On a more serious note, I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Consider traveling to Israel. Then you'll see why so much blood has been shed over it. — BitconnectCarlos

You should explain why people's rights cannot be exercised. This seems self-evident otherwise it's just the arbitrary exercise of power. I know the common reason most Israeli Jews offer. I want to know yours.

I enjoy how quiet this thread had become.

So Palestinians have a right to return but you shouldn't do it because it would be difficult? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Why would there be fighting in the streets? How do you know? Why couldn't this be managed? What is politically the problem?

No international lawyer describes it as a war because these aren't groups within the same country, it's a group in an occupied territory and another group from a country. The occupied territory is not considered a sovereign nation and even the recent recognition doesn't change this, because there's no de facto sovereignty if you do not control your own territory. It doesn't meet the standards for war, which in any case isn't the appropriate definition anymore.

Today we talk about the use of force, which definition also doesn't really fit if you ask governments that don't recognise Palestine:

All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. — Un charter 2(4)

Seems rather important since you think it justifies not treating for peace, no? Since I quite obviously disagree and believe the right of return is a basic human right, you should at least make an attempt defending your position.

rhymes with Trump.

The "right of return" results in the destruction of Israel. So no, Hamas does not strive for peace with Israel. For the millionth time, they seek to destroy it. As they always have. — BitconnectCarlos

How does the right of return result in the destruction of Israel? Walk me through it.

BTW, to clarify, when I said a war between equals I mean they should both be sovereign nations I don't expect any kind of equality in power.

But Hamas was amenable to peace. It's been Israel that refused to treat, every time. So one again you lie and use it as an excuse to not treat with them for peace.

a civil war isn't just a war now is it? But this is also not a civil war because Palestinians aren't Israelis. Furthermore, most slave revolts and decolonalisation struggles weren't qualified as a war. So what type of war is this according to you?

It's an armed struggle sure but that doesn't make it war.

Now I have to disagree.

It is a war. Trying to make this conflict to be something else is wrong in my view. A low intensity conflict or a conflict that erupts every once and a while is a war. Even with the 100-years war there were moments when nothing happened with large battles being the exception. — ssu

A war requires two sovereign nations. We have one country basically controlling all the land. It's not a war.

bark bark.

Nice decontextualised quoting there. Maybe read that post again and see what it's juxtaposed against. What is the Palestinian plight according to you?

I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss (pointing out) that there's more than one important problem, and that they're best addressed/resolved in the same round. Is that what you call both-sideism? We all know the history, humanitarianism (including homophobia), etc; besides, it's been re-re-iterated often enough here in the thread. — jorndoe

I'm hardly dismissing it, I'm saying that it depends how it's framed. Invariably, we've only seen one type. Your tendency to share information without context doesn't help.

We have people here defending atrocities and calling it justice. They bark like dogs and call it reason. Case in point:

I would if Israel ever committed a 10/7 with the sole purpose of slaughtering & capturing & raping as many civilians as possible. Even in the darkest depths of WWII Jews never stooped to that. They never gleefully murdered innocent German civilians. But maybe in your reality they just gleefully ride around murdering Palestinians for no reason. :roll: — BitconnectCarlos

The crimes of Israel are multitude and worse in intensity and scale than the crimes of Hamas and have persisted for decades.

Oh they won't. They won't notice at all you or others that do look at both objectively. They just will notice that you are criticizing their side (and thus won't notice you also criticizing the other) . How (and why) would they notice it? — ssu

There's an inherent problem to both-sideism though when people think equal monks, equal hoods but they start forgetting its corollary: unequal monks.

Both sides commit war crimes but this obfuscates the vital difference that war crimes committed by the oppressed are fundamentally different than those of oppressors. The moral dimensions are not the same even when ignoring intensity and scale. And they are grotesquely unalike when taking intensity and scale into account as the past 70 years have shown.

There's no war. These are not equal parties. There's only a struggle for independence made futile by the unconditional support of a coloniser by the West.

no, you call for the destruction of only some oppressors. So you're just a hypocrite. I dare you to be consistent and voice the same about Israel if you believe you're actually offering anything that resembles a solution.

You're just a mean little man filled with hate.

Only a fool ignores what is right in front of him. My posts included a multitude of verifiable links. Good luck.

As I said, read this thread. But you've repeatedly shown zero interest into educating yourself about simple facts which is why I have zero interest in repeating myself.

Maybe question yourself a bit more when you feel the need to lie to yourself to make yourself feel good for defending oppressors and murderers.

You need only peruse this thread. I've set out Hamas' official position for years with reference to official statements. But go ahead and keep digging through tiktoks.

