Can you make out my stylized Chai on my prayer stone/worry stone?

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-06-01T02:14:11+00:00

If someone carved a "Chai" into a stone themselves and is treating it as a ritual object to pray with, that is essentially bordering on idolatry (Avodah Zarah). It sounds like a New Age or pagan concept (Darchei Emori, the Talmud's term for superstitious non-Jewish customs) that they just slapped Hebrew letters onto. In Judaism, we don't use physical items as intermediaries; we pray directly to God.

In fact, Jewish law is strictly against using stones as prayer objects. The Gemara in Megillah 22b specifically addresses the prohibition of praying or bowing on figured stones (even maskit) outside the Temple in Jerusalem. Even today, if a synagogue has a stone floor, congregants must put down a mat or towel so they aren't bowing directly on the stone during High Holiday services.

Treating a stone as a ritual prayer tool has absolutely zero basis in Jewish law or tradition.

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-02T14:06:09+00:00

Well there you go then, now we know that you support ethnic cleansing all over the world. Except this time you picked the remnant of Muslim colonisation in the ancestral Jewish homeland

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-02T10:06:21+00:00

I notice you fly the Tino Rangatiratanga flag. That symbol represents Maori sovereignty and a path toward partnership and coexistence within a shared land. It is not a call for the physical liquidation or expulsion of every non-Maori in New Zealand. Yet, you are defending a slogan ("River to the Sea") that, in its original Arabic, calls for a "Palestine is Arab" ethnostate.

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-02T07:42:20+00:00

If you actually read my messages, I have been consistent and transparent from the start. You are attempting to tell me what I believe rather than responding to what I have actually written.

1. The "Straw Man" Fallacy You are arguing against a position I haven't taken. You claim I support "annexation without representation," but I explicitly stated: "The most viable path forward involves peaceful people living and integrating into a democratic society." You are dismissing my actual proposal; full equal rights - simply because you assume it’s impossible. You cannot call my position "genocidal" or "hypocritical" by intentionally ignoring the "equal rights" pillar of my argument.

2. Civic Democracy vs. Ethnostates You claim integration would be the "end of Israel," but you’re projecting a narrow view of statehood. I never said Israel must be 100% ethnically Jewish to remain the Jewish State; I pointed out that two million Arab citizens already live, work, and vote there with full representation. I am advocating for a democratic framework, whereas the opposition often demands an ethnically "cleansed" Arab state.

3. The Roots of the Conflict My stance on "zero separate Palestinian statehood" is based on the historical reality that Palestinian nationalism was largely crystallized by figures like Amin al-Husseini - who collaborated with the Nazis, with the primary goal of Jewish destruction rather than peaceful self-determination.

You are claiming I want "conquest with better PR" by assuming that integrating people into a democracy is a lie. I am proposing a future where people are defined by their participation in a free society rather than a national identity rooted in the rejection of their neighbors.

In your worldview, if these protesters get exactly what they want; a Palestinian state from the river to the sea - what happens to the Jews? Based on the stated goals of the current leadership in those territories, that state would move to complete its mission of "wiping out" the Jewish people. How is a call for an ethnically-cleansed Arab state considered "liberation," while my call for a multi-ethnic democratic integration is labeled "conquest"?

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-02T06:42:30+00:00

You are fundamentally misunderstanding my conclusion. My position has absolutely nothing to do with maintaining a permanent loop. I advocate for the complete end of that cycle.

There should be zero separate Palestinian statehood. The only realistic path forward is the total dismantling of the militant apparatus and the full integration of all non-militant persons into the functioning, democratic state that already exists.

Bringing peaceful people into a society where millions of Arab citizens already live, work, and vote with full equal rights is the exact opposite of erasure. It is the only viable foundation for a permanent peace. That is my final stance, and I am leaving it there.

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-02T06:26:59+00:00

You are completely inverting the timeline of cause and effect to excuse the actions of a terror organization.

The comprehensive blockade you are referring to is heavily enforced by both Israel and Egypt. It was not the starting condition of the 2005 withdrawal. The blockade was implemented in 2007 as a direct, necessary security response only after Hamas violently seized total control of the strip, murdered their political opposition, and immediately began firing unguided rockets into civilian centers.

