Raze

The UN can’t take major action unless the resolutions pass but the US vetoes them.

The amount of women who regularly complain about the men they date disproves this. I already pointed out examples of contradictory standards, you just said none of that makes it “difficult”. The things I listed do, and I can point out many others in the same vein. But if you won’t even accept the example I gave is there is no point in pointing out the rest. That’s true for any individual person who wants to get better, but on a societal scale when their opinions on what the dating etiquette and climate are taken seriously while they also have free roam to date how they want plus all the complications of modern technology it among other behaviors results in them making it as hard as possible for men.

You’re not getting my point. It’s irrational because the way they test can filter for men who have the traits they don’t want leaving them as their only options, and they’re doing it on a societal scale. The testing is just one symptom of a psychological phenomenon that is just one of the ways they are doing it when it shows up in other areas. Its not really an exaggeration, the entire dating market has become extremely frustrating and toxic for many people partly for this reason. You essentially just said I should ignore it all and assume everything is a collaboration and that women test men naturally so there must not be a problem, That is narrow and biased, it’s not even acknowledging the wider problem which I’m saying this is part of the reason for.

It’s irrational in that it can conflict with their own interests I’m not saying every woman is doing it on purpose, I’m saying generally as a collective they are driven to do that Nothing in my attitude is combative or toxic, I’m analyzing the situation, not giving dating advice. Assuming a collaborative frame is self deluding yourself into a perspective more likely to work, doing that for socializing is fine, saying it should also be done to avoid looking at the wider situation objective isn’t.

They had a leader in exile who wanted peace named Marwan Barghouti, but israel keeps him in prison now. Since Oct 7 they’ve been torturing him.

Right, but their desire to test is often subconscious so it expands in ways that are irrational and they just rationalize or defend it, which is how they make courting them more and more difficult. This is a good example of the issue. While this is true, you will also find just as many examples of women - purposefully making themselves unapproachable, even in situations where they like the guy, and bragging about this - dismissing and deriding men for expecting to get signals from them or the idea they have to signal a man in any way - getting upset at and deriding men for assuming their signals are interest when they aren’t, and even seeking to give him social or legal repercussions That is just one example of the layers of contradictions, and I can give you a dozen worse ones. This is how they make approaching and “chasing them” more and more difficult, yet they’ll only justify doing this while also complaining about the results.

We can use AI to give everyone access to training from enlightened masters

That’s not what I said. I said if a Muslim is claiming a Muslim country or group represents Muslims, then that country or group behaves badly and some people blame Muslims as a group for it, that Muslim can’t turn around and complain about that because they themselves were saying that group represents them. Radical groups that claim to represent Muslims while doing bad things are obviously partially responsible for islamaphobia, that doesn’t mean that anyone bashing Muslims as a group for what said group does isn’t also responsible. Saying israel represents Jews is adding to antisemitism because if people believe you and dislike what israel does, they’ll blame Jews as a group. That doesn’t make it correct or fair, but it will happen.

They are, but paradoxically they also make it hard for men to not approach them, and they’ll always refuse to acknowledge any contradiction.

They’ve had multiple leaders or potential leaders like this who were popular, israel killed or arrested them. Even radical leaders like the founder of Hamas offered a ten year ceasefire in exchange for a state.

That’s 22 entire settlement blocks, for comparison the current settlement blocks are 160 which house 700,000 Jews, many armed to the teeth immersed in a radical ideology. They’ve also ramped up attacks against Palestinians.

One thing I noticed was this was at a pro Israel protest, but it said the victims were 60-80 years old. From what I see pro Palestine protests are usually younger people, and pro Israel protests are usually much older. Polls reflect this as well, israel has lost the youth. They basically have 15 years to complete the ethnic cleaning of Palestine before international opinion is 80 20 against them, in which case they won’t be able to function with that level of pushback and boycotts.

Guys wouldn’t have a problem with this if women weren’t constantly doing everything in their power to make this as hard as possible

The settlements are just doing what was original done to create israel, but at a slower pace. Settlers themselves argue this.

Is half of Americas population Native Americans?

No, first Gaza was the home of some Palestinians, than Israel ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes and pushed them into Gaza. Egypt briefly controlled it but even they didn’t brutalize Palestinians nearly as much as Israel. Israel constantly engaged in raids into Gaza to attack the people there. Such as in 48 when they poisoned a well used by Arabs to try and kill civilians or in 56 when they briefly occupied it and made civilians line up on a wall and shot them, ultimately killing hundreds. When Israel retook it they began colonizing it and allowing in violent settlers to seize territory and demolish Palestinian homes. Later they realized it wasn’t worth the cost and moved the settlers to the West Bank. When Hamas wrote its charter it was during the first intifada. In the first year of the first intifada Palestinians killed 0 Israelis, Israelis killed 22 Palestinians including multiple children, in the second year Palestinians killed six Israelis and Israelis killed over 600 Palestinians. By the end of it Palestinian had killed 110 Israelis (many soldiers or settlers) whereas Israelis killed 1100 Palestinians mostly civilians. IDF soldiers later testified they were ordered to snap the bones of protestors, including children. Palestinains voted for Hamas after a two state deal failed to materialize. Israel immediately tried to stage a violent coup which failed in Gaza then blockaded Gaza crushing their economy. The civil wars didn’t kill thousands of civilians, and were supported by Israel to try and remove Hamas. Israel’s blockade itself collectively punished the civilians, rockets were in response to this.

