israel supporters - i have a bridge to sell you.

[TheMan]

i want you to think about what you're endorsing by not condemning this chewing. especially as a christian. you're endorsing the killing of innocent children.

i've made my condemnation of hamas and their intentions clear. silence from you on this i can only assume you endorse the killing of innocent children.

give me something to condemn in return if you'd like. condemn it and i'll get off your back on this subject for good. you have my word.

Chewing doesn't care, they're Muslim kids so no big deal. He calls himself Catholic but he's really a satanist.

[Lakers Legend#32]

TRUMP: No estate tax, no going through the banks and borrowing from—in some cases a fine banker— and in some cases a shylocks and bad people.

I'm sure antisemitism crusader Patrick "Poopsie" Chewing will condemn Trump for this.

[Baller234]

@diamenz

Your ultimatum given to Chewing wasn't totally fair. You may not agree with his POV because it's uncomfortable but there's still truth to it.

I don't condone killing innocent people, especially innocent children, but there really is no guarantee that removing the Hamas leaders makes the anti-Israel sentiment go away. So yes the humane thing is show some level of mercy, but not when it comes at your own expense.

Let me reiterate, I do NOT condone the killing of innocents and I do not agree with the guy in the video. But as someone who is looking to preserve the future of his children and his country, certainly you could understand his POV. It's harsh and it's cruel, but understandable.

Israel's enemies are likely thinking the exact same thing.

[diamenz]

i don't know what post your referring to in my back & forths with chewing but he's a big boy and can fend for himself. but since we're on the subject, i can't fathom how i'm the one that's being unreasonable in all of this. i have no problem condemning extremists on either side. i've done it so many *ucking times here. i even went out of my way to create an rip israelis thread on the anniversary of oct 7th. i just come forth with it outright. i can't even squeeze it out of chewing. that must say something on a ground level before an argument from either of us is even made.

@diamenz

there really is no guarantee that removing the Hamas leaders makes the anti-Israel sentiment go away.

of course it won't. one leader gets taken out and another takes it's place. as long as the occupation continues, there's going to be a hamas in some form. as long as there's a hamas, there's going to be an occupation. it's a cycle with no solution but more war.

so it makes you wonder how effective a two state solution would even be if that were to happen. much less a one state solution. there's so much history, hatred and blood in the sand for it to even be seriously considered at this stage of the game.

forcing the two sides to live in peace as one nation would ultimately result in the population's own territorial woes in the form of gangs and factions. there would never be peace. would it be better than it is now, and sustainable? lol... i don't know if it would even be worth trying.

two states would be more feasible but even that would be near impossible. the strategy would have to be perfect. as in... a thousand foot impenetrable wall between the two states with zero entrances or exits. closed off forever, extending well beyond their borders. but neither side's governance can agree on a land deal to begin that conversation. all of this is way too complicated to problem solve, especially at the level it's discussed online by people that can't see past their own nose. how many folks out there do you believe to have genuine interest in the subject and have legitimate arguments to be heard? the discussion around this everywhere you go online and offline is a cesspool of sidisms and talking points... as with everything i suppose.

the alternative way, and again probably the only way now due to the circumstances is perpetual war until one side is eliminated, including the population, which israel is currently doing in some form... and like i said to chewing, the other side would be engaging in the same behavior if they held the power dynamic. this is the sad reality. call it genocide, ethnic cleansing, the labels argument is tired af already. in the end this is the way it will end up being in some form or another. this war is far, far from over.

[ShawkFactory]

@diamenz

Your ultimatum given to Chewing wasn't totally fair. You may not agree with his POV because it's uncomfortable but there's still truth to it.

I don't condone killing innocent people, especially innocent children, but there really is no guarantee that removing the Hamas leaders makes the anti-Israel sentiment go away. So yes the humane thing is show some level of mercy, but not when it comes at your own expense.

Let me reiterate, I do NOT condone the killing of innocents and I do not agree with the guy in the video. But as someone who is looking to preserve the future of his children and his country, certainly you could understand his POV. It's harsh and it's cruel, but understandable.

Israel's enemies are likely thinking the exact same thing.

What you’re saying is correct, but the inability to have this sort of insight and empathy for the other side is where I take issue. Don’t want to speak for Diamenz but it seems like he feels similarly.

The disdain for Israel in the region is far more primal than religion and it’s frustrating for a person attempting to understand why to be scoffed at and labeled as a terrorist supporter or Jew hater.