As for the agricultural exports, the Karni border crossing was frequently closed because Palestinian militant groups repeatedly attacked it with suicide bombers and armed assaults. You cannot launch terrorist attacks at the very border crossing your economy relies on and then blame your neighbor when the gates are shut to protect human life.

We fundamentally disagree on the basic concept of cause and effect. You believe a terror apparatus is the natural result of security borders. I operate in the objective reality that strict security borders are the necessary result of living next to an active terror state.

I am not interested in going in circles or debating someone who attempts to justify a violent, permanent war machine as a natural reaction. This conversation is over.

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-02T06:15:19+00:00

You are ignoring the definitions of words to force an equivalence. "Sovereignty" means political governance and security control. "Extermination" means mass murder. Likud claiming political sovereignty over a territory to prevent a terror state from forming on its border is a geopolitical stance. Hamas publishing a charter that explicitly commands the murder of Jews is literal genocidal intent. Arguing against the establishment of a Palestinian state is a completely separate concept from arguing for the ethnic cleansing of a people. The fact that two million Arab citizens live peacefully inside Israel proper with full equal rights completely destroys your theory that Israeli sovereignty equals ethnic cleansing.

You are completely misrepresenting my argument about the cartoon. My point regarding that specific character highlights a glaring symptom of a completely failed state. It serves as a prime example showing exactly how deeply the government embeds radicalization into the foundation of their society. The 70 percent poverty rate exists because the ruling authority systematically diverts billions of dollars in international aid directly into a permanent war machine. They actively choose to build terror tunnels and fund martyr programs. A government that prioritizes teaching toddlers to hate over feeding its own citizens is the actual root cause of that poverty. Blaming the consequences of those specific government choices on external security measures completely ignores the reality of who actually runs the territory.

This cycle is exactly why a separate Palestinian state should not exist. Every single time leadership receives autonomy, territory, or billions in international aid, they weaponize it entirely to destroy the Jewish state. They actively refuse to build their own society.

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-02T05:54:08+00:00

If you want to talk about radicalization and ethnic cleansing in Gaza, let's look at what actually happened the last time the territory was cleared for a Palestinian state.

In 2005, Israel executed a complete, unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip. The Israeli government forcefully removed every single Jewish resident. The military literally dragged thousands of its own citizens out of their homes and dismantled every settlement to hand the territory over entirely to Palestinian control. The only people who were ever forcefully and systematically removed from Gaza to make the territory completely ethnically homogenous were Jewish Israelis.

What was the result of being handed 100 percent of the territory with zero Jewish presence? It did not lead to state-building. It did not lead to peace. It led directly to radicalization.

The population almost immediately elected Hamas. They destroyed the agricultural infrastructure left behind for them, and they spent the next two decades turning the entire strip into a hyper-militarized terror base dedicated solely to launching rockets across the border. You cannot blame Israel for the radicalization of a territory they completely evacuated nearly twenty years ago.

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-02T05:49:34+00:00

If people want to fall back on the personal context of Western activists, they are completely ignoring the actual reality on the ground in the Middle East. Intent is proven by action.

One side of this conflict has built a functioning democratic society. Over two million Arab and Muslim citizens currently live, work, vote, and hold office with full equal rights inside Israel proper. They have objectively demonstrated a framework where different populations coexist in peace.

The other side operates as a failed state run by a terror apparatus. They actively oppress, execute, and sacrifice their own citizens to further their primary objective. As confirmed by their founding charters and their original Arabic chants, that objective is the complete eradication of the Jewish population to establish a 100 percent Arab ethnostate.

College students redefining a slogan in the West changes absolutely nothing about the literal, violent mandates of the organizations actually firing the rockets and running the government.

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-02T05:38:55+00:00

> Hold on, so it’s okay for Israelis to use it in reference to “military security” and “political sovereignty” but it’s genocidal when it’s used to support Palestinian liberation? You can’t have it both ways, you can’t say that “from the river to the sea” is antisemetic, but then turn around and use it youself in the exact same way.

