War crimes like launching missiles at civilian areas? Everyday for decades? Like those war crimes? Also, Israel is the one providing food, water and infrastructure to a group of people whose stated goal is to kill them all. My man, if you don't see the problems with that, I can't help you. Go touch some grass and get some perspective. Also, nobody takes the SA government seriously for a reason. They can only keep the lights on about 30% of the time at this point. They tried to sell their entire government to 3 Indian businessmen. If you take them seriously on any topic, you have no hope.

Just to be clear, they don't oppose Zionism. They just think that Israel has to be established by the second coming and not by man. They are a pretty wacky bunch and are often trotted out to prove that Jews don't support Israel.

That's only in the English version. In the Arab version they make it clear that they want the Levant "free from Jews". That's a clear call for ethnic cleansing and meets every single legal definition of the term. Just to be clear, the direct translation of the Arabic version is, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab". And Arab isn't a religious designation, its an ethnic one. That's why we call it ethnic cleansing.

Um, no. I know this gets repeated a lot but it is wrong. The West Bank is an open air prison. Gaza was an autonomous zone with neighbors (including Egypt) who don't like them. Gaza wasn't an open air prison, but it will be now. Also, your claims about losing land in 1948 don't really wash. 99% of both populations were not in the Levant in 1900. That area was worthless after the Silk Road stopped being a major trade root in the early modern period. So most people left and Ottoman administrative incompetence did the rest. After WWI, small numbers of both Jews and Arabs moved into the region. After WWII, many Jews from Europe went there but all the Jews from the Middle East and North Africa were forced at gunpoint to move to the Levant. When they got there, the British (not the Jews) were moving the two populations into different areas to prevent conflict. There were atrocities (by both groups) but only one of those groups was moved there by force and it wasn't the Palestinians (who didn't use that label yet). Truth is, this style of conflict is endemic to this area since 1100 or so when terrorism became a common tactic. And it is largely only practiced by the Muslims. Also, I am being nice here, there is a lot of history I am leaving out and none of it makes the Palestinians look good.

The unibomber had ethics and principles too. Doesn't make him or these employees moral. That's why we have 2 words, moral and ethical. One means actually good, the other means has a set of principles they follow. You can have unmoral but ethical people. Some would say these are examples of those.

You are right, but the slant of how the conflict is portrayed is pure 100% antisemitism. If you were to put HAMAS's own words into a news report, they couldn't run it on AP because of their guidelines about how to portray HAMAS. HAMAS themselves say they want to kill all the Jews. And they constantly use the word genocide not because it is accurate, but because they are trying to degrade the word because they want to do more pograms. Again, this is something HAMAS says themselves. When the reporting is literally the same (or beyond) one side's propaganda, that's bias. And when it is bias against Jews we call that antisemitism. That's why you get called antisemitic all the time, it isn't because you are criticizing Israel. It is because you are repeating things we know aren't true but do appear in HAMAS propaganda.

Are you going to tell us about the protocols of the elders of Zion next?

Serious question, do you think Israel would (or even could) stop if the US wanted them to? I feel like you don't understand the situation. Either Israel uses our better more precise weapons or their own older dumb weapons. That's the choice. The US doesn't get to tell Israel that they can't fight and we have no leaver to get them to not fight. Also, if Israel stops fighting what do you think happens next? According to Hamas, its more pograms. But then again since when have Europeans had a problem with pograms. Your cities are literally partially built with the gravestones of those killed in pograms. I have seen and touched them personally.

So you are anti-hamas then right? right? That's an absurd way to characterize this conflict. I could say that trading with China is being pro-genocide of the Uyghars but Apple still makes the iPhone in China. Also, the number of total deaths in Gaza is less than a week of the Ukrainian war. And in that war, the ratio of civilian to military deaths is even worse than in Gaza. Turns out, throwing around non-guided artillary shells is bad for people, who knew. If the US doesn't supply weapons to Israel, they switch from our guided rounds to dumb shells. Is that going to help the number of civilian deaths? Probably not. The saddest part of this entire situation is that people are destroying themselves even though if they got what they wanted, it wouldn't effect anything in Gaza except do the one thing that they complain about (causing more civilian deaths). After all, the US doesn't control Israel. Hell, the Israelis have been in the penalty box since Stuxnet.

Honestly this is a win for Google. They have big problems with too many political zealots in their company. This just gives them an excuse to fix that problem.

Um, Harvard donations were down 75% and the rate of donations is one of the key measures for a university president. If you were CEO and your company lost 75% of its revenue due to your own actions, would you expect to still be employed?

So if Germany had won WWII then the NAZIs would be the "good guys"? Please make that one make sense.

It is also not really supported by the facts. When you compare numbers (civilian to combatant deaths) between wars, the IDF is pretty good despite the fact they are fighting someone who will break every rule of war. Its a lot easier when the other side is following at least some rules of war. Their numbers are even better than ours in Iraq and the Iraqi weren't using a lot of the more brutal tactics that hamas uses. War is hell, people will die, doesn't mean there aren't things worth fighting for. And the lives of your family is certainly one of them. That's where the Palestinians can never win. You can't beat a superior opponent when you put them "on death's ground" (Sun Tsu). That hasn't changed in 2000 years and that's not going to change anytime soon. If your aim is total annihilation, you can't win and the problem for hamas is that's their stated goal and nothing seems to ever change that. Until that changes, they are just going to get a lot more of their own (and others) killed.

That's revisionist history. The invasion of Afghanistan had wide bi-partisan support. Before the Iraq there were huge protests (even in the US) against it even if Congress rolled over immediately. Those that rolled on that vote were later voted out in large numbers. It wasn't bi-partisan in the population even if the politicians rolled over. Your narrative about Bush 43 is something I have never heard and I was an adult during that entire period of history.

This is objectively false by any measure. You are confusing Palestinians for Syrians who aren't the same group of people and are in the west for entirely different reasons. My son lives in Germany and he told me about a Palestinian friend. I had him send me a picture. The "friend" was clearly Syrian and was wearing the tribal patterns of his tribe from central Syria. Also, there are almost no Palestinians in Germany. The strong antisemitism laws in Germany mean any Palestinians who make it to the west live elsewhere. Also, your take on a "better deal" is pretty absurd and ahistorical.