121–130 of 313 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> they still refuse to recognize the existence of the nation of Israel. If your counterparty doesn't agree that you have a right to exist, there's no negotiating. Quick question - does Israel recognize the existence of the state of Palestine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's actually really simple. You start with these two questions: 1. Is Israel an apartheid state? 2. Is Israel committing a genocide? At this point (IMHO) you need to do some serious mental gymnastics not to answer "yes" to both questions. As soon as you do, it gets real simple. The existence of Hamas doesn't justify either of these things. The people who bring this up are engaging in respectability politics or e…
[flagged]
Feel free to read through the receipts in this and the follow up article: https://open.substack.com/pub/realleecamp/p/people-are-learn...
I'm quite sure you'll believe quotes from the Israel military figures?
I wish more people had the guts to reject Google and the panopticon they’ve built.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this seemingly forever argument, it seems there is some nuance in that Palestine is not Hamas and vice versa. One of the perspectives as I understand it is that Hamas is actually a threat to the existence of Palestine; the militaristic behaviour undermines Palestinian efforts at independence (and this is an avenue for exploitation by those who don't want to see an independent Palestine). It is a similar situation…
There's simply no excuse for what Israel has been doing and everyone with a functioning moral compass should be denouncing it. Debating about Hamas is a distraction. They have a right to defend their country, but not treating a whole population as collateral damage.
It is the same reasoning Americans used for their war against the Apaches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not an excuse. Kidnapping is a police problem. Not a genocide problem.
Hamas' mass murdering isn't a "police problem" whatever that's meant to mean and they are quite explicit in their goal of genocide of the Jewish population in the southern levante.
But I understand that Israeli soldiers need justification to shoot at children and raise houses- just as Germans needed justification for their genocide.
Regardless of the details of this speech, I believe Sundar Pichai is uncommonly out of touch with reality and with the nation of the United States of America, even among tech CEOs. He should step down.
Tech leaders from this era will not be remembered well.
Everyone loves the "free Palestine" slogan, but I've never actually seen the people who call it offer a concrete realistic solution that could achieve that - is it a two state solution? Is it a one state solution that will burst into a civil war? What's the plan? What does it actually look like? I still think a two state solution is the only realistic plan.
Let's start by Israel no longer committing a genocide on the Palestinians and go from there. Most "free Palestine" protestors probably don't care an awful lot about the final outcome of the conflict, they just want the mass killing of innocent people to stop. There's a reason the movement only flared up when Israel started carpet bombing Gaza, and not during the mostly-quiet years before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a fashion statement for some people I've found. Like the Anarchy symbol on a T-Shirt. I've run in to people with such a hard line opinion on the matter who couldn't even point to where Palestine is a on a map.
At least in the US I can guarantee you that the % of hardline pro-Israel people who can actually point to Israel on the map is at least twice as low. I'm willing to bet my assets on that.
Impressive conviction but no one needs a bucket full of gumballs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was answering why you don't see people protesting Hamas, which is what you brought up. If you didn't want to discuss that, then you shouldn't have brought it up.
But the protest isn't about who funds whom. It's about criticizing what Israel is doing. > If you didn't want to discuss that, then you shouldn't have brought it up. I want to discuss it but you misunderstand the topic and seem angry based on your own misunderstanding.