> I hope you know how the Muslims acquired the lands they live on now, down through the centuries? Hint, it wasn't by asking nicely.
Yes it was common to have wars for land, but it's a completely different story to fleeing from Europe and presenting yourself as victims just to turn around and become the same monster you fled from and ethnically cleanse the native population for your colonial project. There is still testimony[0] from members of jewish terrorist groups like irgun & haganah who stated that the way they treated the natives reminded them of how the nazis treated the jews.
>And the numerous attacks on the Israelis since it was formed, after each of which Israel gained more land?
Well, if you invade and steal people's land they will fight you, it's common sense. What is surprising is that zionists think that they are somehow making a good argument with this. Furthermore, most of those wars you are probably referring to are falsely claimed to be "attacks on israel" while in fact israel was preemptively attacking[1] its neighbors. This is documented and confirmed by declassified israeli sources.
>And the numerous offers made to the Palestinians for a state which they refused?
Yes, if you steal someone's property they usually want 100% of it back not some arbitrary amount determined by the thief. I heard these nonsense arguments so many times and yet I'm still mind blown every time that zionists think that these are somehow smart talking points.
The hasbara ministry of affairs must have suffered under serious budget cuts.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwy-Rf15UIs [1] "The Conflict based on a lie" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy56Q1a0Flc
> Yes it was common to have wars for land, but it's a completely different story to fleeing from Europe and presenting yourself as victims just to turn around and become the same monster you fled from and ethnically cleanse the native population for your colonial project.
If it was common to have wars for land, does it justify it? And you do know that a large proportion of Jews in Israel are Mizrahi and Shepardic, right? Also, those Jews fleeing from Europe were certainly victims, so I'm not sure why you are mocking that.
> Yes, if you invade people's land they will fight you, it's common sense.
A UN resolution provided for the state of Israel (and of Palestine, which they rejected), so I'm not sure what invasion you are talking about. Incidentally, this is the same UN whose resolutions Israel is accused of not following. So the Muslim nations are like, we will comply with UN resolutions only when we agree with it, but we expect others to follow them in all cases.
If you have a problem, find diplomatic ways of resolving them, but if you attack someone with genocidal intent, don't be surprised if you are hit with a disproportionate response. You can argue abut whether the justification for the preemptive strike of the 1967 six days war was strong enough, but that doesn't change the fact that Israel's enemies had clear and imminent intent to visit great harm on it.
> Yes, if you steal someone's property they usually want 100% of it back not some arbitrary amount determined by the thief. I heard these nonsense arguments so many times and yet I'm still mind blown every time that zionists think that these are somehow smart talking points.
So, in your opinion, the conflict will/should not be resolved until Israel is obliterated? Good luck. But in that case, it is dishonest to call for a cease-fire, or to accuse Israel if not negotiating in good faith. How do you live with, or negotiate, with an adversary who is only seeking your total destruction?
I see you use the word "Zionists" many times - it seems to be used as a dog whistle. I have no affiliation with Israel or Jews whatsoever; I'm just incensed that reason seems to have gone out the window in the latest incarnation of this conflict.
>A UN resolution provided for the state of Israel (and of Palestine, which they rejected), so I'm not sure what invasion you are talking about. Incidentally, this is the same UN whose resolutions Israel is accused of not following. So the Muslim nations are like, we will comply with UN resolutions only when we agree with it, but we expect others to follow them in all cases.
Any mentally sane human would have rejected that "resolution", which is/was non-binding anyway, since it gave the MAJORITY of Palestinian land to a MINORITY. And you saying "so I'm not sure what invasion you are talking about" is completely laughable and is evidence of you having bias, probably religious bias, and thus you have a motivation to be dishonest, that's why you keep making such arguments in bad faith.
>Incidentally, this is the same UN whose resolutions Israel is accused of not following.
Why are you saying "accused" when Israel has a documented track record of ignoring international law, illegally occupying land and committing war crimes with impunity for decades? You argue in bad faith, that's why.
>If you have a problem, find diplomatic ways of resolving them, but if you attack someone with genocidal intent, don't be surprised if you are hit with a disproportionate response. You can argue abut whether the justification for the preemptive strike of the 1967 six days war was strong enough, but that doesn't change the fact that Israel's enemies had clear and imminent intent to visit great harm on it.