Never mind that this has not been the position of the PLO and hasn't been the position of Hamas for years. So what you're doing is lying, plain and simple. Just stop it.

At the expense of an actual woman's choice. Very logical.

I seek for no law unlike you who's arguing for a prohibition unless local states rule otherwise. So no, it was a dumb archaic and backward ruling and your idiotic defence women can now vote for something they had a god given right to is antithetical to your repeated stance that we shouldn't need governments for rights.

Naive and dumb reduction of my position on government. You seem to miss the point entirely your completely inconsistent. That's a consequence of your ideological hangups.

Doesn't anyone who engages in the democratic process think they have a right to decide for others, and are they not actively trying to get the government to impose their opinions on society? — Tzeentch

No, the political question is to act or not to act. The basic assumption is to not act unless there's a clear benefit that increases positive freedom. Increasing choice, eg. positive freedom, is therefore the moral position.

Edit: in fact, acting here limited negative freedom by introducing a prohibition, limiting personal choice.

And don't get me started on the retarded method of interpretation in the USA that leads to dumb rulings to begin with.

Why do I need to travel to make decisions about my body? Funny how freedom all of a sudden isn't important to you anymore.

Being pro-life isn't degenerate. Thinking you have a right to decide for others is.

It's degenerate because it flows from an archaic worldview that is essentially illiberal. Nobody having an abortion has every hurt anybody. Someone can be pro-life but that doesn't mean they have to enforce that stance on others. And "unborn child" is a logical contradiction. It's either a child or it isn't and it won't be a child unless it's born. Meanwhile, we can take the decision against or in favour or abortion very seriously under the particular circumstances in which they occur - and most people do. It's not like people like getting abortions.

Nobody was forcing people who didn't want an abortion to have one so in fact we don't need regulation but freedom. Which Roe vs. Wade offered but was overturned by degenerate fossils wanting to return to the stone age.

So the freedom to vote trumps the freedom to choose? Good we've got that cleared up. We can return to a lot of your previous positions and reassess them based on this.

All morality emanates from the laws of the Almighty. In Islamic law, you never take care of a former partner. Furthermore, after the age of reason, custody of children reverts to the father of the children. — Tarskian

Historically the dumbest comment so far. Back when women were still chattel in Europe, they had family law giving rights to women to the estate. Maybe actually study this stuff instead of pretending you're a wannabe Andrew Tate.

Edit: it's even on wiki for God's sake.

Upon talaq, the wife is entitled to the full payment of mahr if it had not already been paid. The husband is obligated to financially support her until the end of the waiting period or the delivery of her child, if she is pregnant. In addition, she has a right to child support and any past due maintenance, which Islamic law requires to be paid regularly in the course of marriage.

And you were claiming Biden stepped down willingly — fishfry

Not what I said. So either you can't read or your memory is a sieve.

Laws in place to protect weaker party from stronger party. Poster believes he's stronger party and unwilling to carry responsibility for consequences of choices and then continues to blame laws, thereby demonstrating his own weakness for being unwilling to bear consequences of his choices like an actual man.

Morally speaking, you should take care of your children and in some cases your former partner, because people tend to give up things for the other, often entire careers, to stay in lasting relationships. Maybe you should get pregnant some time, see how it agrees with you.

@Baden correctly identified this as dumb immature shit.

I don't sympathise with any brutal regime, regardless of whatever dumb religion they believe in.

Says... A Jew whose people have their own apartheid country and still gets free bombs from its allies to commit war crimes.

Islam is almost exclusively criticised in the West, in case you haven't been paying attention and @frank is entirely correct calling out your self serving discrimination.

Do what exactly?

I loved Michelle Obama's comment that was something like "who knows, [the Presidency] might just be one of those black jobs". :rofl:

And as later became clear it only describes the trajectory of Western capitalism.

Yes, that's precisely the difference between you and me, I stop reading when it contradicts evidence, you stop reading when it contradicts your dumb ideas. Spot on.

I saw they uncritically copied a meme despite overwhelming evidence everybody wanted Shokin gone irrespective of whatever Burisma investigation that may have been going on and stopped reading since it's bullshit.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190

A socialist world wouldn't try to weaponise viruses for profit. It wouldn't have a shortage in PPE because getting your dick up wouldn't be favoured over pandemic preparedness because the first is profitable and the other just a cost. The first policy wouldn't be to save the economy but to save people.

The Democrats are now the party of the rich. The GOP are now the party of the working class. Exact opposite of how it used to be. — fishfry

This is also funny.

I did not engage with your arguments for the same reason I don't engage with flat earthers. — fishfry

:rofl: sure buddy. Keep telling yourself that. I suppose a high level of delusion is necessary to be a Trump supporter.