LOL, every time someone provides contrary evidence to your accusation it gets labeled “whataboutism.” I know all the anti-Zionist propaganda tricks.
Russia invaded a sovereign nation to take over their land. Israel is fighting back against a genocidal regime that has sponsored terrorist violence against it for decades, and has promised to destroy it. Big difference.
Stop with the genocide accusations. It’s offensive to people who have actually suffered genocides.
LOL, wow. I don’t even know where to begin with this crap.
Yes, I am an Israel supporter. That makes me biased towards Israel. Just like your hatred for Israel makes you biased against Israel. See how that works?
And you’re right, it didn’t start on Oct 7, 2023. It didn’t even start in 1948. It started decades before that, when Arabs began violently resisting Jewish immigration spurred on by the violently antisemitic and Nazi-sympathizer Amin Al-Husseini. But I suspect that you actually know every little about the history, like most Israel haters.
What did you do to generate that ridiculous list of links, Google “Bad things Israel has done”?
I like your list of “massacres” too. Notice how the vast majority of them occurred in 1947 and 1948, during war started by the Arabs. Most of them are just battles in which civilians died, but the Palestinian propaganda machine attaches the word “massacre” to every single one for dramatic effect. I can play that game with actual massacres, going back centuries before your list.
“We were viciously attacked by the terror proxy of a genocidal regime that wants to destroy us, but we shouldn’t respond because it’s bad for the environment.”
What color is the sky in your dream world?
Comments by extremists in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic terror attack don’t establish genocidal intent. The actions over the past year clearly aren’t in line with those comments.
Let’s not forget the current war in Israel started when Hamas terrorists (and Gazan civilians) actually murdered 1200 Israeli civilians. In the most barbaric way possible. And then took 250 more people hostage. Last time I checked, Ukrainian terrorists did not invade Russia and butcher civilians and take more prisoner. Israel and Russia are not analogous in the slightest.
Theorizing a large number of hypothetical deaths from indirect causes does not prove genocide.
Perhaps you’re not familiar with Israel’s incredible contributions to environmental technology innovation. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2022/12/01/the-world-wants-israels-energy-and-environmental-innovations/ https://startupnationcentral.org/blog/climatetech/climate-change-israeli-innovation/
https://www.greenpac.ca/post/solar-innovation-in-israel-making-use-of-the-desert-sun
I was wrong, it was Einat Wilf from the episode in her podcast where she talks about an article she co-wrote with two peace-oriented Arabs shortly after the Abraham Accords were signed. The whole episode is worth a listen, but the particular comment I referenced comes up around 10:15.
Would love to read more about this if you have a reference or link!>
It was mentioned on a podcast, but I listen to a lot of them so I can’t quite remember which one it was on. I’ll have to go back and find it.
Some ambiguity here - did you mean folks disliking Hamas (which I provided the survey showing it’s at 52%) or folks who like Israel (using folks who dislike the US as a proxy, suggests less than half).>
I mean Palestinians who are willing to coexist peacefully with Israel. It isn’t just about whether they like Hamas or not, it’s about their ultimate goals.
The CSM article gives me some hope but I find it very odd that the mainstream media doesn’t seem interested in the story. The one article you can find about Gazans resisting Hamas is in the Christian Science Monitor. Bari Weiss (I think it was her) recently told a story about approaching the New York Times with an idea for an article on this very subject because she had done an interview with a Gazan who was speaking out against Hamas and in support of peace with Israel, and the NYT responded, “Nah, we’re not interested.” Almost as if Western liberal media is suppressing those stories to promote a particular decolonization narrative of the conflict…
No. What we’re seeing is actually the beginning of the end for the Iranian regime, and the dawn of a new era of peace in the Middle East.
I went back over my comments and can’t figure out what I said that you find so problematic. What could I have possibly said that is pushing you towards the anti-Zionist camp?
I am representative of centrist Zionists, which make up the vast majority. The problem is that people have been taught by extremist anti-Zionists that the right wing nutjobs in Israel are representative of Zionism, when they simply aren’t. It’s no different than me saying that Islam is a religion of terrorism. That would be blatant Islamophobia, wouldn’t it? But when it comes to Zionism, people think it’s okay to make sweeping generalizations and treat us all as racist fascist scum.
Every society has its extremists. Every single one. The difference with Israel is that Western progressives judge the entire country by its extremists.
