7 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

I don't admit anything. The idea that God gave Israel to the Jews is a religious belief and is outside objective reasoning. It cannot be proven or disproven through verifiable facts or rational arguments. This is true of every religious belief.

However, that doesn't mean it's bull<deleted>. I don't follow any religion myself, but I have respect for the beliefs of the millions who do.

I don't know what you mean with "Israel's claim," but the Israeli government has never claimed God gave Judea and Samaria to the Jews. The official government stance has never been the state of Israel has a right to the land of Palestine because of a promise from God. The government of Israel, like most of its citizens, believes the U.N., not God, gave them some of the former Mandate for Palestine and they took the rest through military action.

Religious Jews believe God gave the land to them, but not the government of Israel or most of its citizens.

So it is your opinion that the UN gave Israel some of the Palestinian Mandate land?

Yet every time the UN declares Israel should comply with any UN resolution they choose to ignore it, then wonder why some people find Israel's conduct unacceptable.

6 hours ago, Jeff the Chef said:

So it is your opinion that the UN gave Israel some of the Palestinian Mandate land?

Short answer: Yes

And for those who like the details:

The U.N. partition plan, Resolution 181(II), of 1947 would have created independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem under international control. The Jewish Agency for Palestine, which represented the Jewish side in official negotiations, accepted the plan; the Arab side rejected it.

A few hours before the British mandate was due to expire on May 15, 1948, Jewish leaders declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The Israeli Declaration of Independence included the following wording:

• The State of Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947 ...

• We appeal to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations.

  https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/israel.asp

So while the U.N. did not actually give any land to Israel because the partition plan was never implemented, it seemed to the founders of Israel, subsequent governments and most of its citizens today that the plan formed the basis of the State of Israel under international law. In that sense, the U.N. gave Israel some of its current land.

6 hours ago, Jeff the Chef said:

Yet every time the UN declares Israel should comply with any UN resolution they choose to ignore it, then wonder why some people find Israel's conduct unacceptable.

Times change. The vote on the partition plan was in israel's favor, many later resolutions weren't.

Edited August 18Aug 18 by Evil Penevil

I live on Koh Phangan. Every day, I go to the beach to swim and then eat a salad in a beach restaurant. The vast majority of fellow diners are Israeli, mostly young men and women. Previously this hasn't really bothered me.

But of late, I have started to ask myself 'Did that young Israeli guy laughing and eating his kao pat koong murder a kid last week?'. Because for sure, many of these Israeli tourists are serving in the IDF.

I have absolutely no support for Hamas etc. But war should be between adults, and we all know that kids and other innocent civilians are getting killed (murdered?) in Gaza. We've all seen the videos...

It's beginning to prey on my mind. I don't really want to eat anymore in a restaurant full of young Israelis, because for sure, they are not all innocent tourists.

I have absolutely no side in that conflict. But I do have a side when innocents are being deliberately (not accidentally) killed....

@simon43

Even people who have no strong feelings one way or the other about the Israel/Palestinian conflict couldn't see the atrocities committed by Israel and not be appalled.

The Zionist state will go the way of Apartheid South Africa, and rightly so.

1 hour ago, simon43 said:

I don't really want to eat anymore in a restaurant full of young Israelis,

Then don't.

4 minutes ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

The Zionist state will go the way of Apartheid South Africa, and rightly so.

Not without a very hard fight. Jews will no longer walk quietly to their annihilation. Any attempt at Holocaust 2 is going to be very different from Holocaust 1.

1 hour ago, simon43 said:

I live on Koh Phangan. Every day, I go to the beach to swim and then eat a salad in a beach restaurant. The vast majority of fellow diners are Israeli, mostly young men and women. Previously this hasn't really bothered me.

But of late, I have started to ask myself 'Did that young Israeli guy laughing and eating his kao pat koong murder a kid last week?'. Because for sure, many of these Israeli tourists are serving in the IDF.

I have absolutely no support for Hamas etc. But war should be between adults, and we all know that kids and other innocent civilians are getting killed (murdered?) in Gaza. We've all seen the videos...

It's beginning to prey on my mind. I don't really want to eat anymore in a restaurant full of young Israelis, because for sure, they are not all innocent tourists.

I have absolutely no side in that conflict. But I do have a side when innocents are being deliberately (not accidentally) killed....

Correct me if im wrong but you have spent many years living in Myanmar correct ?

Yep nothing ironic there.

3 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

Then don't.

Not without a very hard fight. Jews will no longer walk quietly to their annihilation. Any attempt at Holocaust 2 is going to be very different from Holocaust 1.

