“acts like a duck quacks like a duck” your words.

I’m starting to think you have reading comprehension issues. Have you gotten checked for dyslexia?

It’s impressive how much of an opinion on a topic people can have despite not knowing jack shit. But for some reason the onus is always on the rest of us to hold your hand. And if we get into the specifics of something suddenly we’re ‘contrarian’.

Israel is committing genocide for sure but don’t kid yourself in the narrative that hamas is some noble liberation army. It’s clear you’re not equipped to talk about any of this.

Notice how you can only engage at a superficial level with the topic? My money is you can’t even locate Israel on a map at this point. But thanks for having an opinion on the subject. I’m not surprised as this has been the most you can get talking anything related to geopolitics on this platform.

Par for the course. Searching for specifics or facts of a matter is not being a contrarian. It’s called doing due diligence without letting bias cloud your view. We all have narratives we wish to paint. But unfortunately reality is more complicated than yapping online about how Nazzi or not Israel is. That’s the difference between online virtue signaling and someone who is interested in pursuing the truth.

Why, do the details make Israel look good? Is there a reason to shy away from having a meaningful discussion or is it better to hide behind memes and catchphrases

Well, there you have it. The most unproductive statements as usual. If you don’t know the specifics, why comment? Why not discuss the actual policies or the historical details? Why live in the realm of memes and buzzwords? Oh wait… I know why

Wow. What an insightful response. I stand by what I said earlier: You guys have no idea what you’re talking about.

Why was it turned down, Geneva? Care to elaborate?

You are correct. Israel, in the present does not accept the two state solution. Hence why I was talking about the past.

1. Why was it rejected by PLO when it was on the table?.

2. Show me where Hamas is open to a two state solution.

3. What is the meaning of “from the river to the sea”

Because I said it was on the table several times in the past. And they wrote:

Very cool and false

???

What is the benefit from lying? I don’t get it. This is all basic info.

The two-state solution is supported by many countries, and the Palestinian Authority. Israel currently does not support the idea, though it has in the past. The first proposal for separate Jewish and Arab states in the territory was made by the British Peel Commission report in 1937.

It was also on the table at Camp David.

I think we can track down several times two state option was on the table, starting as early as 68

Because people aren’t interested in solutions. They really just want to talk about the genocidal colonialist imperialist western project. And then move on. With little consideration or forethought for either the Palestinians or the Jews - literally anyone living in the region.

Case example: Hasanabi fans cheering Hezbollah rockets hitting areas inside Israel. But because the rockets have incredibly low precision they were frequently hitting Arab quarters in Haifa and elsewhere.

To sum up: whenever you talk to anyone about me or ip first establish how much they actually understand about the conflict before continuing the conversation any further. My experience is that most people online are locked behind memes and virtue signaling while having absolutely no comprehension of what in actually going on there

We should block everyone until we only see what we want and hear what we like. What could possibly go wrong…

Yea I agree. It’s a strange way to phrase it

It might be a language issue. You asked for a source that nations have a right (some would argue a ‘human’ right) to join alliances:

Actually that is a human right

Source?

So the question asking for a source on ‘human rights’ is kinda nonsensical, that’s why they responded the way they did. You can’t provide a source for ‘human rights’. That’s a philosophical / metaphysical question. There is no official source for human rights hence why the question makes no sense.

On another note, are you the guy I was discussing a while back about conscription in Ukraine? Can’t remember. Hope you are all right if you are.

Why are we creating our own definitions for words? Fascism is a term used to describe a very specific form of governance characterized by elements not included in your description. Chief among them is ruling by a dictatorship and exclusive single party.

The things you described are indeed bad things, some which have been adopted and implemented by fascist regimes as well. But just because two people engage occasionally in the same practices it doesn’t make them twinsies by definition. Sometimes me and my buddy wear the same shirt, but he’s a communist and I’m a liberal. Just because we wear the same shirt sometimes it doesn’t suddenly make him liberal or me communist.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race

There is a strange fetishization of this word online and it has since lost any meaning it used to originally have because now every bad thing has become a fash. It’s meaningless.

That’s a declaration of human rights, not a philosophical logical demonstration of why we are endowed with rights. The person was pointing out the silliness of your original question.

Why do you conflate two different things --both bad-- but cant distinguish the definitions for each? There’s a reason we have separate words for Imperialism and fascism? There’s a weird fetish for this word here and you are very intent on applying it for some reason.