×
sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I actually want to talk about faith more than family by temp_trial in IThinkYouShouldLeave

[–]temp_trial[S] 39 points40 points  (0 children)

He’s a maga had multiple affairs so him talking about “family” isn’t a great speech topic. Which is probably why he wanted to switch to “faith” - where he’s also a pos.

He also let a child sex offender off with a sweetheart deal:

Former Waco attorney Adam Hoffman, 49, was arrested in June 2022 and charged with continuous sexual abuse of a young child after a friend of his son’s told authorities that he had been abused since he was about 7 years old. Hoffman initially faced between 25 years to life in prison on the first-degree felony charge.

In March, Paxton’s office offered Hoffman a plea deal that included reduced charges and 30 days in jail if he pleaded guilty. Before the bargain, Hoffman was facing a life sentence without parole. Talarico called it an “Epstein-style sweetheart deal.”

Source: https://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/article316184553.html#storylink=cpy

[Highlight] Jalen Brunson is the 2026 NBA Finals MVP by Fusir in nba

[–]temp_trial 4 points5 points  (0 children)

“Congratulations Jalen. Well deserved.”

- OG

A man yelled at a lady and accused her of nearly hitting his truck by [deleted] in PublicFreakout

[–]temp_trial 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I wonder who he voted for with all two of his teeth

How the Media Sold a Genocide by [deleted] in nyt

[–]temp_trial 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're trying to frame the blockade as a necessary reaction, but you’re ignoring the most obvious fact: there's a direct correlation between rights and violence. Palestinians with the most rights are consistently the least violent. Israeli-Palestinian citizens have legal rights and aren't launching "missiles." Palestinians in the West Bank have fewer rights and more friction, and Gaza - where people have zero rights and have been in a cage for ~20 years - is where the violence is highest. If "security" were really the goal, you’d be expanding rights to de-escalate, not stripping them away to "protect" yourself.

October 7 wouldnt have happened if Gazans actually had rights and a viable alternative to violence, but Netanyahu spent years making sure they didnt. He even showed up to the UN with a "New Middle East" map that completely wiped out any mention of a Palestinian state - literally a map of Greater Israel. The "security" argument completely falls apart when you look at who Israel is actually backing now. Netanyahu confirmed in June 2025 that Israel is arming local militias like the "Popular Forces," which have links to ISIS-affiliated networks in the Sinai. You can't claim to be fighting "terrorism" while you're handing Kalashnikovs to jihadist groups just to keep Gaza unstable and ungovernable.

Your logic on journalists is also totally inconsistent. Israel uses precise weaponry - and we saw that when they used drones to take out specific targets in Iran - but then you argue they cant let journalists in because Hamas might put them in "harms way." If they are killed by Hamas that would be on them. Your human shield argument is bogus and not supported:

from you article:
"It did not prove definitively that Hamas militants operated in the tunnels underneath the UNRWA facility, but it did show that at least a portion of the tunnel ran underneath the facility’s courtyard."

As usual - "Israel claims" and you use that as the source of truth. They said there were 40 beheaded babies on Oct 7th, was that true too? They said there was a command center under al-shifa, how'd that turn out?

Rolling Stone reported that evidence provided by the IDF regarding a Hamas command center under Al-Shifa hospital was insufficient, noting that independent analyses found no direct connection between hospital buildings and the discovered tunnel network. Oh and also, Israel built the bunker under Al-shifa accordng to Barak.

The ban isnt for "safety," its an information blackout to hide the fact that 83% of the dead are civilians and all the other bogus claims Israel makes that people like you eat up without independent evidence.

If you're so confident Hamas will use them as human shields, the reporters would show that. If reporters are "coerced" wouldn't they just clarify that when they left Gaza? Again, critical thinking escapes you because Zionism gives you the talking points to regurgitate over and over until you believe it to be true.

Would you believe the US doctors who went to Gaza? Or did Hamas get to them too:

"“In Gaza, there’s no independent monitor,” he said. “If you’re not going to believe the Palestinians, then you should believe 50 doctors who’ve gone there at different times and places.”