Yes and the irony is that the always present racist Jew haters hate Jews when they were passively compliant and they also hate Jews when they have the power to fight back.

18 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

I don't admit anything. The idea that God gave Israel to the Jews is a religious belief and is outside objective reasoning. It cannot be proven or disproven through verifiable facts or rational arguments. This is true of every religious belief.

So you condemn the illegal settlements as they are based on that absurd biblical belief?

Edited August 18Aug 18 by JimCM

19 hours ago, Mr Awesome said:

Where around the world did millions of people experience intense backlash?

Have you been hibernating the last quarter century?

The military response to the September 11 attacks, commonly known as the global "War on Terror," (more likely "war by terror") resulted in several major wars and military interventions across the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa

According to the Brown University Costs of War Project the at least 432,000 civilians have been killed directly by war violence—such as airstrikes, bombings, and gunshots—across the primary conflict zones. However, when accounting for indirect deaths caused by the destruction of healthcare, economies, and infrastructure, the total civilian and combatant toll rises to an estimated 4.5 to 4.7 million people.

The primary wars that occurred as a direct backlash to 9/11 include:

1. The War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)

• What happened: In October 2001, a U.S.-led coalition invaded Afghanistan to dismantle al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban regime that had harbored Osama bin Laden. The war lasted two decades, concluding with the U.S. withdrawal and the return of the Taliban to power in 2021.

• Direct Civilian Deaths: Approximately 47,000–48,000 civilians. [1, 2]

2. The Iraq War (2003–2011 & Ongoing Insurgencies)

• What happened: In March 2003, the U.S. and its allies invaded Iraq under the premise that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and had ties to terrorism (both claims were later disproven). The invasion destabilized the country, sparked a massive sectarian civil war, and created a power vacuum that birthed the terrorist group ISIS.

• Direct Civilian Deaths: Estimates range from 185,000 to over 210,000 civilians killed by coalition forces, insurgent groups, and sectarian violence

3. War in the Northwest Border Region of Pakistan (2004–Present)

• What happened: Following the invasion of Afghanistan, many Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters fled across the border into Pakistan. The U.S. launched an intensive, years-long drone warfare campaign in Pakistan's tribal areas, while the Pakistani military engaged in domestic counterinsurgency operations against the Pakistani Taliban.

• Direct Civilian Deaths: Over 24,000 civilians.

4. Intervention Against ISIS in Syria and Iraq (2014–Present)

• What happened: As a direct spillover from the instability of the 2003 Iraq war, ISIS captured vast territories in Iraq and Syria. A U.S.-led international coalition launched thousands of airstrikes and ground support operations to destroy the group's self-proclaimed caliphate.

• Direct Civilian Deaths: Over 95,000 civilians in Syria alone, and thousands more in Iraq, killed by a combination of ISIS atrocities, Syrian government actions, and coalition airstrikes.

5. Spillover Wars: Yemen, Somalia, and Libya

• What happened: The post-9/11 counterterrorism framework expanded to target al-Qaeda and ISIS affiliates in other regions. This included intensive U.S. drone programs and special operations forces backing local factions in Yemen (targeting AQAP) and Somalia (targeting al-Shabaab), alongside the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya.

• Direct Civilian Deaths: While these conflicts are deeply complex civil wars with multiple local actors, counterterrorism operations and resultant instability have directly claimed tens of thousands of civilian lives across all three nations.

 I truly admire our flawless moral superiority. It takes real talent to label an entire group a 'death cult' while completely ignoring our own impressive track record of taking innocent lives.

20 hours ago, Mr Awesome said:

The West holds a valid perspective because many countries around the world fail to uphold the same values. Liberal nations in the West champion individual rights and freedoms, while numerous other countries lag behind in this regard. Does this make the West's stance unjustifiable?

Oh, absolutely. The West’s stance is completely flawless, especially when you look at how beautifully those heralded liberal values of "individual rights and freedoms" have been applied in Gaza.

It turns out that "universal human rights" actually come with a very selective terms-and-conditions sheet.

The Western commitment to international law and the "rules-based order" has been on spectacular display:

• selective empathy: The right to life and liberty is strictly championed, provided the individuals holding those rights fit the correct geopolitical demographic.

• Weaponized aid: Championing human dignity apparently includes funding and shipping the exact munitions that level hospitals and neighborhoods, followed by a deeply concerned press conference about the lack of humanitarian aid.