- Again, fighting back when people try to steal your homes and keep you occupied is not “starting” it, it is self defense. When the occupiers try to genocide you they aren’t “giving consequences”, they’re engaging in the elimination you accuse Palestinians of. Palestinians have no other option because Israel was actively taking their homes, blockading them, and killing them. - Weakness has nothing to do with who is the victim, the victims are the ones being occupied and brutalized, which was the Palestinians. It doesn’t matter if the Sioux were stronger or weaker, they were the victims because they were the ones being removed from their home - I’m not a Muslim. It isn’t just Muslims siding against Israel. Nearly every single country votes against their occupation at the UN, and a recent global poll found israel was one of the most hated countries in the world. It’s just that some people have a basic moral center and dislike racist violence. I’ve explained this to you I believe four times now, and each time you ignore that part of the comment and repeat what you already said. If you aren’t capable of addressing this don’t bother replying because it just goes nowhere.

They only invaded after israel already began expelling Palestinians, deir yassin was for example a motivator There weren’t attack plans, Egypt believed Israel was planning to attack so it did a blockade. If you think blockades mean you started a war, then Hamas hasn’t started a single war as Israel blockaded Gaza first. False, they attacked to regain territory that they lost previously. So you admit it’s not about security but rather hatred and elimination of Palestinians

The three wars weren’t with the intention of extermination. 1948 was to stop israel from exterminating the Palestinians. Israel committed far more massacres of civilians when they captured territory. 1967 began with a israel first strike 1973 was followed by Egypt making a peace deal and never attacking again. How exactly does that show “hatred” and “extermination”? it’s not about stopping Palestinians from developing for security, it’s about exterminating the Palestinians, the group engaging in extermination based on hatred is israel. Israel at one point funneled Money directly to Hamas. Tell me, how does it make sense to help Hamas develop its arms if the issue is they are afraid of their “hatred”? The stated reason was to make Hamas stronger and the PA weaker, because Hamas was still engaging in armed resistance while the PA ceased doing so. As they were fearful if the PA was stronger international groups would start pressuring them to stop killing and stealing from Palestinians as the PA gave them less of an ability to excuse it as “self defense“. The reason is because they want Palestinians to try to defend themselves against Israel to give Israel the excuse to kill more Palestinians and seize more territory, as bad faith actors and useful idiots can’t comprehend the idea that Palestinians are humans who will naturally fight and resist the people who perpetually destroy their lives. The idea that because the people who constantly kill and oppress hate you is a reason why you jut continue to kill and oppress them is the argument of immoral simpletons. You can find people who said slavery shouldn’t end because the slaves hated white people for what they did to them. You can find people who said apartheid shouldn’t end because the south africans hated the afrikaneers for what they did to them. It’s really just an excuse to consider exploiting people. In Israel’s case it’s particularly ridickois because oppression of the Palestinians has only worsened their security over time as the attacks become larger and more complex the more they are oppressed, and their internal stability and international support is lost more and more.

Hamas was voted in after israel rejected that proposal and the PA failed to get a deal while also acknowledging Israel and losing their last leverage, while Israel just expanded settlements. Hamas offered a long term ceasefire in exchange for a state. And again, why don’t you turn the logic around. Israel rejected the deal and blockaded 2 million people in Gaza, why are they surprised by oct 7? Keeping millions of people captive eternally will have backlash. The stupidity of your reasoning is that israel has all the power and leverage, but somehow the stateless population backed into the corner is the one responsible for every single action of any side and anything they do towards them is always justified. No other conflict is analyzed this way.

Extremely unlikely those were real numbers or they answered if he called later.

That’s not “Palestinians”. Passover massacre was carried about by Hamas, at that time a much smaller group during the second intifada when israel was killing, arresting and beating dozens of Palestinians nearly every day. Israel had weddings where they partied and celebrated by stabbing a photo of a 7 month old baby after Israelis burned him and his parents alive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duma_arson_attack#"Wedding_of_Hate" So if bombing is normal, should someone start bombing israel after that? How many thousands of children should be killed? Would it also be normal to block all food and medicine, destroy 90% of buildings, and say you want to expel millions of people, which is what israel is doing to Gaza?

That was a riot with unclear origins of violence, not a “terror attack”. Also that was not the beginning. There are letters from religious Zionists saying that they were seeing disrespect and abuse of the local population that was going to lead to conflict as earlier as 1900-1910. In 1919 armed Zionist militias were already doing drills in public chanting and holding banners announcing that all of Palestine would be theirs.

No it wasn’t, the first incident of Arab violence was a riot in response to a Zionist Militia marching. Modern day terrorist tactics like hiding bombs in shops etc. were introducing to the region by Zionist’s, one example being king David hotel.