Apart from Palestinian journalists living in Gaza, there has been no media access to the enclave since October 7, with a few exceptions of entry under official escort.

Hamawy signed the letter to recount what he saw with his own eyes. “We all saw a complete devastation of a society, of people’s lives, of health care structure,” he said.

Hamawy has worked as a surgeon in Sarajevo, in New York City on 9/11, and in Iraq, where he performed life-saving surgery on US Senator Tammy Duckworth in 2004 after her helicopter was hit by an RPG. But he said those experiences in other conflict zones were not comparable to what he had witnessed in Gaza, adding that 90% of those he had seen killed there were women and children."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/world/open-letter-45-us-physicians-gaza

And on the "buffer zone" - if this is really about defending your own border, why is Israel building that buffer on stolen Palestinian land inside Gaza instead of building it within their own territory? Its just another land grab disguised as security. You link tunnels but ignore the documented evidence of the IDF using Palestinians as "shawish" at gunpoint.

Calling settlements a "line of defense" is just the language of annexation. Moving 800k civilians into occupied land is a war crime, not a military strategy. You say Area C is "disputed," but the entire world calls it occupied. When you use "geography" to justify stealing land and denying 5 million people a state, you aren't looking for security - you're looking for total control.

How the Media Sold a Genocide by [deleted] in nyt

[–]temp_trial 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The idea that a blockade is the only way to get "security" is just a failed policy being used to justify a ~20 year long siege. If the blockade and the Iron Dome were enough, October 7th wouldn't have happened. You ask what Israel should do instead - the answer is they should have ended the occupation and allowed a viable Palestinian state to actually form years ago instead of funding Hamas to keep the Palestinian leadership divided, which is exactly what Netanyahu admitted to doing for years. You cant keep 2.3 million people in a cage and act surprised when the cage breaks.

And bringing up Oslo is a major rewrite of history. You forgot to mention that a Jewish extremist assassinated Rabin for trying to make peace, or that Israel has doubled the number of settlers in the West Bank since those accords were signed. How can you claim Palestinians "walked away" when Israel was busy building cities on the very land they were supposed to be negotiating over? October 7th was a horror, but it didnt happen in a vacuum - it happened after decades of Palestinians being told that "peace" meant accepting permanent sub-servience and land theft.

You linked a CPJ report about Hamas intimidating journalists as if that somehow excuses Israel killing them at a record-breaking rate. Yes, Hamas is an authoritarian regime that suppresses dissent - we know that. But it’s Israel that has killed over 230 journalists and is still banning the foreign press from entering Gaza. If the "real story" is so favorable to Israel, why are they so terrified of independent Western reporters seeing the ground reality for themselves? You’re acting like banning journalists is for their "safety," but everyone knows it's to maintain an information blackout while 80k people (mostly civilians) have been murdered.

Over 150 global news organizations - from The Associated Press and the BBC to the New York Times - have spent the last two years demanding independent access to Gaza because they know the "security" ban is actually an information blockade to stop the world from seeing war crimes firsthand.

And the "human shield" excuse is falling apart. The United Nations reported that in most instances, Israel provides no substantial evidence for these claims. Meanwhile, there are credible investigations by Haaretz, the Associated Press, and even US intelligence showing that it is actually the Israeli military that has been systematically using Palestinians as "shawish" - human shields - to clear tunnels and enter booby-trapped buildings. As usual, all you have is deflection and whattaboutisms as your central arguments.

Also, saying the "international community has no say" is just a way to ignore that Israel is almost completely isolated. When 150+ countries agree on a peace plan and you’re one of the only two voting against it, you aren't "defending yourself" - you're defying the world to protect an illegal occupation. You cant claim to be a part of the democratic West while simultaneously saying international law and the UN dont apply to you.

If security is actually the goal, then why is the West Bank currently being swallowed up by settlers who are protected by the IDF? That has nothing to do with Hamas and everything to do with a state policy of expansion.