I don’t doubt that there are some out there, all I’m saying is that I haven’t seen anything to suggest they’re not a small minority. Oppressed people have protested publicly in many other countries but we don’t hear anything from the Palestinians against Hamas. Why don’t we hear anything about underground Palestinian peace movements? Where are the videos of people denouncing Hamas? They’ve been decimated by the IDF and now Sinwar is dead, so why aren’t people taking to the streets to celebrate?
I’m no Coates expert, but I haven’t heard him express the idea that “The Holocaust doesn’t give Israelis the right to treat Palestinians this way.”. I’ve heard him say something to the effect of “The Holocaust perhaps explains why Israelis treat others they way they do”. Coates take doesn’t excuse Israel, but does attempt to humanize their reaction. That isn’t the same idea that you’re expressing.>
That’s precisely what he’s implying. His argument starts from the premise that Israel treats the Palestinians poorly, which is wrong, and then postulates a possible explanation for that treatment. But his implication is very clear: it might be an explanation, but it’s not an excuse or justification. My point is that his explanation is wrong. What he perceives as poor treatment of the Palestinians (heavy security, checkpoints, limitations on travel, etc) is not because of the Holocaust. It has nothing to do with the Holocaust. It’s because the Palestinians have been actively murdering Israeli civilians in terror attacks for 40 years. Which is also why his apartheid narrative (which is shared by all anti-Zionists) is inaccurate.
Are you suggesting that Israel doesn’t treat those of the Islamic faith differently that those of Jewish faith as the prime criteria for that different treatment? The “why” is irrelevant. That’s Coates’s point. Any excuse to treat people of a different faith worse is apartheid with extra steps (and rationalization).>
Correct. All citizens of Israel, whether Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Druze, etc, have equal rights as citizens. The Palestinians don’t because they’re not Israel citizens. It has nothing to do with religion or ethnicity. It has to do with citizenship. This is a very, very important point that people don’t understand about Israel (or choose to ignore).
If he wasn’t capable of being objective and controlling their emotions with a specific interviewee, he should have bowed out and let others do the interview. Are you sure you watched the interview? Dokoupil’s very first question (nearly a monologue in itself) included such treats as:>
I did watch the interview. The extremist backpack comment may have been a bit melodramatic but Coates’ perspective is an extreme left wing position. And asking him directly if he thinks Israel doesn’t have the right to exist is not a strawman. It’s a question. And a very fair one, since that is the perspective of many who share Coates’ perspective.
There is literally nothing analogous about Israel and the colonization of the Americas, but for the sake of argument let me ask you this:
Do you think First Nations people (as we call them in Canada) would be justified in carrying out an endless campaign of terrorist violence against Canadian and American citizens in the futile hope that we would all decide to pack up and leave? If several hundred of them decided to maraud through towns in rural US or Canada, butchering entire families, burning people alive, sexually violating women, and then took a couple hundred people hostage, would your attitude be, “Meh, we did take their land.”
Your suggestion is that someone that “understood Israel” would find the Israel’s actions acceptable.>
That’s not what I said. I criticized them for expressing a perspective about Israel’s motives that are simply wrong. And this is a common attitude about Israel I hear all the time: “The Holocaust doesn’t give Israelis the right to treat Palestinians this way.” That’s simply not how Israelis think.
Dokoupil started his attack on Coates right out of the gate. Dokoupil left no room for thoughtful arguments with his strawman accusations.>
I’ll admit I haven’t read the book myself because I’m not going to give Coates my money, but I have now heard three different interviews about it. One of those interviews was about an hour long on the Ezra Klein podcast. So my impression is based on listening to him discuss Israel in these three different contexts.
He witnessed Israeli apartheid firsthand and was sharing that experience>
Wrong. He witnessed things that he *interpreted *as apartheid based on his own frame of reference and preconceived notions about Israel. The point is, he doesn’t have the knowledge of the history and the details - he literally describes seeing things and thinking, “That reminds me of apartheid.” For example, he describes having an IDF soldier approach him and ask him questions about his background and how that just feels wrong. Well, those soldiers are trained to do what they do for security purposes because the country has dealt with terrorism for decades.
I totally disagree that Dokoupil came across as “unhinged.” No doubt he was trying very hard to suppress his emotions about the book, but he did not get angry or aggressive or anything. I will give Coates credit, however. He does present himself very well. He comes across as very calm and thoughtful.
I don’t give a crap what has been “discussed” - the facts clearly show that they aren’t committing genocide. The world knows what an actual genocide looks like.