[Baller234]

i don't know what post your referring to in my back & forths with chewing but he's a big boy and can fend for himself. but since we're on the subject, i can't fathom how i'm the one that's being unreasonable in all of this. i have no problem condemning extremists on either side. i've done it so many *ucking times here. i even went out of my way to create an rip israelis thread on the anniversary of oct 7th. i just come forth with it outright. i can't even squeeze it out of chewing. that must say something on a ground level before an argument from either of us is even made.



of course it won't. one leader gets taken out and another takes it's place. as long as the occupation continues, there's going to be a hamas in some form. as long as there's a hamas, there's going to be an occupation. it's a cycle with no solution but more war.

so it makes you wonder how effective a two state solution would even be if that were to happen. much less a one state solution. there's so much history, hatred and blood in the sand for it to even be seriously considered at this stage of the game.

forcing the two sides to live in peace as one nation would ultimately result in the population's own territorial woes in the form of gangs and factions. there would never be peace. would it be better than it is now, and sustainable? lol... i don't know if it would even be worth trying.

two states would be more feasible but even that would be near impossible. the strategy would have to be perfect. as in... a thousand foot impenetrable wall between the two states with zero entrances or exits. closed off forever, extending well beyond their borders. but neither side's governance can agree on a land deal to begin that conversation. all of this is way too complicated to problem solve, especially at the level it's discussed online by people that can't see past their own nose. how many folks out there do you believe to have genuine interest in the subject and have legitimate arguments to be heard? the discussion around this everywhere you go online and offline is a cesspool of sidisms and talking points... as with everything i suppose.

the alternative way, and again probably the only way now due to the circumstances is perpetual war until one side is eliminated, including the population, which israel is currently doing in some form... and like i said to chewing, the other side would be engaging in the same behavior if they held the power dynamic. this is the sad reality. call it genocide, ethnic cleansing, the labels argument is tired af already. in the end this is the way it will end up being in some form or another. this war is far, far from over.

So then based on this post, one could argue the man in the video you posted is being perfectly reasonable then. When your enemy hates you that badly and would no doubt strike given the chance, perhaps mercy isn't an option. Bad faith actors will accuse him of being an evil monster fueled by racism and disdain towards the palestinian people, but in reality he's just thinking in terms of self preservation. The preservation of his people and his country. I would agree his view is extreme and non-compromising, and it's why I don't condone it, but I would be lying if I said I didn't understand.

Like you said it doesn't matter which side is right and which side is wrong, all that matters is the reality of the situation. War is hell. Israel isn't the bad guy here just because they're winning. You may not need to hear that but a lot of posters on here do.

[Patrick Chewing]

Our acceptance of Israel's response does not mean we want innocent civilians to die. You guys, especially diamenz is trying to make that connection as if there isn't any other options or opinions on the matter. There was no alternative for Israel. If you did have an alternative for Israel, which doesn't include them giving up trying to kill off Hamas so that they can regroup and attack Israel again, then step forward with it. Otherwise, the likes of others like diamenz just want Israel to do nothing whenever they're attacked thus making you antisemitic since you're obviously okay with Jews dying without retaliation.

[diamenz]

Our acceptance of Israel's response does not mean we want innocent civilians to die. You guys, especially diamenz is trying to make that connection as if there isn't any other options or opinions on the matter. There was no alternative for Israel. If you did have an alternative for Israel, which doesn't include them giving up trying to kill off Hamas so that they can regroup and attack Israel again, then step forward with it. Otherwise, the likes of others like diamenz just want Israel to do nothing whenever they're attacked thus making you antisemitic since you're obviously okay with Jews dying without retaliation.

the alternative is offering with a peace deal. no, not the half-assed peace deals that israel has offered on their terms in the past but an actual two state solution. but like i just said, that's an impossibility at this point.

otherwise, it's endless war until one side is wiped off the map. then so be it but don't deny what israel's actual goals are. it's elimination of these people, including the civilian population over fears of neverending radicalism. it's the only way they see security for themselves.

yes, if the shoe was on the other foot hamas would be doing the same thing. but don't sit there and tell me the israeli government aren't committing intentional mass murder and ethnic cleansing. it insults my intelligence. which again comes to the cusp of the op. if you can't see this for what it is and call it accordingly, well then i don't know what to tell you. you're either in denial about it, see it as a losing argument or actually just can't piece it together.

[Patrick Chewing]

the alternative is offering with a peace deal. no, not the half-assed peace deals that israel has offered on their terms in the past but an actual two state solution. but like i just said, that's an impossibility at this point.

otherwise, it's endless war until one side is wiped off the map. then so be it but don't deny what israel's actual goals are. it's elimination of these people, including the civilian population over fears of neverending radicalism. it's the only way they see security for themselves.

yes, if the shoe was on the other foot hamas would be doing the same thing. but don't sit there and tell me the israeli government aren't committing intentional mass murder and ethnic cleansing. it insults my intelligence. which again comes to the cusp of the op. if you can't see this for what it is and call it accordingly, well then i don't know what to tell you. you're either in denial about it, see it as a losing argument or actually just can't piece it together.

Hamas has rejected peace deal after peace deal over the years. This is common knowledge.

