uncle bernard

no the cause of terrorism is a mix of extreme ideological/religious ideas and circumstance. the circumstance fans the flames of the extreme ideologies. the middle east didn't use to be a hot bed of terrorism. what we now know as (islamic) terrorism emerges with the rise of dangerous islamist ideologies out of the chaos and repression of the region during mid to late 20th century. (the most consequential event probably being the overthrow of Iran's democratic government on behalf of British oil interests in 1953. We put a brutal dictator back in power. During the next 25 years, under his repressive regime a coalition of marxist freedom fighters and islamic fundamentalists grew and eventually overthrew the shah. following the coup, the fundamentalists won the power struggle and expelled the marxists. from there, radical islamism spread like wildfire.) fighting against terrorism doesn't cause it. it can exacerbate it *when the fighting kills a high amount of innocent civilians.* the families and friends of those civilians become much more likely to join the terrorist cause. we know this. this is a fact of the world. that's why the solution to terrorism is extremely precise counter-insurgency combined with political investment and development. not indiscriminate bombing. you're just recruiting for them at that point. you can keep being dishonest and act like i defend hamas or you can acknowledge that i believe in a different method for fighting hamas that has been effective elsewhere in the world, and which also has the benefit of being morally just towards Palestine.

you are truly one of the stupidest people alive. how many times do I have to say that it's *not* okay for Hamas to bomb civilians, nor is it okay for them to use human shields? you guys are literally children who can't understand basic moral principles. i take that back. children have a much easier time understanding this than you do.

1) they don't have to surrender at all. they just can't blow up a building with civilians in it. that is not the most precise option available. your argument basically comes down to "they should get to kill civilians because it's easier." 2) good luck with that. maybe if they did it the right way, but they're not doing that. 3) repulsive ideologies don't emerge out of vaccuums. the islamist revolution has direct ties back to western intervention, specifically in Iran and yes, the oppression Palestinians have endured is a major factor in turning to terrorism. You can't seriously believe otherwise?

It being an illegitimate tactic has no deterrence. It's already happening. The only effect of killing the human shields is killing the shields. It doesn't deter Hamas from continuing to use them. All the more reason to invest seriously in a political solution. defeating Hamas militarily is impossible. the British didn't defeat the IRA by levelling Belfast. In the end, it was the admittance of the IRA into the political system ultimately led to the peace deal and the disarmament. Without Sinn Fein's emergence as a serious political party, bombs might still be going off today. The best way to undermine a terror group is to undermine their reason for being in the first place.

no, as i've said over and over, hamas is a legit target. the civilians they're hiding behind are not. that is inconvenient, but convenience doesn't excuse war crimes. the current method of the Israeli government is dangerous and misguided, motivated more by a desire to control more land than to secure long term peace.

i've explicitly said there isn't a moral equivalence. hamas being evil doesn't mean israel gets to be evil too, even if it's "less" evil. two wrongs don't make a right. you know, the lesson we teach toddlers.

"not including more than 10,000 reported missing or under the rubble" even these numbers have the majority of deaths as women/children. extrapolate that percentage out to account for the estimated dead, the number holds. charts are hard for some people apparently.

it's a waste of time for you to be arguing with a version of me you made up in your head. never said anything like that before.

wrong. why do you ask?

sure, but that doesn’t mean they have to treat the palestinians the way they do. even while treating them poorly, they were able to make significant diplomatic gains with much of the region prior to this conflict. imagine if they engaged in a fair political peace process. the reality is israel will always have western support (and a nuke for insurance). they are not under serious threat of annihilation and solving the palestinian problem in a morally serious manner would make them even safer. that’s been my whole argument. the problem is that israel has made a far right, nationalist turn in the last couple decades. extremist forces who were once shunned from government, now sit in the knesset or hold important posts (see their terrorist nat security minister). they continue to push israel to take more and more land. they want it all. they tell us this very plainly. many of them don’t just want to expel palestinians. they want to expel arab israeli civilians too.

1) yes 2) yes 3) yes. demonstrates the unsustainability of the occupation. 4) yes. you should do some research on some of the israeli terror groups btw. they literally assassinated one of their prime ministers because he engaged in peace talks. their current minister of national security is a convicted terrorist. the idf aids settler militias who terrorize and ethnically cleanse villages in the west bank. they are almost never held accountable. it’s a dangerous and counterproductive double standard. as long as we keep pretending this is a one sided conflict there will never be a chance of peace outside of “letting someone win” as you first suggested which would be a moral and humanitarian disaster.

yeah but there’s no scenario where the us wouldn’t support israel and defend it against destruction. it’s a nonsensical scenario. the question is how the us can help them secure a sustainable peace. you guys think endless war which hasn’t worked for 75 years. i think there’s another way.

two sides knowingly kill civilians. the human shields argument is a moral embarrassment. you might realize that if you end up as a human shield one day.

I think both sides should be prosecuted for knowingly killing civilians in pursuit of military targets. That's a consistent position. You're the one who only wants to apply it to one side.

be specific. explain it to me.

"appeals to tribal nonsense" what are you talking about???? what are these famous appeals I'm making? You're the one who thinks one country doesn't have to follow the same rules because they're not muslim.

that's pure assertion. there is no reality where israel would be exterminated. "if we didn't stop them, Israel would exterminate all of Gaza like many of its politicians and citizens want." see, I can play the same game.

yes, gaza has a christian population. one of the oldest christian populations in the world and one of the world's oldest christian churches is in gaza city. Israel bombed it and killed several christians including relatives of a former us congressman.

Then so does Israel's. This is the problem you're gonna have. Neither party's official stance is genocidal. Both parties have had many individual members make genocidal statements and/or explicitly argue for genocide. Neither party is a true theocracy. Both governments are heavily influenced by religious and ethnic tribalism. So you can either relax your definition to the colloquial use of the terms or you need to admit they don't apply to either party. But you don't get to have it both ways.

hamas doesn't fit your dictionary definition of genocide either buddy.

lol no, man. keep flailing.

I think it's great that they are exercising they're right to free speech and making their voices heard. It's a little frustrating that they are claiming a monopoly on Jewish identity when many of the people they're talking about are Jewish themselves. I have not seen anybody give a convincing answer as to how a movement where Jews are overrepresented (meaning the antizionist movement has a higher percentage of Jewish participants than the population as a whole) is inherently antisemitic. I think it's important to be able to hold that people on both sides have misbehaved consistently the entire time. I heard vile chants from Zionists counter-protesters (chanting Israel isn't killing *enough* kids as one example). Antizionism isn't inherently antisemitic though there are antisemitic antizionists and zionism isn't inherently genocidal though there are genocidal zionists. judge individuals by their actions.

can you not follow the logic of the conversation? 1) you called hamas a theocracy 2) I said Israel is too 3) You said Israel can't be a theocracy because it has a muslim (and christian which you didn't mention) population 4) I pointed out that Palestine also a minority religious community Either they're both theocracies or neither are.

no matter how many times I explain it to you, you keep thinking that this in anyway impacts the tenets of antizionism. i gave you too much credit. i thought an adult would be able to glean the important threads from the podcast: 1) The history of the state of Israel 2) The basic tenets of antizionism held by many of the groups mentioned which are also shared by non-jewish antizionists. You asked for a resource to explain the antizionist perspective. I gave you a podcast with the entire history of the state and the reasons why many oppose it. It's not my fault you couldn't figure that out.

you're such a freak lol fantasizing about the government cracking down an an internet poster? loser mentality