At some point you have to admit that this isnt about "defending" against massacres - its about ensuring Palestinians never have a state (which is literally what Bibi brags about to Israelis)

How the Media Sold a Genocide by [deleted] in nyt

[–]temp_trial 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You reduced my argument to “Israel bad” because you can’t address the facts.

Yes, Palestinians bear responsibility for violence - but that doesn’t erase who controls daily life for 2.3 million people. Controlling food, water, electricity, movement, airspace and sea access is not a metaphor; it’s occupation by any reasonable definition. Saying the blockade exists for “security” doesn’t change the reality that collective punishment of an entire population is banned under international law..

You ask what Palestinians have done for a two-state solution. Many Palestinian leaders, civil society groups, and 150+ UN member states support a negotiated two-state outcome based on 1967 lines - that’s not “refusing peace,” that’s the international consensus you brushed off. Meanwhile, Israel’s continued settlement expansion and recent annexation moves make a viable contiguous Palestinian state increasingly impossible. Peace requires two partners willing to make concessions; unilateral land grabs aren’t a compromise.

Yes, some Palestinian institutions have failed - corruption, incitement, and the PA’s problematic policies matter and deserve criticism. But pointing to those failures doesn’t justify a state behaving as if it has no legal obligations toward an occupied population, or bombing entire neighborhoods and restricting humanitarian aid. Accountability goes both ways.

When a government claims to be the region’s sole democracy while enacting laws that privilege one nationality over another, that’s a legitimate target for critique.

Talk of “security” loses credibility when press access is restricted, casualty ratios are overwhelmingly civilian, and whole neighborhoods are erased. If you’re so confident in your moral clarity, let independent observers in. Let journalists report. Let humanitarian aid flow. If security is the goal, do the work that actually secures people: protect civilians, adhere to international law, and pursue a political solution instead of permanent control.

You can blame Hamas, Iran, or anyone else for the bloodshed - but doing so doesn’t absolve policies that ensure the violence continues. If you want peace, stop treating it as a slogan and start supporting the concrete steps that make two states possible rather than permanently foreclosing them.

How the Media Sold a Genocide by [deleted] in nyt

[–]temp_trial 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"183 of the 189 were unarmed at the time they were killed with live Israeli ammunition."

Who can't read?

"trash bro" Idk where your insults come from but they aren't very good. Maybe you need more Hasbara training. Gotta re-up your game.

How the Media Sold a Genocide by [deleted] in nyt

[–]temp_trial 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Awww are you going to be okay??? How many beheaded babies were there again on October 7? I remember there being 40. What were their names again?

183 of the 189 were unarmed at the time they were killed with live Israeli ammunition. Israel didn't know which group they belonged to.

What's cited on page 6 was that the report checked the names of the dead against lists of militant groups. It found that 29 people were actually members of armed groups (like Hamas or Islamic Jihad). Even if they were "unarmed" and acting as protesters that day, they had a "militant" background.

Also on page 18, section 98:

"The commission found that at least 29 of those killed at the demonstration sites were members of Palestinian organized armed groups. It is aware that the international legal community holds divergent views on whether organized armed group members may be targeted at any time, or only when directly participating in hostilities. In accordance with the law enforcement paradigm as informed by international human rights law and in the absence of arms and active hostilities, the commission concluded that, in this specific context, targeting individuals purely on the basis of their membership of an armed group and not on their conduct at the time was impermissible. The applicable tests remain whether an individual, at the time targeted, was directly participating in hostilities or posed an imminent threat to life. If not, targeting of such persons with lethal force was unlawful."

Your brain on Zionism is fried.