[diamenz]

Hamas has rejected peace deal after peace deal over the years. This is common knowledge.

right. because like i said, they've always been on israel's terms in regard to control over the population and the right to reassume the occupation at the drop of a hat. israel has never offered up a true two-state solution because they don't want one. neither side does.

speaking of which, israel recently rejected a peace deal in return for release of the remaining hostages, something you've expressed concern over time and time again. so miss me the the finger pointing.

again, like baller said, no side is innocent in all of this. you seem to be incapable of making that distinction. especially since you chose to ignore everything i said about that.

[Patrick Chewing]

right. because like i said, they've always been on israel's terms in regard to control over the population and the right to reassume the occupation at the drop of a hat. israel has never offered up a true two-state solution because they don't want one. neither side does.

speaking of which, israel recently rejected a peace deal in return for release of the remaining hostages, something you've expressed concern over time and time again. so miss me the the finger pointing.

again, like baller said, no side is innocent in all of this. you seem to be incapable of making that distinction. especially since you chose to ignore everything i said about that.

Dude, you are just so misinformed on this subject. If you're going to argue AGAINST Israel which you have done since Day 1, then you need to have facts on your side. In 2005, Israel pulled all 21 Israeil settlements from Gaza. In 2008 Israel offered Palestine a Two-State solution deal where Israel would disengage from over 90% of the West Bank and Mahmoud Abbas rejected it!

Proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realignment_plan

So you cannot expect me to take you seriously on this subject when you say that Israel has never offered up a two-state solution when they indeed have.

There is a side that's innocent in this. It's Israel. When you finally let your blind hatred for Israel stop clouding your judgement, then you'll get to my level and see the truth for what it is. But for now, none of you are there. You're just blaming Israel for existing, and then blaming Israel for having terrorist attacks against them.

[Baller234]

Making a deal is about compromise. Israel is the one with the cards and the leverage. If you're the other side you have to be able to accept that. You can't move forward unless you acknowledge reality first.

Israel offered:

- A Palestinian state in 93–94% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and land swaps for remaining territory
- Safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank
- Jerusalem divided: Arab neighborhoods to Palestine, Jewish neighborhoods to Israel
- Holy sites under international custodianship
- Resettlement of refugees in Palestine or third countries (limited number into Israel)
- A demilitarized Palestinian state

This offer wasn't accepted. No response, no counter offer.

So if I'm Israel you're telling me loud and clear that you're totally unwilling to negotiate. If that's the case I guess we have to be mortal enemies then. That's not my fault, that's yours.

[diamenz]

Dude, you are just so misinformed on this subject. If you're going to argue AGAINST Israel which you have done since Day 1, then you need to have facts on your side. In 2005, Israel pulled all 21 Israeil settlements from Gaza. In 2008 Israel offered Palestine a Two-State solution deal where Israel would disengage from over 90% of the West Bank and Mahmoud Abbas rejected it!

Proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realignment_plan

So you cannot expect me to take you seriously on this subject when you say that Israel has never offered up a two-state solution when they indeed have.

There is a side that's innocent in this. It's Israel. When you finally let your blind hatred for Israel stop clouding your judgement, then you'll get to my level and see the truth for what it is. But for now, none of you are there. You're just blaming Israel for existing, and then blaming Israel for having terrorist attacks against them.

the occupation, and again this is where these terms get sketchy without context, didn't end in 2005. israel's internal military presence within gaza ended, but transitioned into a besiegement, if you will. in effect, think of it as the equivalent of armed guards leaving the room that you're being held prisoner in, shutting the door behind them and holding position outside not allowing you to leave and assuming control of everything that's allowed in or out; controlling your airspace, food & water intake, economy, electricity, maritime resources and borders. that's not to mention they can choose to mow the lawn whenever they deem it necessary.

on the other hand, i agree with you both that the 2008 deal should have been taken. it was the best peace offer that was ever put on the table and was a missed opportunity for at least some objective level of stability and harmony, whether the palestinians would have been fully content with it or not. it goes without saying that in their eyes, any concession is a concession to colonial settlers. yeah absolutely - the land deal alone was beyond reasonable despite some nuance. but like baller said, israel holds the cards and palestine isn't in much of a position to dictate terms. so i guess the question becomes, how stubborn and hard-headed were they to not be convinced that 'this is it'? should have taken the deal.

that being said, there's always fine print that needs to be mentioned and the reason i always emphasize "true" two state solution. this piggybacks off the things i listed in the previous paragraph, where despite being given their own "state", israel would still have micromanaged most aspects of their government, including demanding complete demilitarization and only allowing alliances under israeli permission. furthermore, that "state" would have, in the end, more or less permanently formalized palestine's status as an israeli colony. so the deal wasn't all roses. that's why i always say, all of the israeli treaties, to varying degrees, were all sugar coated forms of continued occupation. the 2008 one and to a lesser extent the deal offered in 2000 can be considered two of the better, or best ones. there was also the whole "napkin" controversy and the hastiness over forcing the deal before the next israeli administration assumed power:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale...ers#Napkin_map