizing about how I choose to talk to people who view my country as an illegitimate and genocidal state would come off much more sincere if you also criticized MrDibble for repeatedly calling me “bloodthirsty” and worse.
Weird, the first paragraph states the reason for the current hiccup was Hamas demanding Israel leaving the Philadelphi Corridor. Or at least Bibi says so.
Bullshit. I mean, other than I don’t think any country has a “right” to exist, if you’re gonna have countries, Israel is as good to have as any other. I’ve said as much before. Now, must it necessarily exist as a racist colonial enterprise? Naah, never going to believe that.
Are you familiar with his work outside your one shared “But Hamas!” trick? He very much is.
Mildly exaggerating with the “all” there, but pretty much tracks, all the same.
Mmm, I wonder what BB and I have in common, that iiandyiii doesn’t?
I have also been pointing out what Israel has already done. What it has already done is beyond the pale and worthy of condemnation, even if the ceasefire started right this minute and Israel and Hamas kept to it and not one more innocent on either side died (as opposed to Israel getting their last licks in, as they’re currently doing)