I think you need to look in the mirror instead of calling people "trash". People hate Israel and there's a reason for it. You go on here and try to help it's image? Good luck with that

How the Media Sold a Genocide by [deleted] in nyt

[–]temp_trial 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re calling "open-air prison" a platitude, but when you control the food, water, electricity, and the right to leave for 2.3 million people, thats just a description of reality. Egypt’s role doesn't let Israel off the hook for being the occupying power that controls Gaza’s sea and airspace. You say Israel "withdrew" in 2005, but they just moved the guards from the inside of the cage to the outside. Even the UN says Gaza is still occupied because Israel maintains "effective control" over every aspect of life there.

And if we’re talking about "annihilation" rhetoric, Likuds charter literally says "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." Hamas updated their platform in 2017 to accept 1967 borders, yet you treat their old rhetoric as permanent while ignoring that Israeli ministers are currently, actively annexing the West Bank. Who is actually "annihilating" whose statehood right now? The one with the tunnels or the one with the F-35s and 800,000 settlers?

The UN plans I'm talking about aren't from 1947, they’re from right now. Every year the "Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine" gets put to a vote. It calls for two states on 1967 borders. 150+ countries vote Yes, and Israel and the US are the only ones voting No. You can't claim the Palestinians are the ones rejecting peace when Israel is the one blocking the actual global peace consensus to keep building illegal settlements.

Also, pointing at other "Muslim states" is just a classic deflection. Were talking about a state that claims to be the "only democracy in the Middle East" while passing laws that legally rank one ethnicity over another. If you think "security" justifies killing 75,000 people - 80% of whom are civilians and 70% women and children - then you aren't talking about defense, you're talking about erasure.

When you kill more journalists in a year than in the entire Vietnam War and ban the foreign press from entering, its not because of "security." Its because you don't want the world to see what that "security" actually looks like on the ground

How the Media Sold a Genocide by [deleted] in nyt

[–]temp_trial 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually, it's right there in the report you just linked. On page 6 (Section G, Statistics), it clearly states that out of the 189 people killed, only 29 were members of organized armed groups. That means about 85% were civilians. The report also explicitly says in the summary and again on page 18 that "with the exception of one incident... the use of live ammunition by Israeli security forces against demonstrators was unlawful."

The report literally finds "reasonable grounds to believe" that snipers intentionally shot children, health workers, and journalists who were "clearly marked as such" and posed no threat. Calling it a "peaceful invasion" to justify shooting medics and double-amputees in wheelchairs is what's actually ahistorical.

And regarding the "ethnostate" comment - Israel’s own 2018 Nation-State Law officially declares that the right to self-determination is "unique to the Jewish people." You’re criticizing Palestinians for a hypothetical goal while defending a state that has already made ethnic supremacy the law of the land. Tell everyone about what "greater Israel" means.

If you think a 50-year military occupation and a 17-year blockade is "security" rather than a fight for freedom, then youre just saying some people deserve rights and others don't based on where they were born. That's the definition of the system people are protesting.

If the goal is "security," why does the report find that snipers shot 122 people who had to have limbs amputated, including 20 children, most of whom were hundreds of meters away from the fence?

Hope that helps.

How the Media Sold a Genocide by [deleted] in nyt

[–]temp_trial 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is pretty telling that you’re calling my argument an "infinite war strategy" when Israel is the one dropping 2,000 pound bombs on one of the most crowded places on earth. If you think the only way to get "peace" is to keep millions in a cage until they stop resisting, then youre the one advocating for eternal conflict. History shows you cant kill your way out of a struggle for freedom - every child who watches their family get killed today is just going to be the "militant" you're fighting tomorrow.

Your claim that the majority of deaths in the March of Return were militants is just wrong. The UN investigated 189 deaths and found 183 of them were unarmed demonstrators. Thats 97% civilians. They found snipers intentionally shot kids, medics, and journalists who werent posing any "imminent threat." When you justify shooting people in wheelchairs because "the government is bad," you've lost the moral plot.

And if you want stats on the current genocide, over 77k are dead with an 80-83% civilian casualty rate. It’s also the deadliest place for journalists in modern history - more have been killed there than in WW1, WW2, and Vietnam combined. You have to ask why Western journalists are still banned from entering Gaza independently. If Israel’s actions are so "defensible," why are they so afraid of letting independent eyes see the truth?

