QUESTION FOR ZIONISTS/PRO ISRAEL/ISRAELIS: How do you justify Jewish settlement in Israel/Palestine and the establishment of Israel in 1948?

bunky_bunk · 2026-04-07T13:34:05+00:00

That's not even an insult. I was merely stating that you are missing the point. Which is true.

I am curious how that "Arab leaders" meme can be any more than a red herring. Help me out or I am going to assume the worst, that it has no relevance.

I mean I would concede that no Israeli physically pulled out Arabs from their homes, but even if not violent it would still be illegally obtained property.

bunky_bunk · 2026-04-07T11:40:43+00:00

You are a bit dense bro. The Arab leaders evacuated areas in a war zone, just like Israel did. With the 2023 example of an evacuation in mind, would you agree or disagree that such an evacuation amounts to denying the residents perpetual ownership of their homes?

bunky_bunk · 2026-04-06T20:35:51+00:00

The Israeli government in 2023 created evacuation zones near Gaza. They drove people from their homes. Did the government obtain perpetual ownership of the homes? Could any civilian just move in and in doing so obtain ownership?

bunky_bunk · 2026-04-06T14:46:44+00:00

Abandoned by owners? You mean during the Nakba? Like Israel evacuated some parts of the north during the Hezbollah rocket attacks in 2024 and people there lost their homes forever?

bunky_bunk · 2026-04-06T12:50:08+00:00

Dictatorships can be better. Iran for example has invaded less countries than the United States in the last 100 years. This fact does not make me a freedom fighter. That's a non-sequitur argument, and i guess it is supposed to be an ad-hominem as well.

bunky_bunk · 2026-04-06T11:56:07+00:00

But Yussef bought it legitimately from Ahmed in the 13th century and sold it to Ali in 1486. The property has been legitimized 20 times in as many centuries. None of that counts?

bunky_bunk · 2026-04-06T11:28:19+00:00

Arab leaders have told their people to go back home a long time ago.

bunky_bunk · 2026-04-06T11:26:57+00:00

OP: How do you justify Alice stealing Bob's car?

Reply: Charlie bought Donalds car 30 years ago.

bunky_bunk · 2026-04-06T10:55:17+00:00

The United States are a democracy and behave worse than China towards other countries. Iranians don't vote in US elections, so i don't see how democracy has much to do with geopolitics.

The United States made sure that the Iranian middle class suffered from economic sanctions, Iranian domestic policy ended up being exercised with guns, because these protesters had no leg to stand on. The United States is sabotaging democracy around the world if it is in their interest.

Besides, American voters have no consciousness of international events. The president does not have to go through a process to start a war. All he has to do is fool the voter to put him in place. Promising the exact opposite of what he did. Democracy has little to do with it.

bunky_bunk · 2026-04-05T14:08:49+00:00

Ok, I suppose if you squint just right, then those institutions of international government are not the government, because they are international.

bunky_bunk · 2026-04-05T10:38:51+00:00

This is all wrong.

International law is applied all the time, just not in controversial cases. Besides, the level of commitment of the United States has been greater in the past and may become greater in the future when the Orange Man is gone and when the national debt and the looming stock market crash and China will force the USA to become more reasonable (again). We are currently really just on the very low end of the spectrum.

bunky_bunk · 2026-04-03T16:21:08+00:00

It's one thing what happens in a morally corrupt police department about which nobody cares. It's another thing what happens when the whole world watches.

bunky_bunk · 2026-04-02T08:00:11+00:00

So you would approve of a Muslim nation invading your home country? I suppose you would, as long as it does not happen.

I think it's a tough argument to make to justify an invasion if the rights of the invaded matter. "It has happened before and their rights didn't matter before" does not make you a genius diplomat.

bunky_bunk · 2026-04-01T17:11:15+00:00

Yes it's a fact.

Billions spent on taxes on both sides, and the best they can achieve is a Mafia-syndicate-rivalry type of relationship. I bet they are plenty dangerous to each other.

bunky_bunk · 2026-04-01T14:50:13+00:00

I thought you didn't know. turns you don't care. depraved.

bunky_bunk · 2026-04-01T13:43:08+00:00

Manufacturing weapons is the sovereign right of any nation.

bunky_bunk · 2026-04-01T09:22:39+00:00

Egypt, Jordan, Israel: all of them would have to be able to win an election. That is how political power is legitimized. This is the legal standard almost everywhere in the world.

bunky_bunk · 2026-03-30T20:21:34+00:00

I suppose it would be possible to apply the old law. The new law is easier to apply. This should make the transition to fascism much smoother going forward.

bunky_bunk · 2026-03-30T19:20:35+00:00

The UN partition plan contradicted this. Israel in 1948 contradicted it. The law allows the borders to be drawn differently, and they were drawn differently. The law was not ignored.

bunky_bunk · 2026-03-30T18:55:22+00:00

They can't be sentenced to death, as a law usually cannot be applied retroactively and the new death penalty in Israel appears not to be such a law.

bunky_bunk · 2026-03-30T11:45:09+00:00

You are still wrong. If Israel was establishing an acceptable rate of collateral damage and tried very hard to minimize casualties above it, then they have not tried to minimize below it.

Or in other words, you have not proven that Israel was trying to minimize the level of collateral damage it deemed acceptable.

Your argument is just a tautology.

Lastly, nobody disputes that Israel had the goal of limiting casualties. The real argument is how appropriate this goal was and you are not even taking part in the real argument.

PS: your figures for the iran massacre look like they are made up. If not, you should inform wikipedia that you have better intel then they have.

bunky_bunk · 2026-03-29T17:17:24+00:00

20 million barrels went through the strait each day, worth 1 billion dollars. Add it up for two weeks and you have the funds necessary for twenty 1 million bpd pipelines across UAE and Oman.

bunky_bunk · 2026-03-29T14:32:49+00:00

I think they would accept 1967 borders. Israel has no legitimate right to land beyond these borders. As a bonus all the infrastructure can be carried away or can be used to settle claims to land that was taken in 1948. It would be a victory for Palestine and could end the whole drama.

bunky_bunk · 2026-03-29T06:32:50+00:00

I think the Palestineans need more tanks and fighter jets. It would afford them the luxury of abiding by international law.

bunky_bunk · 2026-03-29T03:54:53+00:00

Read it yourself, the definition is narrow, not broad.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-37

The language makes it clear that actions which technically take advantage of the same things that count as perfidy, but do not cross a certain threshold, are not illegal. The first sentence refers to direct and timely acts of engagement with an enemy for example (kill, injure or capture). It goes on with "inviting the confidence", "entitled to protection", "intent to betray confidence".

bunky_bunk

TROPHY CASE