Israel at war
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
You think apartheid and genocide are as serious as a hangnail?
In that case you must think Oct 7 was nothing.
That is for whomever is contemplating an action to decide for themselves. How much risk are they willing to take?
Do you think that Hamas made a good decision on Oct. 7? Mind you, the risk they themselves took was insignificant compared to the risk they imposed on Gaza and its' citizens.
No. I NEVER said anything about no risk. That's virtually impossible. Just about everything we do in this world comes with some risk
Actually, I was trying to say that a Hamas surrender (and returning the hostages) IS enough to stop the current fighting.
In case I misunderstood you and you are saying that it's not a 100% solution, that's like the anti-environmentalists saying we shouldn't try to improve the environment because some other countries won't participate. Or the gun lovers saying there's no sense making gun laws stricter because there will still be gun deaths. It will still be a huge improvement on the status quo.
As to your question, it's a simple premise. Many Palestinians are dying every single day. A Hamas surrender immediately stops that. Nothing else stops the Israeli onslaught as quickly. That's how Palestinian lives get saved. And the sooner the fighting stops, the more lives will be saved.
For public consumption.
Don't kid yourself, the US needs Israel almost as much as Israel need them.
And Israel is Hamas' cancer eating away at them bit by bit, relentlessly.
And even though you know that nobody is listening to you, you keep yelling wolf. Sad and pathetic.
Yet their population continues to grow. The only thing that impedes it is when they keep starting wars.
It has everything to do with citizenship. I posted the history of apartheid in S. Africa. Black and brown citizens were denied some of the rights that white citizens had and S. Africa called that policy apartheid. The international community can come up with a different name for the practice of not bestowing full rights to foreigners.
And that name could apply to every single country in the world.
Your biased and discriminatory semantics are a joke. The goalposts were moved specifically for the purpose of demonizing Israel.
You have still not given me the list of countries that give voting rights to people who are not citizens. And if there are no names on that list be honourable enough to admit that you want Israel to do what no other country does. This is a perfect example of setting higher standards for Israel than for other countries. That's called discrimination. Actually that would be imposing apartheid upon the State of Israel. They are being treated differently than every other country.
So please provide that list that frank is too cowardly to respond you. I consider you more honest than frank, but that's still an extremely low bar to exceed.
But the S. Africans took away the blacks' right to vote. The ability, or lack thereof, is inextricably linked to the policy of apartheid. Actually it's probably the most important right that got taken away.
Once again, a crucial point I am making, which you claim is irrelevant and ignore, is because you know I have displayed your biased bullshit and you have no counter argument.
You couldn't give a list even if you tried, because there is no such list. Not one country confers a vote, or full rights (voting was just one example of that) to non-citizens/foreigners. By admitting that there is not one other country in the world that confers full rights of citizens to non-citizens, yet you expect Israel to, proves that you have a hypocritical set of standards. To you, Israel must do things that you do not ask of other countries. More exposed hypocrisy and prejudice for you to chew on.
As mentioned the goalposts were moved strictly for the purposes of demonizing Israel. Call it something else, but it is not apartheid as defined by the S. African governments of that time. Their policy had nothing to with foreigners.
How you define apartheid is an attempt to indict Israel and is irrelevant. All the entities you mentioned have no credibility when discussing Israel. They have as much neutrality as you, which is zilch. You just keep pointing out how much anti-Semitism there is in the world.
Surrender by Israel would be even better. Solving the Gaza, West Bank and Lebanon problems in an instant. Don’t you agree sad Shack?
Not good for Israel
Kauty, I posted probably 40 different interviews and examples with survivors or eye witnesses of 7 October in that other thread.Then he should have no issues debating it, because he has indisputable proof. But the thing is there is no proof out there, and any subsequent cross questioning of this nonsensical narrative, that no one believes, will not stand up to scrutiny and Eylon will be left red-faced. Just as he was on fucking Piers Morgan, of all places, when Piers asked him "How many of the dead are Hamas?", in response to Eylon saying, the majority of the dead in Gaza were Hamas. Eylon's response? "Many".
You and Frankie and Klatty still don't accept it happened. You're in a cult.
If Eylon debated that asstwat, the asstwat would just laugh and state that "there's no proof of 7 October" and people like you would nod your heads and say "That's right. No proof at all."
So why would Eylon bother to do it??... The proof is out there and ample. The "River to the Sea Cult" - like you and your buddies - just ignores the proof.
Seriously, What a joke you are!
So the reason that Bibi is so unpopular in Israel is that he's not bombing the Arabs enough. His rival promises to bomb the fuck out of Gaza and Hezbollah and he's racing ahead in the polls!!