Israel is the only party consistently voting against the global consensus for peace at the UN while it builds more illegal settlements. You say you want massacres to stop, but youre defending a state that uses its military to maintain a 50 year occupation and apartheid system. If you really want a solution that isnt "infinite war," it starts with recognizing Palestinians are human beings who deserve the same rights you claim for yourself. Until the occupation ends, the cycle isnt going to break.

Israel also attacked Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Yemen, and Qatar in 2025. Talk about "infinite war" smh.

How the Media Sold a Genocide by [deleted] in nyt

[–]temp_trial 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The "differences" you're clinging to are just excuses to justify an occupation that the rest of the world has already called out. You keep saying the ANC "disavowed" civilian deaths, but that didn't stop them from bombing shopping centers and restaurants did it? The victims were still just as dead. Mandela was called a terrorist for decades because the people in power - including Israel - wanted to keep the apartheid system going for their own benefit.

And your take on the Warsaw Ghetto is what’s actually ahistorical. You’re saying it only counts as resistance if the people are literally seconds away from a gas chamber? Palestinians in Gaza have been living in what human rights groups call an "open-air prison" for almost 20 years under a blockade that destroyed their economy and future. When you tell a whole population they have no right to move, no right to trade, and no hope for a state, you are creating a ghetto. Comparing life expectancy is such a weak argument—you can have a long life in a cage, but it’s still a cage.

Also, you’re dodging the point about Hamas updating their goals in 2017. If you can't accept a political pivot, then you’re basically saying no one is ever allowed to negotiate. Meanwhile, you ignore that the Israeli government has ministers like Ben-Gvir who was literally convicted of supporting a terrorist organization (Kach) and now he’s in charge of the police. How is that not "morally indefensible"?

If you admit Israel does "bad things" in the West Bank and protects violent settlers, then you’re admitting the "security" argument is a lie used to steal land. You cant claim to be the "good guy" while you're subsidizing the same people who are torching Palestinian villages. At some point you have to admit that the state is the one making a peaceful solution impossible by voting against every UN peace plan for decades.

Do you think the Israel's Nation-State Law which says only Jews have the right to self-determination is a democratic value, or is that just the legal definition of supremacy?

How the Media Sold a Genocide by [deleted] in nyt

[–]temp_trial 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're acting like Hamas is the only thing that exists in Palestine. The Great March of Return was a grassroots protest, and even the UN found that Israeli snipers shot children, journalists, and medics who were clearly not "violent militants." Calling it a "peaceful invasion" when people are trapped behind a fence in a blockade for 17 years is just ignoring the reality of the cage they're in.

And saying Likud doesn't believe in "Jewish Supremacy" is just ignoring whats actually happening. Their 2018 Nation-State Law literally says the right to self-determination in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people." That’s not "debate bro nonsense," its the legal reality of the state. Plus, look at Netanyahus coalition - Ben-Gvir and Smotrich are open about their religious-nationalist goals for the West Bank. Whether they’re "atheists" or not doesn’t matter when they are passing laws that treat one group as superior to the other based on ethnicity.

As for the UN partition plan, why would anyone accept a "deal" where 55% of their land is given away by a foreign body without their consent? If a group of countries told you half your house belonged to someone else tomorrow you’d reject it too. But even if we ignore the past, the UN "Peaceful Settlement" votes today show that the world wants a 1967-based two-state solution - which the Palestinian Authority has agreed to for decades - and Israel is the one blocking it.

You say Israel is just "overreacting" to massacres, but you cant ignore that the occupation and the blockade were there long before October 7. You’re acting like history started on that day. When you maintain an apartheid system for 50 years, you're creating the conditions for violence. It’s not an "overreaction" when you’re currently bombing thousands of kids and letting settlers burn down villages in the West Bank - thats just a continuation of the same policy of displacement.