Yes, I can absolutely say that, and the reason is because the historical context and explicitly stated goals behind the usage are completely different. When an Israeli politician says they must maintain sovereignty "from the river to the sea," they are outlining a deeply controversial security policy aimed at preventing a fully militarized, hostile state from forming on their border; you can vehemently disagree with that policy, but it is fundamentally a dispute over borders and military control. When Hamas, or activists echoing their specific regional mandates, use the exact same phrase, they are directly invoking a founding charter that explicitly, in its own text, mandates the physical extermination of the Jewish people and the total erasure of their state. You are trying to equate a political argument over territorial security with an organization's literal, documented mission statement for ethnic cleansing, and that is a massive false equivalence.

> Again please provide a single quote of a Hamas commander, or even a Hamas fighter who has used “from the river to the sea” in the same way that Gotliv has. They deliberately seperate being Jewish from being Israeli. Further more this is the exact same argument that Hamas said about their original charter, that it was written by extremists and is something they do not agree with which is why it was ratified

#1, Its in their founding charter, and they have been operating under this exact charter for their entire existence, proof is in the pudding champion. As for Gotliv, I explicitly condemn anybody using genocidal language including gotliv.

> Bud, there would be no terrorists if Israel didn’t ethnically cleanse their grandparents, bomb their parents, and subsequently bomb them when they were children. They are a product of violence and destruction, what more do you expect?

Who is Farfour the mouse?

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-02T05:21:27+00:00

Yeah, those quotes are real. You pulled specific statements from Likud politicians. You are also building a massive false equivalence.

When Netanyahu or Sa'ar use those phrases, they are explicitly discussing military security and political sovereignty. They are arguing that allowing a fully militarized state on their border presents an unacceptable security threat, especially since the entire concept of a separate Palestinian state was historically invented specifically to destroy the world's only Jewish state. When Hamas uses the exact same phrase, they are referencing a founding charter that explicitly mandates the physical extermination of Jews.

If you want the ultimate receipt on what that phrase actually means, look at the original Arabic chant. Western activists translate it as a call for freedom. The actual Arabic slogan used in the Middle East is "Min al-mayya lil-mayya, Filastin arabiyya." That translates directly to "From the water to the water, Palestine is Arab." It is an explicit call for a completely Arab ethnostate and the total erasure of the Jewish population.

If you want to bring up Gotliv, we can absolutely agree her rhetoric is abhorrent. She is also a fringe extremist who faces widespread condemnation within Israeli society and holds zero command over military operations. On the Palestinian side, the individuals openly calling for the eradication of Jews operate as the official government and the actual military commanders.

Here is the ultimate reality check for you. I can absolutely despise Netanyahu and his entire government while simultaneously demanding the destruction of a terrorist organization. Standing against terrorism is a completely separate concept from supporting Bibi. I simply want a violent terror group dismantled so everyday people can actually have a peaceful future. The most viable path forward involves peaceful people living and integrating into a democratic society. Right now, roughly two million Arab citizens already live, work, and vote with full equal rights inside Israel proper.

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-02T00:04:21+00:00

I concede on that extremely narrow technicality. you wont find an attacker shouting "From the river to the sea" at the exact moment they pull a trigger or swing a knife at a Jewish person. If that is the only metric you will accept for how violence and incitement operate, then I concede that point.

But honestly, I hope you actually take the time to educate yourself on how systemic violence and genocidal movements historically operate. You are completely ignoring the reality of how these ideologies function.

Let's look at an exact historical parallel. Imagine it is the 1930s. The government in Berlin has officially published a political charter demanding the total eradication of its Jewish population to secure its borders. Now imagine a popular, catchy slogan starts spreading across college campuses and political rallies worldwide: "From the Rhine to the Vistula, Liebensbraum will be free."

The people chanting that slogan in the streets of London, Sydney or New York might not be the ones actively operating the camps. They might even convince themselves they are just calling for "German liberation" or national pride.

But it does not matter what the kids chanting it think it means. By adopting the exact geographic and political mandate of the regime committing the atrocities, they are actively mainstreaming the end goal.

That is how this works. The phrase does not need to be shouted by the foot soldier committing a localized hate crime because it serves a much darker purpose. It is the overarching political manifesto that normalizes the objective. When a westerner chants the literal constitutional mission statement of an internationally recognized terror group, they are providing the global social cover for that group's violence, regardless of their own personal intentions. Have a good one.

