Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

[AspieAlly613]

8 minutes ago, 2SpiritCherokee Princess said:

So you concede that you can't refute the issue of Israel's homophobia.

So which side kills more civilians while targeting medics & children?  https://israelpalestinetimeline.org/charts/

 

https://globalvoices.org/2021/05/14/israeli-settlers-aggressive-takeover-of-palestinian-homes-in-jerusalem-is-part-of-a-decades-long-struggle/

But don't listen to me; a much better expert on apartheid has spoken on the subject.  https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/nelson-mandela-30-years-palestine

Looking down on those of us who oppose the oppression of Native people?  😞

Wow, you are making this TOO EASY for me!

 

My main point was that you were trying to draw attention to an irrelevant side issue because you couldn't debate your point honestly, and....your first sentence was to emphasize that side issue, while never addressing the more serious issues that I brought up!

 

When you tried to deflect the "intentionally harming civilians" argument...you used a long-debunked fallacy of "who has the greater body count," when anyone whose remotely versed in the issue knows that the only reason for the high Palestinian civilian death toll is the Palestinian refusal to separate military infrastructure from civilian infrastructure.

 

Re: apartheid, you still refused to condemn the Palestine land law, prohibiting Jews from owning property in Palestine.  This law is far greater a violation than Israel's expansionist policies or collective punishment against Palestinians.  (Note that I don't need to deny Israel's violations to defend my points.)

 

I'd like to draw the following comparison:  In 2017, shortly after the Unite the Right rally where an American White supremacist murdered a protestor for advocating minority rights, President Trump did not initially condemn the White supremacists involved.  Your refusal to condemn Palestinian violations of Israeli and Jewish human rights is as bad as President Trump's hesitation was in 2017.

 

Most laughably, your response to an accusation of dishonest rhetorical strategy was just...to say "you object to my side of the issue!" rather than to actually address the issues of honest/dishonest rhetorical strategy.

 

The cherries on top:  

 

A one-minute Wikipedia search shows that.....Palestine has all those same restrictions on same-sex couples, and more!  If I wanted to make a snide remark, I'd argue that you were too stupid to make that comparison, but that would be disingenuous, we all know that you're not stupid.  As such, I would conclude that your point on homophobic laws in Israel (laws which I condemn and certainly wouldn't support in the United States) is not a valid criticism of Israel in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and is instead an attempt to distract from the most pressing issues--exactly what I accused you of.

 

Regarding your statement of the oppression of indigenous people, I remind you that the name for "people who live in a place to which they are not indigenous" is "immigrants".  While the UNSCOP concluded that, as of the UNSCOP report of 1947, both Jews and Arabs were indigenous and deserved states, the only question being whether the two states should answer to a single overarching government, it seems you disagree with the classification of Jews as being indigenous.  Regardless, according to your statement, are we to conclude that you think that it is okay to oppress immigrants?  Clearly not, we know that you are a vocal supporter of immigrant rights.  Perhaps you think that housing discrimination and attempted (sometimes successful) murder based on ethnicity/religion does not constitute oppression?  That's preposterous, as we know that you're not stupid.  Perhaps you think that it is permissible to oppress those in positions of privilege?  That might be your thought process, though if it is, that's a blatant example of the Argumentum ad lazarum fallacy, and therefore you would be morally bankrupt to argue that point.  The alternative, and the explanation that I consider most likely, is that your argument about oppression of indigenous people is malarkey, and is just another attempt to turn the focus away from a realistic acknowledgement of the most prominent issues at hand.

[Still]

 

12 hours ago, AspieAlly613 said:

I'd like to draw the following comparison:  In 2017, shortly after the Unite the Right rally where an American White supremacist murdered a protestor for advocating minority rights, President Trump did not initially condemn the White supremacists involved.  Your refusal to condemn Palestinian violations of Israeli and Jewish human rights is as bad as President Trump's hesitation was in 2017.

Did you say Israel did something wrong? Well, Hitler said Jews are bad. Therefore, you committed an Ipso facto Lorem Ipsum fallacy, your argument is wrong.

[Alaska Native Manitou]

In 1944 Warsaw the city's Jews rose up committed various acts of terrorism.  Should they be condemned for property destruction, the deaths of Germans & doing what they had to in order to survive?  Do you hate Sitting Bull & Geronimo too?

Spoiler

 

[AspieAlly613]

8 hours ago, 2SpiritCherokee Princess said:

In 1944 Warsaw the city's Jews rose up committed various acts of terrorism.  Should they be condemned for property destruction, the deaths of Germans & doing what they had to in order to survive?

It is unfair to compare action taken against armed soldiers to actions taken against civilians.  

[AspieAlly613]

This thread is being put on cool-down as a precautionary measure to prevent escalation/inappropriately harsh responses to a user's condonement of attempted murder on the basis of race/national origin.

 

On behalf of the moderating team, I ask that users not respond directly.  The moderating team is aware of the issue and is discussing the matter.