• Freedom of expression (with boundaries): Western institutions love free speech, until students and academics use that free speech to protest the slaughter of civilians. Then, those liberal values quickly pivot to police crackdowns and institutional censorship.

So yes, the Western perspective is totally vindicated.

Nothing says "we hold the moral high ground on human rights" quite like watching a population starve in real-time on social media while debating whether a ceasefire is "premature."

On 8/17/2026 at 10:14 PM, Jingthing said:

It's used as a racist Jew hating cudgel.

Your sleaze is a prime example.

Prove my facts to be wrong instead of always reacting with empty insults.

Same as your empty promises:

On 8/17/2026 at 1:04 AM, Jingthing said:

I can't be bothered.

If you want s response focus on a point and be coherent

On 8/17/2026 at 2:57 AM, Somjot said:

As if you would ever answer. Ok, let´s try. Respond to that:

Hind Rajab

Prove my statement to be the truth, that you never address any valid points made and only screech insults.

Or answer the point I made: Hind Rajab.

Any comments on her and what the 'most moral army' did to her?"

19 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

I don't admit anything. The idea that God gave Israel to the Jews is a religious belief and is outside objective reasoning. It cannot be proven or disproven through verifiable facts or rational arguments. This is true of every religious belief.

However, that doesn't mean it's bull<deleted>. I don't follow any religion myself, but I have respect for the beliefs of the millions who do.

I don't know what you mean with "Israel's claim," but the Israeli government has never claimed God gave Judea and Samaria to the Jews. The official government stance has never been the state of Israel has a right to the land of Palestine because of a promise from God. The government of Israel, like most of its citizens, believes the U.N., not God, gave them some of the former Mandate for Palestine and they took the rest through military action.

Religious Jews believe God gave the land to them, but not the government of Israel or most of its citizens.

Oh, my mistake! I completely forgot that when the UN draws a line on a map, it’s a secular, legally binding document, but when bulldozers clear a neighborhood in the West Bank, it’s just "strategic depth."

It is incredibly comforting to know that the Israeli government has never used the Bible as a real estate brochure.

Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People explicitly calls the land the "historical homeland"—because nothing says "purely secular UN mandate" like invoking ancient tribal history in your constitutional laws.

The current coalition guidelines literally start with: "The Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all areas of the Land of Israel." I’m sure that "exclusive right" is based on a secular municipal zoning permit and definitely not a religious covenant, right?

Government-funded settlement roadmaps refer to the West Bank exclusively as "Judea and Samaria." Because using ancient biblical names for modern military zones is just peak secular efficiency.

Let’s just completely ignore the fact that:

But hey, you're right. The government doesn't claim God gave them the land. They just fund, protect, and subsidize the exact people who do claim God gave it to them, while using those exact religious claims to win elections. Huge difference. Totally secular. My bad.

Edited August 18Aug 18 by Somjot

@Somjot

Thanks for those impressive replies to the canned talking points and snarky ad hominem insults from the Zionist cheerleaders.

They are defending the indefensible and unpardonable actions of a nation that has become "rogue" in every conceivable sense of the term.

12 hours ago, blaze master said:

Correct me if im wrong but you have spent many years living in Myanmar correct ?

Yep nothing ironic there.

Nothing ironic at all! If you read about my charity work in Myanmar, you'll see that I support the civilan population 100% by helping with education. I don't speak out against the military because I would then be banned from the country, and that would have a detrimental effect on my educational charity. But I also don't support or condone the military - I avoid buying Myanmar Beer brand because it's a military company. I always try to pay direct to support local businesses. I have no military friends etc. I do my part....

15 hours ago, JimCM said:

So you condemn the illegal settlements as they are based on that absurd biblical belief?

I disapprove of the settler outposts considered illegal under Israeli law, I don't care one way or the other about the settlements authorized by the Israeli government.

I'm also not concerned about the settlers' motivation for moving to the West Bank, whether it's what they perceive to be a biblical commandment or it's to improve security. I don't consider the sacred texts of Judaism or any other religion to be absurd.

7 hours ago, simon43 said:

Nothing ironic at all! If you read about my charity work in Myanmar, you'll see that I support the civilan population 100% by helping with education. I don't speak out against the military because I would then be banned from the country, and that would have a detrimental effect on my educational charity. But I also don't support or condone the military - I avoid buying Myanmar Beer brand because it's a military company. I always try to pay direct to support local businesses. I have no military friends etc. I do my part....

Thats one way of looking at it.

On 8/16/2026 at 4:13 PM, spidermike007 said:

Well I was brought up as a Jew and I've been around Jews my whole life, and there are a remarkable percentage of Jews that buy into this chosen people nonsense.