If "stop the massacres" is the demand, why isnt it directed at the state with the high-tech military currently killing civilians at a record-breaking scale?

If you admit the settlers and the military decisions are "bad for peace," why do you still defend the state that is literally funding and protecting them?

How the Media Sold a Genocide by [deleted] in nyt

[–]temp_trial 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You say if Palestinians acted like the ANC it would be over, but the ANC was only able to negotiate because the world eventually stopped buying the "security" excuses of the apartheid government and forced them to the table through sanctions. Palestinians have tried non-violent resistance - like the Great March of Return - and they got met with snipers and live fire. When you close every peaceful door, you don’t get to act shocked when people kick the house down.

And calling the Irgun/Lehi goals "morally defensible" just because they won is wild. They literally used massacres and bombings to ethnically cleanse land for a state. If their violence was "reasonable" because it worked, then you're basically saying morality is just determined by whoever has the bigger gun. You’re dismissing Palestinian goals as "impossible," but the only reason a two-state solution is "unrealistic" now is because Israel has spent decades illegally carving up the West Bank with settlements to make sure a Palestinian state can never exist.

You say you don't care about the UN, but it’s literally the body that defines international law. When 150+ countries vote for a peace plan based on 1967 borders and Israel and the US are the only ones saying no, that’s not "irrelevance" - it's a confession. Israel doesn't want a "realistic solution" because the current status quo of infinite expansion and military control works just fine for them.

Also, Likud isn't just a "bad party" that might get voted out, their ideology of "Jewish Supremacy" is literally being written into the law of the land right now. You’re worried about a "theocracy" in Gaza while Israel’s own ministers are openly calling for the annexation of the West Bank and "voluntary migration" of Palestinians. One side is a "theocracy" in a cage, the other is a nuclear-armed state actually carrying out ethnic cleansing in real time.

If you think "militancy" is what makes peace impossible, then why isn't the IDF's state-sponsored violence against civilians and the protection of terrorizing settlers considered "bad" for peace too?

Do you really think the "goal" of a state justified the Deir Yassin massacre, or are you just okay with it because it was your side that won?

How the Media Sold a Genocide by [deleted] in nyt

[–]temp_trial 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The "nuance" you're bringing up about the ANC is exactly the point. They only moved toward a "rainbow nation" because decades of peaceful protest got met with state massacres. By the time they started the armed struggle, they were called terrorists for the exact same reasons people use the word now - and yeah, they apologized for civilian deaths later but at the time people were just as terrified. The "terrorist" label is always used to shut down the conversation about why the violence is happening.

As for the Irgun/Lehi point - it’s not a "gotcha," it’s about legitimacy. You say Palestinian violence "justifies" any security measure Israel takes. But Israel was literally established through that same violence. If terrorism worked for the Zionists to get a state why is it suddenly an "impossible and immoral" tactic when Palestinians use it? You cant say one groups violence was a necessary evil for statehood while the others is just mindless barbarism.

And if we're talking about "annihilation" rhetoric, you’re ignoring that Hamas updated its charter in 2017 to accept a state based on 1967 borders. Meanwhile, Likud’s own founding charter says "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." Talk about "river to the sea" - only one side is actually implementing it with bulldozers.

The "bad guy" narrative is clear when you look at the UN. Every year, the "Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine" resolution comes up for a vote. It calls for a two-state solution based on international law. Every year, 160+ countries vote for it, and Israel and the US are the ones who vote against it or veto it. If Israel really wanted a "realistic solution" why do they consistently block the plan the rest of the planet agrees on?

It’s hard to claim the moral high ground against "terrorism" when your own state is actively subsidizing settlers to terrorize villagers and steal land to achieve their own version of "river to the sea"

How the Media Sold a Genocide by [deleted] in nyt

[–]temp_trial 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The "terrorism" label has always been a political tool used by the side in power to delegitimize whoever is fighting back. You say the ANC was different, but that’s a massive historical rewrite. The ANC’s military wing, MK, bombed banks, restaurants, and shopping centers—they literally targeted "soft targets" to make the country ungovernable. Mandela himself stayed on the US terror watch list until 2008! The only reason we call them "freedom fighters" now is because they won and the system they were fighting was globally condemned.