Again, that's a complete lie and I have linked you a detailed documentary[0] which exposes that narrative as a fabrication of the israeli hasbara ministry. Zionists invaded land and started ethnic-cleansing the native population so it makes precisely ZERO SENSE to frame zionists in the dishonest "defensive" light you have painted them, when they were and still are the aggressors and colonizers from day 1. You argue in bad faith because the facts make israel and its history indefensible, that's why the only way zionists can defend their colonial project is to rewrite history and frame it as dishonestly as possible.
>So, in your opinion, the conflict will/should not be resolved until Israel is obliterated? Good luck. But in that case, it is dishonest to call for a cease-fire, or to accuse Israel if not negotiating in good faith. How do you live with, or negotiate, with an adversary who is only seeking your total destruction?
It's truly fascinating how you, as a black man, are so hellbent on defending an apartheid ethno-state with such cold-blooded dishonesty. Any sensible human wants to see an end to apartheid and occupation first. The call for a ceasefire has nothing to do with that, it's just a call of the world because we are seeing what bloodthirsty genocidal lunatics the zionists have become in their intentional targeting of civilians, mostly women and children, that's why we want to prevent the genocide israel is committing as we speak.
>How do you live with, or negotiate, with an adversary who is only seeking your total destruction?
That's Israel you are talking about and this description perfectly describes israel's genocidal behavior, but it's already clear from your rhetoric that you have absolutely zero interest in a honest answer because you are a zionist who has such a warped and biased view of the facts that you will just take any answer and twist it in such a way that your cognitive dissonance is satisfied.
>I see you use the word "Zionists" many times - it seems to be used as a dog whistle.
I've used it precisely 2 times, how is that many times? You guys can't just stick to debating facts without dishonestly accusing others of antisemitism because you know that your arguments are all based on lies and distortions. And the irony on top is that zionists like you openly engage in islamophobic rhetoric while whining about antisemitism, it's so cynical and deceitful.
[0] "The Conflict based on a lie" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy56Q1a0Flc
The violent Islamic expansion was not a war between countries. Is Islam a country? It was a rampage for land, pure and simple [1]
> Any mentally sane human would have rejected that "resolution", which is/was non-binding anyway
Hear, hear, now hardly a day passes without another UN resolution against Israel, sponsored by the same elements, who then accuse Israel of not complying with the resolutions. If the resolutions are non-binding, why do they keep accusing Israel of not heeding them? On the other hand, do we get to pick and choose which resolutions we will heed or not?
> Why are you saying "accused" when Israel has a documented track record of ignoring international law
International law should be followed by all, at all times. The Palestinians and their backers have no moral high ground here, not at all.
> Again, that's a complete lie and I have linked you a detailed documentary[0] which exposes that narrative as a fabrication of the israeli hasbara ministry
Was Egypt not massing troops in preparation for an attack on Israel? Or are we living in separate universes.
> It's truly fascinating how you, as a black man, are so hellbent on defending an apartheid ethno-state with such cold-blooded dishonesty.
You are avoiding my question: In your opinion, is the conflict not be resolvable until Israel is obliterated? And, what does the fact that I'm black have to do with anything?
> Any sensible human wants to see an end to apartheid and occupation first. The call for a ceasefire has nothing to do with that,
Oh, so you don't want a proper solution for now. You just you want a ceasefire that gives Hamas a reprieve to continue to build up their capacity to massacre Israeli civilians again.
> That's Israel you are talking about and this description perfectly describes Israel's genocidal behavior
Again, you don't answer my question: How do you live with, or negotiate, with an adversary who is only seeking your total destruction? What exactly does Hamas want again?
> I've used it precisely 2 times, how is that many times? You guys can't just stick to debating facts without dishonestly accusing others of antisemitism because you know that your arguments are all based on lies and distortions.
It is you who cannot stick to the argument without resorting to name calling and ad-hominem attacks. You have called me a liar, cold-blooded, not mentally sane, and the like.
[1] https://medium.com/@mehrdadyousefi_/was-muslim-conquest-of-p...
Amusing how you have to explicitly add "violent" as if this was exclusive to Islam, but not Christianity or Judiasm, thereby living out your islamophobic tendencies. Arguing that Islam or Christianity isn't a country is a matter of semantics and distracts from the more substantial point. While neither is a 'country' in the political sense, both religions have established comprehensive systems of law, culture, and governance, creating communities and territories with armies and defined identities and practices that can be analogous to the functions of a country. The spirit of the comparison lies in their influence and organization, not in the technicality of the term 'country.' Point is that they had armies and it was very common and expected to clash with other armies.