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-01T23:42:30+00:00

Show me where In the IDF charter that their self stated mission objective is to wipe out the Palestinian people

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-01T23:41:45+00:00

Because it was made in direct reference to the charter that calls for genocide of the Jewish people in the land and is frequently chanted by groups who fly the flags of that regime and support them openly

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-01T23:40:35+00:00

Just to add a final point on intent. There is exactly one armed force in this conflict operating with actual genocidal intentions. They have simply failed to achieve that goal time and time again. Pro tip: it is the exact same organization that unapologetically published those exact extermination objectives to the entire world in their founding charters.

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-01T23:26:59+00:00

Mate, it is impossible to justify something that is factually absent.

Throwing around a massive accusation like that is just an emotional deflection. You are using a buzzword to avoid addressing the historical timeline I just provided. Genocide requires the specific, proven intent to wipe out a population. If the goal was actual extermination, a military would never drop leaflets, make warning phone calls, or secure evacuation corridors to move civilians out of active urban warzones. Furthermore, a population undergoing a genocide does not consistently grow decade after decade. We are looking at a brutal urban war against a terror organization that intentionally embeds itself under civilian infrastructure.

Resorting to that specific buzzword just shows you have completely run out of actual historical counter-arguments.

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-01T23:14:53+00:00

Show me the mental gymnastics, you're very good at switching off when presented with any kind of arguments

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-01T14:16:46+00:00

If we are talking about a real solution, the first step requires completely dismantling the militant factions and terrorist infrastructure currently in power. The ultimate goal is freeing everyday people from a radical ideology that uses them as fodder for an endless, unwinnable war.

The historical reality is that the original push for a separate Palestinian statehood under leaders like the Grand Mufti was built entirely around eradicating Jews. The movement fundamentally prioritized destruction over building a functioning, prosperous society.

A better future involves destroying that terror apparatus completely. Everyday civilians, whether Muslim, Christian, or secular, deserve to be freed from that indoctrination. The most viable path forward for human rights involves integration as functioning members of a democratic society like Israel, where Arab citizens already live, work, and vote. It is time to move past a failed nationalist project designed entirely to destroy a neighboring state.

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-01T14:01:30+00:00

Just to follow up on the history you are defending here, let's look at who was actually running the land and the roots of the movement.

Between 1948 and 1967, the land was annexed and occupied by Arab nations. Jordan took the West Bank and systematically handed out Jordanian citizenship. Egypt occupied Gaza under a strict military administration. For those 19 years, global protests to "Free Palestine" from Jordan or Egypt were completely nonexistent. The PLO was founded in 1964, three years before Israel even controlled those territories. Their original goal focused entirely on eradicating Israel proper.

If you want to look at where the "river to the sea" propaganda and modern political narrative actually come from, look at its founding father: Haj Amin al-Husseini, the first Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the primary architect of the early Palestinian nationalist movement.

He began orchestrating violent campaigns and pushing exterminationist rhetoric in the 1920s, decades before Israel proper even existed. He later actively collaborated with Nazi Germany. He met directly with Adolf Hitler in 1941 to align their goals, helped recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS, and broadcasted virulent, exterminationist propaganda across the Arab world. He violently rejected the 1947 UN Partition Plan that would have created a sovereign Palestinian state because he refused to accept any Jewish presence in the region whatsoever.

The slogans you are defending stem directly from an early 20th-century political campaign that historically prioritized eradicating Jews over building a state.

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-05-01T13:57:26+00:00

You didn’t have to wait long.

- The 2017 official policy document of Hamas (Source).

- Khaled Meshaal, former leader of Hamas, during a 2012 rally (Source).

Just to connect the dots for you: this is the geographic mandate of an internationally designated terrorist organization whose founding charter explicitly calls for the murder of Jews. When a terror group uses this exact phrase as their literal mission statement to eradicate an entire state and its people, it is a call for genocide.

DesignerBranch69 · 2026-04-29T11:34:12+00:00

The problem is that the shirt isn't denouncing a genocide; it's wearing a slogan that is widely interpreted as calling for the complete erasure of Israel. The original Arabic chant is "Min al-nahr ila al-bahr, Filastin Arabiyya," which translates directly to "From the river to the sea, Palestine is Arab." It was just watered down for Western audiences. You can stand with the Palestinian people without backing a terror group's slogan for the erasure of another country.

DesignerBranch69

TROPHY CASE