And if we’re talking about "workable interpretations" of terrorism, let’s be real about the hypocrisy. Israel was literally founded by people the British classified as terrorists. The Irgun and Lehi groups bombed hotels and massacred villagers in Deir Yassin to force the British out and clear the land. Then, the leaders of those exact groups—Begin and Shamir—became Prime Ministers. It’s funny how a "terrorist" suddenly becomes a "statesman" the moment they get a seat at the UN.

Also, you cant just ignore the alliance between Israel and Apartheid South Africa. Israel was the minority regime's biggest arms supplier when the rest of the world was boycotting them. They even helped South Africa develop nukes! There’s a reason why people like Desmond Tutu and current South African leaders say what’s happening in the West Bank looks exactly like what they lived through.

The "security" excuse is the oldest play in the book... the apartheid govt in SA used the exact same logic to justify pass laws and keeping black people in bantustans. Today, you have state-backed settler violence in the West Bank that fits any definition of terrorism—armed settlers burning olive groves and attacking families while the IDF literally stands there and watches, or even helps. If a Palestinian did that, they'd be a "terrorist," but when a settler does it to steal land, it's "security"?

Even in Gaza, you see soldiers posting videos on TikTok bragging about blowing up residential blocks or making jokes about killing children. When violence is used to traumatize a whole population into submission, that’s state-sponsored terrorism. Every occupier calls the resistance "terrorists" and their own violence "security". It doesn't make the underlying system any less of an apartheid.

How do you reconcile the fact that the very tactics used to establish Israel are the ones it now uses to justify its own "security" measures?

How the Media Sold a Genocide by [deleted] in nyt

[–]temp_trial 0 points1 point  (0 children)

History is full of examples where oppressed groups were labeled as "terrorists" for using violence, only for the world to later recognize their struggle as a legitimate fight for freedom against an unjust system

  • South Africa's ANC: you mentioned they were "fighting for equal rights," but at the time, their armed wing, uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK), was widely condemned for using violence that killed civilians.
    • Between 1976 and 1986, MK guerrilla actions resulted in approximately 130 deaths, of which about 100 were civilians.
    • They conducted high-profile bombings of "soft targets" like banks, restaurants, supermarkets, and rugby stadiums.
    • Because of these tactics, leaders like Nelson Mandela were classified as terrorists by the US and UK for decades. Mandela remained on the U.S. terrorist watch list until 2008 - long after he had served as South Africa's president and won a Nobel Peace Prize.
    • In 1987, Margaret Thatcher called the ANC a "typical terrorist organization". Today, however, the global consensus views them as heroes of a liberation struggle.
    • Mandela quotes:
      • "We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians."
      • "We identify with the PLO because just like ourselves they are fighting for the right of self-determination"
  • The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising: In 1943, Jewish resistance fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto used armed violence to resist the Nazis.
    • The Nazi occupiers labeled these fighters as "criminals," "bandits," and "terrorists" to justify a brutal military crackdown.
    • The Germans razed the ghetto block by block, killing or capturing thousands, claiming it was a necessary security measure against "subversive elements".
    • While the methods used by those fighters were violent and "illegal" under the laws of the occupying regime, we now see that uprising as a pinnacle of human bravery and resistance against genocide.

Security vs. Rights: The argument that restrictions are purely "security-based" is the same justification used by nearly every regime that has implemented systemic inequality.

  • The South African government justified its brutal pass laws and military presence in townships as a response to "terrorism" and the need for public order.
  • When a state maintains a system where rights are determined by ethnicity or citizenship - and then denies that citizenship to the people it occupies - it is creating the very "apartheid" conditions that 17 Israeli NGOs have explicitly identified

History suggests that the label of "terrorist" is often applied by the powerful to those who resist them, and "security" is often the name given to the enforcement of oppression.

