Only of your history goes 1 year back.

You can keep on going back decades and centuries - none of it is going to solve problems today.

What's your point? Who said that going back in history solves today's problems?

If geopolitics predating the Roman Republic by 500 years justifies kicking people off land they were born in, then I have bad news for almost all of the Americans in the audience. Probably quite a lot of the English too, though with less certainty as nobody's quite sure when even the Celts arrived.

Why was my comment flagged? Is there anything inaccurate? Is there something hateful?

Dunno, I didn't flag it. I can't even remember exactly what it said beyond something about the Temple of Solomon.

(I know there's a way to view flagged comments, I never bother to use it).

Why don’t stick with modern history and internationally recognized borders? Forget about the deeds of the long gone people, they are not around so it’s irrelevant.

I agree with both replies. I'm just answering to the "Only of your history goes 1 year back." remark. Both sides are wrong with no solution on sight.

Calling an attack on a goa party "justified resistance", are you out of your mind?

Don't party on stolen land.

This is exactly why the West is in decline. Basic morality and reality no longer make any sense. The average person can see reality with their own eyes and the wack-a-mole of shaping reality by the elites just doesn't work with social media anymore. The only way forward for the Western elites to stop this bleeding is to implement mass censorship on social media (they're doing a fine job with mainstream media as it is)

Exactly. When there's no morality then there's no social contract and when there's no social contract you don't have a society that can function without explicit stick or carrot. This is a horrible way to live.

The funny thing is that I can't tell what side you're supporting from your statements.

I agree the west has lost its morality.

I disagree the average person is seeing reality with their own eyes. The average person is seeing whatever some interested party wants to frame as reality.

That's why Russians support Putin. In their reality they are fighting Nazis in Ukraine and protecting the rights of ethnic Russians. And there is some stream of social media you can be on where that is reality.

What you have right now is that state actors and money shapes reality. Do you want China to say what reality is or do you want democracies in the west to say what reality is and specifically the US.

With all the problems, I prefer to have the Americans be the source of truth if I have to pick between them, Russia and China.

I reject the framing around "elites" shaping reality. While we've always had issues around this the western democratic way is the best we know, with all its issues. Moving this power to China and Meta is making things worse.

Ukraine is nothing like Israel.

It is a known fact that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians.

While Ukraine is tip toeing a very fine line defending itself and Europe against Russian aggression (e.g., barely allowed to neutralizing military targets in Russia).

quoting US State Department about Israel is all kinds of crazy… :)

I'll pick them over Qatar, China and Russia.

Who is an honest, non-political, non-biased, arbiter of truth? TikTok?

The United Nations, Amnesty International, the ICC, and the ICJ, are all possible candidates

It's important to note all of those are political. It's also important to note free democracies are a minority in the world.

The ICC and the ICJ didn't rule on this.

I don't think either the CPJ or the MSF have voiced a specific opinion on this question either. The CPJ specifically counts media people in the Islamic Jihad or Hamas as "journalists" which is extremely questionable. Many western countries would consider them to be "terrorists". They are hurting the cause they are meant to champion by pursuing a political agenda and they're being used.

All of that doesn't change the reality that a high casualty count in a war or that civilian population is suffering in said war does not constitute a genocide. It's a reality of war. A war that can end this second by Hamas surrendering and returning the hostages.

Israel's critics also always fail to provide some reasonable alternative course of actions that would lead to very different outcomes. I think it's fair to critique some specific decisions, like targeting, the use of heavy munitions etc. but some small changes there still all result in the same outcome, a prolonged war amidst civilians that is primarily the goal of Hamas. Hamas wants to hide amongst civilians and keep fighting until Israel is destroyed.

I'm not convinced that these attacks on these institutions aren't simply because they don't condone everything Israel does. In short: it looks like it's just "working the refs". Regardless, the opinions of these multinational organizations outweigh the opinions of any single nation, to say nothing of the opinions of you or me.

Speaking of, the rest of the post is opinions and unconvincing claims. They mirror the same rhetoric which has already been said by Israel, which the aforementioned organizations have already heard and carefully considered. Your opinions I respect, because I respect you as a person whose life is exactly equal in value to mine. Just like 1 Palestinian civilian life is exactly equal in value to 1 Israeli civilian life, and even more important to protect than 1 combatant life (from either side). After all, protecting civilians is the most important thing, even more important than achieving tactical or strategic objectives and goals.

Again, though, the opinions of the aforementioned organizations outweigh yours or mine or Israel's.

Karen from South Dakota on “X” would be more credible :)

Is it libel if there is a source?

https://www.rfi.fr/en/international-news/20241205-amnesty-ac...

Amnesty International, except the Israely branch of Amnesty International. The "except" is very revealing in this case