>Hear, hear, now hardly a day passes without another UN resolution against Israel, sponsored by the same elements, who then accuse Israel of not complying with the resolutions. If the resolutions are non-binding, why do they keep accusing Israel of not heeding them? On the other hand, do we get to pick and choose which resolutions we will heed or not?
You are just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point and it's a waste of time to entertain your dishonesty. Israel does not even follow international law so it's pointless to argue about other cases.
>Was Egypt not massing troops in preparation for an attack on Israel? Or are we living in separate universes.
Nope, busted! According to declassified israeli documents there was NEVER such a threat and this was also explained in the documentary I've linked you which you clearly didn't even bother to study. Israel made up lies after the fact, like they always do, that's why the documentary is also called "The Conflict based on a lie" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy56Q1a0Flc
>You are avoiding my question: In your opinion, is the conflict not be resolvable until Israel is obliterated? And, what does the fact that I'm black have to do with anything?
You really have to ask me about the relevancy of a black man defending apartheid? Having a conversation with you is completely pointless, but that's pretty much the case with all zionists. To answer your question, yes, the only realistic outcome for peace is for israel to suffer a complete defeat, because israeli society is so drunk on decades of impunity that its racism and bloodthirst have reached unfathomable levels. The "2 state solution" is and was always a lie and netanyahu and his ilk have confirmed repeatedly the last days but they stated this for decades. It was theater all along, that's why they always kept expanding their illegal settlements.
>Oh, so you don't want a proper solution for now. You just you want a ceasefire that gives Hamas a reprieve to continue to build up their capacity to massacre Israeli civilians again.
no, I want to simply stop the ongoing genocide that israel is committing, like any sane human being would want, which zionists like you clearly arent.
>Again, you don't answer my question: How do you live with, or negotiate, with an adversary who is only seeking your total destruction? What exactly does Hamas want again?
I did answer your question, you clearly just lack reading comprehension skills. Khamas actually, contrary to your insinuation, has indicated that they would be interested in a 2 state solution, which will never manifest anyway, it's a lie that has been perpetuated by settlers to give them time to expand their illegal settlements. And again, every Zionist accusation is a confession, it's Israel that has always sought the total destruction of Palestine which they have repeatedly stated. Palestinians having this desire is not the "gotcha" you think it is, because any sane human being would want their land back in full, so it's hilarious that zionists are thinking that this realization is some deep insight and good talking point of theirs.
> You have called me a liar, cold-blooded, not mentally sane, and the like.
And I fully stand by it, anyone who is a neutral observer can read the full discussion and testify to it.
From reading your comments in this thread, you are clearly over-invested in this conflict and this doesn't do anything to help anyone, nor your own mental health.
HN is a place for curious discussion and insults like you have been throwing around don't contribute to that environment in any way.
If someone is justifying genocide and you question their sanity then it's them being hostile and you being reasonable.
>From reading your comments in this thread, you are clearly over-invested in this conflict
I'm not over-invested, no one can ever be over-invested in trying to prevent genocide. I will call a spade a spade, participating in fake civility to entertain someone's bad faith behavior is also not something conducive to a "curious discussion".
Well, personally attacking someone goes against the guidelines, no matter how strongly you feel about something. This is something the mods are very concerned about. But I'm not surprised, because reason goes out the window whenever the anti-Israel crowd are in the room. Unable to convince by rational argument, they resort to personal attacks.
At this point, I don't believe you are arguing in any good faith, and you seem not to realize your own biases and contradictions. You have no factual responses to my comments other than personal attacks, so there is no basis for further discussion.
Ignoring 99% of the rebuttal on which you have been exposed as a crude propagandist just to focus on a point which helps you live out your eternal victimhood.
>Unable to convince by rational argument, they resort to personal attacks.
You are literally skipping and ignoring every argument of mine to regurgitate your washed up hasbara and are then surprised when people call out your behavior in a candid manner.
>At this point, I don't believe you are arguing in any good faith, and you seem not to realize your own biases and contradictions. You have no factual responses to my comments other than personal attacks, so there is no basis for further discussion.
100% projection, you perfectly described yourself here and any neutral observer can testify to it.
And the numerous attacks on the Israelis since it was formed, after each of which Israel gained more land?
And the numerous offers made to the Palestinians for a state which they refused?