I loved Jews I have many Jewish friends and and close family members but I think that it's always healthy to admit the shortcomings that some of our people have. Isn't it?

That is the classic “I’m not prejudiced — I have Jewish friends and family” argument. Having Jewish friends or being Jewish yourself doesn't make a generalization any less prejudiced.

And there is a contradiction in what you're saying. You now describe Jews as “our people”, yet in your previous post you claimed that “a lot of Israeli people” have a “horrible sense of entitlement” because they supposedly consider themselves the “chosen people”. You are attributing a negative collective characteristic to a large group and then justifying collective retaliation against them.

Criticizing the policies of the Israeli government is one thing. Judging Israelis collectively and telling them they should “get a taste of their own medicine” is something entirely different.

On 8/16/2026 at 4:27 PM, Nick Carter icp said:

How many times has that happened to you ?

How many times have you been a reasonably mature man with thick skin and walked on by after an establishment didn't want your custom ?

So @Spidermike has no problem with being discriminated against, even though he apparently has very little experience of actually being discriminated against. That's quite a remarkable position to take.

6 minutes ago, daejung said:

You can't simply label Israel “genocidal” and expect Israel to prove that it isn't.

The burden is on those making such a serious accusation to substantiate it. Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas, a terrorist organization that deliberately operates among civilians and uses civilian infrastructure for military purposes.

That doesn't mean civilian casualties are acceptable, but it does mean the situation cannot honestly be described as Israel simply attacking innocent civilians for the sake of killing them.

Ludicrous. 21000 children dead, and still arguing on whether it's genocide?

That ship has sailed. A long time ago.

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Ludicrous. 21000 children dead, and still arguing on whether it's genocide?

That ship has sailed. A long time ago.

21 000 ?

Its been 21 000 for ages now .

How come there's been no increase lately ?

Palestinian woman give birth to about 40 000 trainee terrorists every year , so, the population is increasing .

worst genocide ever

Edited August 19Aug 19 by Nick Carter icp

3 hours ago, daejung said:

That is the classic “I’m not prejudiced — I have Jewish friends and family” argument. Having Jewish friends or being Jewish yourself doesn't make a generalization any less prejudiced.

And there is a contradiction in what you're saying. You now describe Jews as “our people”, yet in your previous post you claimed that “a lot of Israeli people” have a “horrible sense of entitlement” because they supposedly consider themselves the “chosen people”. You are attributing a negative collective characteristic to a large group and then justifying collective retaliation against them.

Criticizing the policies of the Israeli government is one thing. Judging Israelis collectively and telling them they should “get a taste of their own medicine” is something entirely different.

Oh, absolutely.

But let’s do some quick democratic math.

Israel constantly brags about being the shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East.

If we take them at their word, their government actually represents the people.

Netanyahu didn't become the longest-serving leader in Israeli history through a lottery; the majority actively chose him, repeatedly.

When you combine that political mandate with the way many Israelis behave both on camera and abroad, a very specific mentality emerges: "We can do whatever we want, and the rules don't apply to us."

Wishing a taste of their own medicine upon them isn't "retaliation"—it's just a logical, cosmic reality check to gently lower them back down to Earth with the rest of humanity.

Very sad, while the Jewish state may be guilty of genocide and mass killings, the average Jewish person is not at fault, as they are not necessarily responsible for the actions of their government.

Racism and antisemitism should not be tolerated in any civilized society.

3 hours ago, daejung said:

You can't simply label Israel “genocidal” and expect Israel to prove that it isn't.

The burden is on those making such a serious accusation to substantiate it. Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas, a terrorist organization that deliberately operates among civilians and uses civilian infrastructure for military purposes.

That doesn't mean civilian casualties are acceptable, but it does mean the situation cannot honestly be described as Israel simply attacking innocent civilians for the sake of killing them.

Oh, of course.

It’s not like anyone has presented thousands of pages of evidence, expert reports, or endless livestreams to back up that claim.

But sure, let's pretend people just pulled that word out of a hat.

It’s also incredibly convenient how "self-defense" apparently requires a blank check to level entire cities and wipe out whole family trees.

If the goal isn't just killing civilians, they are certainly putting on a masterclass in "collateral damage" while claiming they are the most moral army in the world.

At what point does "defending yourself against human shields" just become an excuse for shooting through the shields?

6 minutes ago, Somjot said:

Oh, absolutely.

But let’s do some quick democratic math.

Israel constantly brags about being the shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East.

If we take them at their word, their government actually represents the people.

