Vaughan Spa

Israel at war

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
53,880
11,791
113
Toronto
Israel is killing as many Palestinians as they think they can get away with.
Even now they have pushed Biden as far as they can.
If they killed more even Biden would abandon them.
For public consumption.

Don't kid yourself, the US needs Israel almost as much as Israel need them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xmontrealer

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
53,880
11,791
113
Toronto
Hamas is still there.
And Israel is Hamas' cancer eating away at them bit by bit, relentlessly.

Israel and zionism now means genocide.
The world hates zionists.

And next week Israel goes on trial for genocide.
After that they get banned from the UN and sanctions start.

It'll be the end of zionism.
And even though you know that nobody is listening to you, you keep yelling wolf. Sad and pathetic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Conil

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
53,880
11,791
113
Toronto
Yes, and the only ones fighting for survival are the Palestinians.
Yet their population continues to grow. The only thing that impedes it is when they keep starting wars.

Unfortunately, for you, Apartheid has nothing to do with citizenship.
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.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
53,880
11,791
113
Toronto
Apartheid has nothing to do with just voting rights.
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.

So there is no reason to give you a list of countries that give voting rights to non-citizens, as that is irrelevant.
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.

And it also has nothing to do with citizenship per international law.
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 and a few other Zionists and racists, define Apartheid, in an attempt to absolve Israel, is irrelevant. It is you vs The UN, Amnesty, The African National Congress and many other human rights organizations. Most importantly, it is your definition vs international law. Guess who has more credibility?
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.
 

Klatuu

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2022
7,505
4,787
113
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.
Adolescent
 
  • Wow
Reactions: mandrill

Klatuu

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2022
7,505
4,787
113
Surrender by Hamas is faster. No negotiations required.
Surrender by Israel would be even better. Solving the Gaza, West Bank and Lebanon problems in an instant. Don’t you agree sad Shack?
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
85,473
127,795
113
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". 😂
Kauty, I posted probably 40 different interviews and examples with survivors or eye witnesses of 7 October in that other thread.

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.

Apartheid has nothing to do with just voting rights. So there is no reason to give you a list of countries that give voting rights to non-citizens, as that is irrelevant.

And it also has nothing to do with citizenship per international law.

How you and a few other Zionists and racists, define Apartheid, in an attempt to absolve Israel, is irrelevant. It is you vs The UN, Amnesty, The African National Congress and many other human rights organizations. Most importantly, it is your definition vs international law. Guess who has more credibility?
Seriously, What a joke you are!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Conil and Kautilya

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,484
6,988
113
That's for the future, ...
Of course you ignore the ICC when they condemn your heroes.
 
Toronto Escorts