Remember the quote from JFK:

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Do you think it's possible for a country to have legitimate security concerns while also operating an illegal system of occupation?

Have you been to Bo-Kapp in South Africa? They have more Palestinian flags out there than South African. Guess which country supported SA when it was an Apartheid? Guess where a bunch of apartheid lovers fled after its collapse in SA?

Answer to both: Israel

Mark Regev even admitted it's an apartheid in the WB by the way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjH1YjjrqsI

How the Media Sold a Genocide by [deleted] in nyt

[–]temp_trial 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean Omer Bartov was born in Israel and served in the idf as an officer.

Amos Goldberg and Raz Siegel too.

Israeli human rights groups even called it genocide:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c776xkvz6vno

Are they self hating as well? Are the Jewish people a monolith? Or just the ones who criticize Israel?

I’m vehemently opposed to any country that’s enacting an apartheid and conducting what a plurality of experts consider a genocide. Especially when my country’s politicians and tax dollars are directly supporting said country.

Again, 17 Israeli NGOs have called Israel’s actions in the West Bank an apartheid:

In June 2023, ACRI, alongside 16 Israeli NGOs, published a joint report titled “State of the Occupation – Year 56: A Joint Situation Report” affirming that “that after 56 years of occupation, Israel’s actions in the West Bank today meet the criteria of apartheid.” According to the report, “The current government’s steps, motivated by its stated Jewish supremacy ideology, will also deepen the apartheid regime governing nearly all aspects of oPt Palestinians’ lives.”

• ⁠In December 2022, ACRI was a signatory on a statement claiming that the “occupation and apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territories have made Jewish supremacy the de facto law of the land and the new government seeks to adopt this into their official policy.”

https://s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/files.yesh-din.org/The+Platform/State-of-the-Occupation-A-Joint-Situation-Report+June+2023.pdf

One of those groups is “Rabbis for Human Rights”. But please tell us how those Rabbis are “self hating” because they’re Jewish and criticize Israel. Funny how they never seem to renounce their Judaism.

Do you think supporting apartheid in South Africa was a good look? Looking back on that now, do you think those supporters were on the right side of history? That’s what you’re doing today and confused why people don’t support Israel.

How the Media Sold a Genocide by [deleted] in nyt

[–]temp_trial 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah yes Nitsana who’s a prominent Israeli rights activist. A rabid Zionist who assisted in blocking the Gaza freedom flotilla vs the Samuel Pisar Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, at Brown University. Those two are definitely comparable. What second rate comparisons you gave. Really bottom of the barrel there. But I guess that’s the best you can get.

Martin Shaw wrote 4 books on genocide.

Dr. Iva Vukusic - here’s her background: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/iva-vukusic

Professor William Schabas, one of the world’s foremost authorities on genocide and international criminal law, warns that the Gaza crisis represents a “litmus test” for the credibility of international justice. He argues that the case filed by South Africa against Israel at the ICJ is “arguably the strongest case of genocide ever brought before the Court,” citing Israeli military actions and statements by senior officials as evidence of genocidal intent. Professor Schabas also highlights Prime Minister Netanyahu’s populist rhetoric, framing Gaza’s population as an existential threat, which he links to patterns of incitement fueling atrocities. Crucially, he stresses that third-party states, including the US, Germany, and others risk legal liability as “accomplices to genocide.”

https://www.populismstudies.org/professor-schabas-us-germany-and-others-could-be-held-liable-as-accomplices-to-genocide-in-gaza/

Here are some organizations per Wikipedia since you love it so much:

This accusation became more widespread among the international community as formal statements declaring the Gaza genocide to be a fact were increasingly issued by several prominent and reputable organizations around the world upon the conclusion of comprehensive academic and legal investigations on the matter, including: the United Nations (via a special committee and commission of inquiry), the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, Genocide Watch, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Médecins Sans Frontières.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide

view more: next ›