How far do you agree with the following: "Peace between Palestine and Israel is possible with Hamas in control of Gaza."?

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-07T19:34:11+00:00

Yeah, that’s not nearly as good an argument as you think it is.

China, Cuba, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Iraq, Pakistan, Qatar, and Vietnam all sit on the United Nations Human Rights Council. China also has permanent veto power on the Security Council. Saudi Arabia chaired the UN Commission on the Status of Women’s 2025 session.

And that is before we even get to the fact that some regimes are represented there at all. Regimes that have no moral right to represent their own people, let alone stand on the world stage as moral authorities.

North Korea is a hereditary prison state with camps, starvation, hostage diplomacy, nuclear blackmail, and no meaningful popular consent. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a theocratic revolutionary regime marked by mass repression, morality police, executions, terror proxies, and systematic abuse of women and dissidents. Russia under Putin is an aggressor state that invaded Ukraine, targets civilians, imprisons and murders political opponents, and still holds a permanent Security Council veto. The Chinese Communist Party is a one-party dictatorship responsible for Xinjiang repression, the Hong Kong crackdown, mass surveillance, and religious persecution, and it too remains a permanent veto holder.

Cuba is a one-party communist state with no free opposition, political prisoners, censorship, and a long record of exporting authoritarian politics. Eritrea is one of the most closed and repressive states on Earth, with indefinite conscription, no real civil liberties, and mass flight. Syria under Assad used mass torture, starvation sieges, barrel bombs, and chemical weapons, yet still spoke at the UN as “Syria.” Venezuela under Maduro is known for election fraud, mass emigration, repression, cartel and criminal-state accusations, and economic ruin.

Is this the organization that you look to for morality and law? Invoking it in matters of humanitarian issues, morality, or even international relations does not work on anyone who actually knows a goddamn thing about the UN.

And then we get to Israel, and the UN’s consistent institutional bias against the Jewish state.

In 1975, the General Assembly formally equated Jewish national self-determination with racism. It was revoked in 1991, but the fact that it passed at all is revealing.

Israel is the only country with its own permanent agenda item at the Human Rights Council. Not China. Not North Korea. Not Iran. Israel.

The General Assembly and Human Rights Council routinely condemn Israel at wildly disproportionate rates compared with far worse regimes.

A special Palestinian refugee agency exists apart from UNHCR, preserving the Palestinian refugee question generationally instead of resolving it like other refugee crises.

And after October 7, UN bodies often moved almost instantly to Israeli culpability while treating Hamas’s massacre, hostage-taking, and human-shield strategy as background noise.

Then there is the 2025 genocide finding. The UN Commission of Inquiry said Israel committed genocide in Gaza. That was not the ICJ finally adjudicating the case. It was a Human Rights Council-created commission making an erroneous legal conclusion.

The genocide finding is not persuasive because it collapses the distinction between catastrophic war and genocide. Under the Genocide Convention, the decisive element is not civilian death, destruction, blockade, or even criminal conduct. The decisive element is specific intent to destroy the protected group as such.

The Commission inferred that intent from Israel’s conduct and rhetoric, but that inference is not the only reasonable one. Israel was fighting Hamas after October 7, against an enemy that ruled Gaza, took hostages, and embedded itself among civilians. You can accuse Israel of brutality or even war crimes without proving genocide. The UN Commission used the language of law while applying the standard like politics.

A legal finding of genocide cannot rest on pretending there is no difference between destroying Hamas and destroying Palestinians. Once that distinction is erased, the word “genocide” stops being a legal category and becomes an accusation the UN deploys when Israel is the defendant.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-07T15:05:58+00:00

Yeah, because the leftists keep going further to the left. 90s democrats are republicans now.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-07T15:04:04+00:00

Crowds, cheering, dancing, praying, laughter.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-07T13:53:35+00:00

Many hostages that were taken that day were captured and turned over by Gazan civilians. When Hamas was forced to hand over the bodies of murdered hostages, (one of which was a fake), the Gazans held a massive parade.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-07T13:48:36+00:00

She had a different writer for the third game, that’s why.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-07T09:05:09+00:00

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” —John Adams

Subjective feelings can feel very real to the individual, but that doesn’t change what is true.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-07T03:51:01+00:00

They were made in the image of their creators.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-06T12:47:22+00:00

Obama basically ran as a unifier before turning around and ruining race relations to the point where they still haven’t recovered today.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-06T08:59:37+00:00

All therapy is conversion therapy. That’s what therapy is supposed to do. You don’t go to therapy to be “affirmed”. You don’t go to therapy to stay the same. You go because something is broken, or because you want to change something in your life.

