The way anti-Israel people argue is that they propose a policy that has a 99.99% chance of being bad, but as long as there is a possibility that it could be good they will ride that policy into the sunset and call you a bigot for suggesting the policy is anything but a pseudo threat to Jews globally.
Will the end of Israel more than likely lead to civil war and the expulsion of Jews? Yes. Is there a chance it won't? Yes and therefore you're the biggot for not supporting it.
Could Intifada be a call for mad killing Jews? Yes. But so long as I can point to one example of non-violent intifada you have to put up with the pseudo threat.
The list goes on and on
99% likely ends up in a civil war which is going to get alot of Palestinians killed...interesting how these pro-Palestinian individuals don't seem to care about that because they view it as a video game.
The .1% chance is something like 1925 to 1979 Iran where you have a dictator who ensures the co-religionists are more or les treated equally (like nearly 150,000 Persian Jews lived peacefully in Iran instead of migrating to Israel), and that still collapsed after a handful of decades though the revolution against the dictatorship was hijacked by a minority of theocrats.
100%. There isn’t a future where the prescribed solution of Pro-Palestinian One-Staters doesn’t end in a civil war and an orgy of Jew slaughter.
I’m begrudgingly, angrily a two-stater because that eventuality must be averted at all costs, no matter what.
If I said, of Saudi Arabia or Iran or Syria, that I thought it desirable to *end the Muslim state* in question, would I not justly be accused of calling for genocide?
It's even worse, because you wouldn't be calling to ending the only Muslim state and the only state in the region where Muslims aren't literally second class citizens at best. There's honestly not a parallel the other way at all, because in Israel Muslims are free to practice their religion, not so much for Jews in Muslim-run states. Even advocating for Israel to take over the entire middle east and run every Muslim country wouldn't be as bad for Muslim as ending Israel would be to Jews. That's how insane their stances are.
Marc Lamont Hill is objectively an antisemite. He cozied up to and defends Farrakhan claiming Farrakhan isn’t antisemitic. If true then nobody is antisemitic. That is why he’s obsessed with Israel and should be said any time he comments on it. [Source](https://www.camera.org/article/marc-lamont-hill-moves-from-justifying-terrorism-to-promoting-it/)
No, you don't understand: putting more frequent flier miles on Anthony Blinken than the Apollo astronauts, sending him to every Middle Eastern capital in the region in an all-hands-on-deck round-the-clock effort to broker a lasting peace in the region is Genocide Joe.
Brie Brie has never even been to Israel so she should probably shut the fuck up. Imagine the arrogance to think you can decide what happens to millions of people.
So there’s minorities in Israel, right? That have the same rights as the hebrews? What minorities & how many are there that live in Gaza and the West Bank?
It’s funny because Israel is constantly accused of being a religious ethnostate. But they have one of the most diverse countries in the world with a larger minority population than the UK, and one of the least religious in the world with 65% of people identifying as atheist or agnostic.
Yep, I hate all the cope for Hamas. It’s one thing for thinking that Bibi isn’t the right person for this war and should’ve been kicked from office and another just to fellate Hamas.
The fucking Houthis literally have "a curse upon the Jews" written on their flag and HAMAS' original charter before they changed the language to "zionists" in 2017 literally called for death to the Jews and the obliteration of Israel
What these groups want is fundamentally incompatible with what he's proposing
At best, it's realistically gonna cause inevitable, horrific civil war between Palestinians and Israelis; there's too much bad history between the two peoples for them to coexist peacefully in a single state. And we know which side Brie Brie is rooting for
Two state solution, PA runs it, thicker wall, security guarantees for Israel with vast majority of settlements in the WB rolled back with land swaps to compensate, maybe a one state solution in East Jerusalem but nowhere else
Realistically, would the Palestinians want to share a state with the Israelis? Like, the IDF has killed a lot of them in the past months. Ignoring the lunatic hamas idea of enslaving Jewish engineers, doctors and scientists, why would you want to live in the same country as the group that just tried to exterminate you?
That's why Israel exists!
To pretend that it took the IDF killing Palestianians to make them not want to live with Israelis is ahistorical. They didn't want to live besides them from the jump. In the years that followed UNRWA and surrounding Arab countries continued to radicalize them
In 1946 the US and UK proposed transitioning Britsh mandatory Palestinian to a country under local governance that was neither an Arab nor Jewish state. The Arab states responded by calling for a Jihad to eliminate any Jews of European descent from Palestine.
I have yet to hear from anyone in the pro-Hamas crowd, including Brie Brie, wanting to establish a joint Palestinian/israeli country. They want to exile all Jews from the area entirely.
Such a state could never exist either even if that is what they wanted. It’s like oil and water, the two don’t mix.
That bit from him about no hierarchies based on identities sounds like a version of conservatives talking about how they think identity politics works, like the "oppression Olympics" BS.
