WDSmart

He was in Gaza, in his homeland. He was not committing horrific acts in Israel, and there is no way for the IDF to know if he did, at least if they killed him as described. Can't you see that videos like this of someone about to be killed are just like the videos of the people killed and hostages taken on Oct 7? You thought those were horrible. Why, then, would you think one like this is "hilarious"?

Question ignored...again.

But, in this video, there is no evidence that this man who is about to be killed is a member of Hamas. I agree it's likely he is, but he could be just some regular citizen who wants to protect his family from the IDF invasion.

No, as usual, you do not have that correct. The term "antisemite" SHOULD mean someone who is against (anti) Semites (both ethnicities of Jews and Arabs). So, an "antisemite" could be ANYONE who hates Jews OR Arabs OR both. And, it could be a Jew who hates Arabs OR an Arab who hates Jews.

Why would you think a video of a man who is about to be killed "hilarious"? Can't you see how horrible that is? And though it doesn't make a difference to the deranged nature of the video, this man was presumably armed and set to defend the invasion of his homeland by the IDF. He was not a "terrorist," at least not in this video. And I'll bet you won't even admit to who the real "terrorists" are in this episode.

Yes! Yes! Yes! As I've noted before in the past, "Semite," which is the base term in "antisemitism," refers to BOTH Jews and Arabs (and some others), but the term "antisemite" is now used only to mean "anti-Jew(ethnic)." Semite noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

! This was because Neeranam asked you a question and you just responded with a question of your own. You do that often, and it seems to imply (as I've posted before) that if someone else (or some other country) has done something wrong in the past, it's okay for you (or Israel) to do something wrong now. I'd prefer it if you would, as I do, just answer the question with a "yes" or "no," and then give an explanation if you think it's warranted.

What's the problem? I have no problem with this, except when using the term "Jew," someone might be referring to ethnicity or religion. You don't know just by reading the term. This is unlike "Arab" and "Muslim."

FINALLY! A post of yours with which I agree. And I know that doesn't mean you support doing this, but yes, any two-state solution will be very difficult because each side will have to give up, or at least adjust the boundaries on some territory, and neither side will want to do that.

Yes, but now someone can be a "Jew" without having Jewish ethnicity, and an ethnic "Jew" can have left Judaism,

I certainly agree with your second sentence above!

Israel may not be "going anyway," but I suspect it will be reduced in size under any two-state solution.

This statement makes no sense! It only makes sense because "Jew" can mean ethnicity or religion.

"They," the [censored], who is in charge of the Israeli government right now.

Yes, and now they want to establish them again. How Israeli settlers are expanding illegal outposts amid Gaza war | Israel War on Gaza | Al Jazeera

Here's a link disputing that... Israel's Occupation: 50 Years of Dispossession - Amnesty International

Here are the posts that show you where it would still be genocide...

Yes it was crock then just as it is now. Yes, I know you think that, but the crock is now simmering. Soon it will be ready to serve, and when it does, you'll see the proposal, and hopefully agreement, on the plate is very similar to what I've been suggesting.

There may not ever be a path to a "sustainable" peace, but for a chance at that, here's what I believe has to be done, and in this order: 1 - a permanent (I guess the term is now "sustained") ceasefire, preferably enforced by some armed, on-site, peacekeeping force; 2 - an exchange of hostages/prisoners; 3 - forced negotiations started on a two-state solution. Of course, Fetterman, and probably a few on this forum, would not require all of these conditions...

And another one of your posts with which I agree - awful news... I can only point out which countries vetoed this: Russia and China. Why, I don't know, but anything they team up to do, especially if they are the only ones, is suspiciously deviant to me. Was Isreal allowed a vote on this? If so, how did they vote?

Thanks for clarifying that. I, as you know, consider this conflict all the same "war," and each major episode, like Oct 7, is just another campaign of that war. To call each of these separate "wars," for me, just seems to ignore that they are all part of the same conflict. But I understand what you are saying, and you are right in that many of these, what I would call "campaigns," are called "wars" by the media. Thanks again for your explanation.

No, but in truth, I don't know much about Nazi ideology. I only know they were racist, right-wing nationalists and, of course, persecuted Jews because they thought they were an inferior race and would corrupt what they thought was the White Aryan bloodline.

What would you call all the attacks that took place before that? Were each one a separate war?

What would you call the hundreds of attacks from each side that have occurred for many years before Oct 7? Do you deny they every happened? Do you deny that they were fought over the same thing - the control of parts of Israel/Palestine?

Comprehension is one of my strongest points. Waiting my turn is not.