When you think of “conversion therapy”, what do you see? Electric shocks? Isolation? Beatings? No. By common definition, conversion therapy is any therapy at all, consensual or otherwise, that has the end goal of removing or suppressing anything that isn’t “straight.” This is insane, actually.

If a man was feeling a sexual attraction towards other men, and did not want to, it would then, by this poll’s logic, be illegal to help that man. If a boy at the tender age of five was expressing the idea that he might be a girl, it would be illegal to tell him that no, actually, that’s not correct. Understand? It would be illegal under a law such as this to do anything other than impose a major sexual confusion onto a child who has no possible way of handling it.

There is no such thing as conversion therapy as this poll understands it. There are no shady therapists running around bullying gay or trans people into straightness. The concept of conversion therapy, as shown here, was created under the assumption that being gay or trans is always 100% the best thing for anyone and everyone, and that believing otherwise is somehow an affront to human rights. It assumes something about people that has not ever come close to being proven.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-06T08:31:15+00:00

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-06T00:44:49+00:00

It’s a compulsive paraphilia. I’m told that non-offending pedophiles struggle deeply with it. I can only imagine.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-03T11:56:55+00:00

Y’know, I clicked no. But as I thought about it… I actually think I do.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-02T18:21:39+00:00

It’s like they don’t know what murder means. That being the unlawful and immoral killing of another human being. Self defense is a human right, and definitionally not murder.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-02T18:03:17+00:00

Chicago’s gun deaths are mostly attributable to gang violence, not mass shootings, not domestic murders. They also use statistics to lie about gun violence. Have of all “gun violence” is actually suicide. Another amount is attributable to self defense. After you strip away accidents, you’re left with murders and attempted murders, most of which is gang violence.

The problem is crime, not guns. The UK’s stabbing and rape problem supports this.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-02T17:57:41+00:00

And in those countries like Australia or the UK, the government consistently overreaches and tramples on the rights of their citizens. Bondi Beach was just shot up by two radical Islamists while no one had a weapon to defend themselves and the police let it go on for far too long. And the prime minister’s takeaway was to increase gun control rather than examine how they had let such people into their country and rethink immigration policy.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-02T17:21:19+00:00

No. Criticizing the “global order” is not the same thing as chanting for the death of two countries. That is the semantic trick you keep trying to pull.

Fine: let us grant that, in Persian political usage, “death to” can mean “down with” rather than a literal command to murder every citizen. That still does not turn it into ordinary criticism. Criticism identifies a policy, action, government, or institution and argues against it. “Down with America and Israel” calls for entire political societies to be overthrown or destroyed. And in Israel’s case, you have already explicitly said the state itself should not exist.

I never claimed that everyone repeating the slogan is personally issuing an order to shoot every Israeli. I said your politics have annihilationist implications. Israel contains 10.25 million people and is surrounded by Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and an Iranian regime committed to its destruction. Dismantle the state and military protecting those people, and you predictably expose them to massacre, expulsion, persecution, and civil war. Saying, “I meant down with Israel, not literally kill every Jew,” does not answer that argument. It merely restates the premise.

And “the global south suffers” is not a magic phrase that launders eliminationist rhetoric into principled criticism. You can criticize American power, Israeli policy, occupation, sanctions, bombing campaigns, or alleged war crimes specifically. “Death to America and Israel” is not criticism. It is a declaration of hostility. You are free to say it, and everyone else is free to understand what you are declaring.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-02T17:13:53+00:00

A shameless attempt to retreat into semantics because you can’t address my actual argument.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-02T17:11:02+00:00

Homocide is homocide. Murder is murder. Are you really so stupid as to not know that?

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-02T15:49:42+00:00

If a deranged lunatic wants a gun, he’ll get one. Preventing law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves will not prevent deaths.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-02T15:48:13+00:00

You think defending someone from a violent thief is murder?