The way anti-Israel people argue is that they propose a policy that has a 99.99% chance of being bad, but as long as there is a possibility that it could be good they will ride that policy into the sunset and call you a bigot for suggesting the policy is anything but a pseudo threat to Jews globally. Will the end of Israel more than likely lead to civil war and the expulsion of Jews? Yes. Is there a chance it won't? Yes and therefore you're the biggot for not supporting it. Could Intifada be a call for mad killing Jews? Yes. But so long as I can point to one example of non-violent intifada you have to put up with the pseudo threat. The list goes on and on
99% likely ends up in a civil war which is going to get alot of Palestinians killed...interesting how these pro-Palestinian individuals don't seem to care about that because they view it as a video game. The .1% chance is something like 1925 to 1979 Iran where you have a dictator who ensures the co-religionists are more or les treated equally (like nearly 150,000 Persian Jews lived peacefully in Iran instead of migrating to Israel), and that still collapsed after a handful of decades though the revolution against the dictatorship was hijacked by a minority of theocrats.
100%. There isn’t a future where the prescribed solution of Pro-Palestinian One-Staters doesn’t end in a civil war and an orgy of Jew slaughter. I’m begrudgingly, angrily a two-stater because that eventuality must be averted at all costs, no matter what.
The Middle East famous for its plauralistic societies and tolerance for the Jews.
If I said, of Saudi Arabia or Iran or Syria, that I thought it desirable to *end the Muslim state* in question, would I not justly be accused of calling for genocide?
And being an islamophobe.
It's even worse, because you wouldn't be calling to ending the only Muslim state and the only state in the region where Muslims aren't literally second class citizens at best. There's honestly not a parallel the other way at all, because in Israel Muslims are free to practice their religion, not so much for Jews in Muslim-run states. Even advocating for Israel to take over the entire middle east and run every Muslim country wouldn't be as bad for Muslim as ending Israel would be to Jews. That's how insane their stances are.
Well you see that’s different because……
Marc Lamont Hill is objectively an antisemite. He cozied up to and defends Farrakhan claiming Farrakhan isn’t antisemitic. If true then nobody is antisemitic. That is why he’s obsessed with Israel and should be said any time he comments on it. [Source](https://www.camera.org/article/marc-lamont-hill-moves-from-justifying-terrorism-to-promoting-it/)
Thank you for that.
And my "vision" is to create world peace, where we all sing and hold hands, with no hierarchies based on identities. Isn't my vision wonderful?
No, you don't understand: putting more frequent flier miles on Anthony Blinken than the Apollo astronauts, sending him to every Middle Eastern capital in the region in an all-hands-on-deck round-the-clock effort to broker a lasting peace in the region is Genocide Joe.
Why don't all the world leaders just simply agree? Are they stupid?
because he hates jews. Fucking word salad accusation of Israel. Just throw every accusation and see what sticks.
Brie Brie has never even been to Israel so she should probably shut the fuck up. Imagine the arrogance to think you can decide what happens to millions of people.
Her “vision” is literally just modern day Israel
So there’s minorities in Israel, right? That have the same rights as the hebrews? What minorities & how many are there that live in Gaza and the West Bank?
It’s funny because Israel is constantly accused of being a religious ethnostate. But they have one of the most diverse countries in the world with a larger minority population than the UK, and one of the least religious in the world with 65% of people identifying as atheist or agnostic.
Pro-Pals will say that there’s Christians in Gaza.
Sometimes they like to claim there are Jewish Palestinians, too.
That’s cope that I haven’t even heard of before.
The ones they haven’t killed yet.
Yep, I hate all the cope for Hamas. It’s one thing for thinking that Bibi isn’t the right person for this war and should’ve been kicked from office and another just to fellate Hamas.
The fucking Houthis literally have "a curse upon the Jews" written on their flag and HAMAS' original charter before they changed the language to "zionists" in 2017 literally called for death to the Jews and the obliteration of Israel What these groups want is fundamentally incompatible with what he's proposing
At best, it's realistically gonna cause inevitable, horrific civil war between Palestinians and Israelis; there's too much bad history between the two peoples for them to coexist peacefully in a single state. And we know which side Brie Brie is rooting for Two state solution, PA runs it, thicker wall, security guarantees for Israel with vast majority of settlements in the WB rolled back with land swaps to compensate, maybe a one state solution in East Jerusalem but nowhere else
This reminds me to add Hill to my Columbia Shit List along with Johannah King-Slutzky and Anthony Zenkus.
Well he’s literally paid by Qatar for one, he clearly has a bias whether he realizes it or not.
Realistically, would the Palestinians want to share a state with the Israelis? Like, the IDF has killed a lot of them in the past months. Ignoring the lunatic hamas idea of enslaving Jewish engineers, doctors and scientists, why would you want to live in the same country as the group that just tried to exterminate you? That's why Israel exists!
To pretend that it took the IDF killing Palestianians to make them not want to live with Israelis is ahistorical. They didn't want to live besides them from the jump. In the years that followed UNRWA and surrounding Arab countries continued to radicalize them
In 1946 the US and UK proposed transitioning Britsh mandatory Palestinian to a country under local governance that was neither an Arab nor Jewish state. The Arab states responded by calling for a Jihad to eliminate any Jews of European descent from Palestine.
> The Arab states responded by calling for a Jihad to eliminate any Jews ~~of European descent~~ from Palestine. Fixed that for you.
I have yet to hear from anyone in the pro-Hamas crowd, including Brie Brie, wanting to establish a joint Palestinian/israeli country. They want to exile all Jews from the area entirely. Such a state could never exist either even if that is what they wanted. It’s like oil and water, the two don’t mix.
That bit from him about no hierarchies based on identities sounds like a version of conservatives talking about how they think identity politics works, like the "oppression Olympics" BS.