“Not all jewish people are Israelis so it would be anti-semitic to start hating random jews over this. It’s correlation not causation.”
“Yes, that makes sense and is fair. However, I can say that Israel as a country is being pretty fucking awful and since they’re separate things then I should be able to criticise one while leaving the other out of it.”
“No, now you’re being anti-semitic.”
—
It’s like, pick one.
Never believe that Zionists are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The Zionists have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
- Jean-Paul Sartre
Amazing how it’s still 100% accurate
They aren’t conversing in good faith, and continuing to have discourse with them is a waste of time.
sometimes it’s worth calling them out on their deceptive arguments… but anything past that is a waste of time.
See 6 hour Hasan v Ethan Klein video for reference
that would be a waste of time
Israel’s right to exist is almost as valid as Taiwan’s, and they’re both nearly as valid as Palestine’s right to exist.
In the vague, no state has a right to exist train of thought, right?
Because otherwise this sounds like some nazi shit.
is it nazi shit to not want people murdered in their homes now???
The whole claim to having a “right” to exist on conquered land is kind of a weird one, philosophically.
If it’s legitimate to acquire territory through conquest, then there’s no debate that the land belongs to the Palestinians. But, consequently, if conquest is a legitimate means of acquiring territory, then the Israelis are not doing anything different in acquiring the land than the Muslims did when they first conquered Palestine and established their colony there.
On the other hand, maybe conquest is not a legitimate means of acquiring territory and the Israelis are in the wrong for trying to gain land that way. But if that’s true, that conquest is not a legitimate means of acquiring territory, then the Muslim conquerors who took Palestine in the first place were also in the wrong and their claim to the territory is similarly illegitimate.
That’s a hot take, I’m interested to see how that works out for you.
I always debate with myself whether it’s worthwhile to weigh in on these things because no matter what opinion you have there’s a group of very opinionated people who will disagree with you, despite not being involved in the conflict and having no personal stake in the outcome.
All I’ll say on the matter is: are we not passed the point of killing eachother for land/resources? No? Alright then.
Wow you are missing a lot of history, over a dozen civilizations had that land before the Palestinians. Why does it not belong to them?
Before the Palestinians? Who do you think Palestinians are? Do you think they’re a new group of people that took the land recently? Different groups of come into conquer the region but the residents were still them. That’s how migration waves work. Especially in this region considering mostly it’s not people settling in the area it’s just people ruling the area from afar. Hell they are a Semitic people.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine
None of your points are true, maybe read some history first.
You honestly think the residents of the area were entirely purged every time a new power conquered the land?
Ah yes, the crusades where they just asked Muslims nicely to become catholic, without murdering most of them. At one point palestine was majority catholic.
Or the ottomans, known for their hospitality.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
That’s precisely the point. If the Palestinians have the right to the land because they were the most recent conquerors, then what happens when the next conquerer comes, claiming the same right of conquest?