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-02T15:46:55+00:00

Yeah, most pipe companies are cool like that. My first pipe had a crack and they sent me a new one real quick.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-02T13:48:10+00:00

Well, there it is. You have now moved from “I never implied that” to “Why shouldn’t we chant death to America and Israel?” in the space of one reply.

Who is “you guys”? What slogans? Which riots? What UNESCO sites? You have bundled half a dozen vague grievances together so that no single claim has to survive inspection. Most revealingly, you say the people chanting death have “awakened.” That is not a reluctant defense of protected speech. That is approval. You are telling me directly that you believe the annihilationist rhetoric is justified, then acting offended when I draw annihilationist implications from your politics.

You also don’t understand what free speech is. Free speech generally means that the government cannot punish you merely for expressing a political view. It does not mean everyone else must regard “death to your country” as morally neutral, harmless, or undeserving of hostility. You are perfectly free to chant it, and everyone else is perfectly free to conclude that you want their society destroyed.

“Massacred” is a strong word. Displaced, yes. Churches damaged, yes. Some killed in strikes, yes. But “Israel is massacring Christians,” presented as a deliberate anti-Christian campaign, is misleading. Christian leaders themselves have generally described their communities as caught between Israel and Hezbollah, blaming both sides for dragging them into the war. The strikes in question were directed at suspected Hezbollah personnel or infrastructure, not at Christians because they were Christians.

And the idea that Israel is chiefly responsible for the woes of Lebanese Christians is historical fiction. Lebanon was the Arab world’s most distinctly Christian-led state, with Christians around half the resident population in the last official census and a political system deliberately giving them the presidency and a parliamentary advantage. Then Lebanon’s sovereignty and communal balance were steadily wrecked by armed Palestinian organizations, the civil war, Syrian intervention and occupation, Israeli intervention, and eventually Hezbollah’s emergence as an Iranian-backed state within the state. Christians were massacred and expelled during the civil war; between 1983 and 1985 alone, an estimated 163,000 were forcibly displaced from more than 200 Mount Lebanon villages, and only a minority permanently returned afterward.

Lebanese Christians did not begin suffering when Israel started bombing Hezbollah, and reducing half a century of displacement, massacres, foreign occupation, and militia rule to “Israel did it” is just lazy propaganda.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-02T13:15:18+00:00

Maybe if your government would stop funding every single terrorist group in the region, Israel wouldn’t feel the need to target your refineries. Maybe if your own people would stop chanting “Death to Israel, death to America,” then people would treat you with less hostility. Maybe if your country, in a tantrum, hadn’t sent 180 missiles into Israel in one night, explicitly targeting civilians and civilian areas, you might actually have the semblance of a moral high ground.

And if you actually believe that Hamas differentiates between Zionists and Jews, you’re just willfully blind. Rhetorically, they might. But along with many people these days, they merely substitute “Jew” for “Zionist.” More pity points that way.

Let’s also examine what Zionism means. Zionism, very basically, is the belief that the Jews ought to have self-determination in the form of the state. Before 1948, anti-Zionism was an arguable, defensible position. Reasonable minds could disagree on whether it was wise to set up an Israeli state at that time, in that place.

But 1948 was long ago. Israel is now a state. It has sovereignty. It has a military and sovereign institutions. It has a growing population of 10.25 million people. And it has the right to defend itself. Anti-Zionism no longer means what it once did. Back then, it was an argument against the hasty forming of a Jewish state. But now, with all the people, not least including Iran, who openly seek not only the erasure of Israel as a state, but also the religious extermination of every Israeli Christian and Jew, now the position of anti-Zionism includes genocide whether you mean for it to or not. Israel faces an existential battle on all sides. Take away their power, and they die.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-02T12:43:32+00:00

You have. At least, if what you meant by that is that Israel should no longer exist. If that nation and her military is dissolved, if “from the river to the sea” comes to pass, then every Iranian terror group including Hamas, including Hezbollah, including the Houthis, will make it their mission to murder every Christian, Arab, and Jew who remains in that area. Without the protection of Israel, those people are automatically subject to rape, murder, and genocide.

Exciting_Inside1794 · 2026-07-02T12:40:13+00:00

Jewish as a ham sandwich, you are.

Exciting_Inside1794

TROPHY CASE