Netanyahu didn't become the longest-serving leader in Israeli history through a lottery; the majority actively chose him, repeatedly.

When you combine that political mandate with the way many Israelis behave both on camera and abroad, a very specific mentality emerges: "We can do whatever we want, and the rules don't apply to us."

Wishing a taste of their own medicine upon them isn't "retaliation"—it's just a logical, cosmic reality check to gently lower them back down to Earth with the rest of humanity.

If we use Freedom House’s 2026 classification and define the Middle East as its 13-country regional grouping, the answer is 1 clear democracy: Israel.

• 🇮🇱 Israel — Free (73/100) — parliamentary, multiparty democracy. 

• 🇱🇧 Lebanon — Partly Free (41/100) — has elections and political pluralism but does not meet the standard of a full democracy. 

• 🇹🇳 Tunisia — Partly Free (42/100) — democratic institutions have substantially eroded since 2021. 

• 🇯🇴 Jordan — Partly Free

• 🇮🇶 Iraq — Not Free

• 🇰🇼 Kuwait — Not Free

• 🇹🇷 Turkey — Not Free

• 🇮🇷 Iran — Not Free

• 🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia — Not Free

• 🇦🇪 UAE — Not Free

• 🇧🇭 Bahrain — Not Free

• 🇾🇪 Yemen — Not Free

• 🇸🇾 Syria — Not Free 

So, roughly 1 out of 13 Middle Eastern countries (about 8%) is classified as “Free.” Freedom House’s 2026 report specifically describes the region as dominated by entrenched authoritarian rule. 

Important caveat: “democracy” depends on the definition. If you count countries that hold competitive elections but have serious institutional or civil-liberty problems, you could get a higher number—particularly if you include Lebanon and Iraq. But under a relatively strict definition of functioning liberal democracy, Israel is the only clear case in the Middle East.

26 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

21 000 ?

Its been 21 000 for ages now .

How come there's been no increase lately ?

Palestinian woman give birth to about 40 0000 trainee terrorists every year , so, the population is increasing .

worst genocide ever

Oh, I’m so sorry the child mortality rate isn’t rising fast enough to keep you entertained.

Maybe the numbers "stopped increasing" for you because the healthcare system is so thoroughly obliterated that there's nobody left to count the bodies under the rubble, but let’s not let reality ruin your statistics.

As for calling newborn babies "trainee terrorists"—congratulations on reaching a new level of moral bankruptcy where you view a maternity ward as a terrorist training camp.

Dehumanizing infants just so you can sleep at night while they die is quite the choice.

But hey, keep cheering on the slaughter of children; it really highlights the absolute peak of humanity you and the likes of you represent.

5 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

21 000 ?

Its been 21 000 for ages now .

How come there's been no increase lately ?

Palestinian woman give birth to about 40 000 trainee terrorists every year , so, the population is increasing .

worst genocide ever

Being a bit dramatic aren't we. I doubt newborn babies are trainee terrorists. Even later on they are mostly trained to protest, scream abuse and throw stones. Palestinians seem to accept bringing their children into the battle young. There does seem to be a dearth of news on current situation in the region... perhaps I need to watch more Al Jazeera. Major distraction nearby which is useful to Israel.

Edited August 19Aug 19 by jacko45k

If you ask most Palestians if they would like to move to some western country - they would bite your hand off.

Just take them all, and move them around the globe.

That's the end of the war.

But they won't. Too many people with vested interests in keeping this nonsense going on and on (including Isreal and those in Palestine who have vested interests) , no end to the suffering.

Edited August 19Aug 19 by DonniePeverley

The French owner's mother's house in France was firebombed.

Samui Exotic Park co-owner Kevin Dimino in France was damaged in a fire on August 19, 2026. His mother escaped safely inside. The owners believe it is linked to a major online and local dispute after their zoo on Koh Samui banned Israeli visitors.

The Mother's Status: Dimino's mother was inside the house when the fire started but managed to escape safely without injuries.

French Authorities: Police in France are actively treating the fire as a suspicious incident.

Is it a case of:

4 Jews refused entry to a small zoo in Thailand.

Jews organize and/or commit the fire bombing of the owner's mother's house, while his mother is inside, in France because of it ?

Edited August 20Aug 20 by Packer

The co-owner's mother's house in France.

Did Jews organize and/or commit the arson attack on the co-owner's mother's house in Europe, while she was inside, due to Israelis not being allowed into a small zoo in South East Asia ?

UPDATE

Fire probe in France at Samui park manager mother's home