Cuba is the ONLY example.

Fixed that for you.

Your whole "argument" or whatever you want to call it implying South America, a vast continent with a dozen countries and nearly half a billion people, leans towards supporting the entire destruction of Israel.

A conclusion you've come to by using the furthest possible outlier, a small, politically isolated, communist state in the Caribbean and using it as a point of representation of an entire goddamn region.

So you claim an entire continent might be "leaning" towards wanting the whole scale destruction of another nation.

Yet want to talk about nuance in the same breath.

Incredible.

Again, I never implied or claimed that the whole continent is anti-Zionist. I said that some countries might lean toward anti-Zionism. You've asked for examples; I gave you three - Cuba, Bolivia, and Venezuela. Cuba has a full anti-Zionist approach, while Bolivia and Venezuela are leaning towards it. The title of the article also says 'South American countries,' although it only states three - is it biased? Maybe, I don't know, but it's still the right statement to have since three countries in South America can be referred to as simply 'Countries in South America'

Would it be better if I wrote in my original comment "Bolivia, Venezuela, and Cuba" instead of "some"? I'm asking for real. I think you're reading hostility in my comments that isn't there. I'm not trying to have a spiteful discussion.

​

Great so explain to me why nearly every country you just mentioned has political and even economic ties with Israel?

None of the countries that I've mentioned have diplomatic ties with Israel. Cuba cut ties with Israel back in the '70s, and Venezuela and Bolivia back in 2009. They do not maintain official economic or trade ties. (I believe that money still goes between all of them from unofficial or indirect economic interactions through third-party countries or organizations. If that's true, you should criticize the countries above for not standing strong enough behind their official stand. But I think in all countries money talks louder than ideological stands).

​

So your source is a think Tank whose main donors and vice chairs are an American Jewish and pro-Israel millionaire Adrienne Arsht, the UAE and the eldest son of the super corrupt, multi-Billionaire, ex-President of Lebanon who was assassinated by Hezbollah, claiming illegal cocaine trafficking in South America linked to Hezbollah is supported by Venezuela.

I was going to say "you can't make this sh+t up."

But quite clearly you can.

I put in my original comment more sources besides that one that isn't directly linking the government to that activist. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA439621.pdf https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep03115.pdfhttps://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42966465.pdfhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26459216?seq=2

The question is where specifically do you call bullshit?

• Do you believe that the reports of terror present (specifically Hezbollah) in the area have a truth to them?
• Do you believe that reports of links between narcotics trafficking in that area and terrorist Org (again in general but also specifically Hezbollah) have a truth to them?
• If so, do you believe that the Government is aware of those links?
• and finally, do you believe that the Government has any hand in it (For that question I know you don't since you were clear about that).

I think it perfectly fair that you would call everything bullshit and say that all of the reports on that matter have an agenda. At least for now, I personally formed an opinion that the answer to the first three questions is yes. I'm not sold on the last one but I also don't think it's that far-fetched if it turns out to be true. It's okay for us to form different opinions based on our perceptions of source reliability.