Schizophonia

Why one would not defend Israel ?

262 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

3 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

 

I wonder what the middle east would look like if the USA /EU greatly withdrew support for Israel. 

 

They might just Samson option everyone. The best move is to just tell them no more aid and sanctions until they start negotiating the Arab peace initiative on their own accord.

Edited by Raze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 minute ago, Raze said:

That’s what I said, this also ignored my point about the PA which actually went beyond disarming and only got punished for it.

They wanted it after but the trust from lseael was already gone.

Edited by Inliytened1

 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Inliytened1 said:

They wanted it after but the trust was by Israel was already gone.

how convenient 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

What would you do otherwise?

Say you are the Israeli PM in August 2005 and for the next couple of years.

The election wasn’t accepted - neither was the acknowledgment of 1967 borders which is and has been the baseline for any credible peace plan. That’s simply the bare minimum that the international community has consensus on. So start from that basis and hammer in all the finer details after that.

One of those detail is that the West Bank is a tricky concern for Israeli security because of its vantage point over looking Tel Aviv - so some arrangement probably would have to be made for it. No side wants the other to be militarized there - so probably some sort of third party peace keeping forces to maintain the peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

There isn't really too much to discuss here.

Israel will have to sell it's soul and kill lots and lots of people to keep itself safe in the short/medium term.

Palestine will pay with blood, but they and surrounding Muslim countries outnumber the colonial zionist thieves by millions and millions. 

The west is waking up. Gen Z hates Israel. Europe is slowly shifting to recognizing Palestine. Forces that wish to no longer waste US taxpayer money on Israel grow daily.

I wonder what the middle east would look like if the USA /EU greatly withdrew support for Israel. 

 

Well apparently Hamas has agreed to a return of the hostages and a lasting peace so it's in their hands now.  


 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

48 minutes ago, zazen said:

Brother, I prompted Chat GPT to give me the objective sequence of events causing the first rocket to be launched and why:

- 2005 – Israel’s “Disengagement”

Israel withdraws settlers and troops from Gaza unilaterally (not as part of any peace process).

It keeps full control of Gaza’s borders, coastline, and airspace — meaning it can decide what and who goes in or out.

Gaza’s airport remains closed; its economy, already weak, becomes almost entirely dependent on Israeli crossings.

- January 2006 – Hamas Wins Democratic Elections

The elections were monitored by international observers and deemed free and fair.

Hamas wins a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council, defeating Fatah — largely due to Fatah’s corruption and the public’s frustration with the failed Oslo process.

- February–March 2006 – International Boycott

The U.S., EU, and Israel refuse to recognize the new Hamas-led government unless it renounces violence, recognizes Israel, and accepts previous peace accords.

When Hamas doesn’t comply (arguing that recognition must be mutual and tied to 1967 borders), Israel and the West cut off all aid and withhold tax revenues owed to the Palestinian Authority.

This plunges Gaza and the West Bank into financial crisis.

- Spring–Summer 2006 – Escalation and Blockade

Israel begins targeted assassinations of Hamas officials and conducts military incursions into Gaza.

On June 9, 2006, Israeli shelling kills an entire Palestinian family (the Ghalia family) on a Gaza beach — a turning point that enrages Palestinians.

On June 25, 2006, Hamas militants capture Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in response to ongoing Israeli raids.

Israel responds with “Operation Summer Rains,” invading Gaza, bombing power plants, bridges, and civilian infrastructure.

The blockade formally begins — crossings closed, movement frozen, goods restricted.

Late 2006 – Early 2007 – The First Major Rocket Waves

After months of siege and airstrikes, Hamas and other factions begin launching Qassam rockets into southern Israel.

These were primitive, largely symbolic weapons — militarily ineffective but politically expressive: “You can bomb us from the air, but we’re not entirely powerless.”

- 2007 – U.S.-Backed Coup Attempt and Hamas Takeover

The U.S. (via the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority) attempts to oust Hamas with arms and funding.

Fighting breaks out between Hamas and Fatah; Hamas defeats Fatah in Gaza.

Israel and Egypt then impose a total blockade of Gaza, sealing it off entirely — and that’s when the current era of isolation begins.

Summary

Hamas did not start firing rockets the moment it came to power.

First came the boycott and sanctions.

Then Israeli incursions and assassinations.

Then the Ghalia beach massacre and Operation Summer Rains.

Then came the first sustained rocket response.

So the sequence wasn’t “Hamas elected → Hamas attacks → Israel blockades.”

It was:

Hamas elected → Israel blockades → Israel attacks → Hamas retaliates.

End Quote

——-

Not sure how accurate that is but open more info.

You're skipping the part where Hamas did launch rockets in 2005 immediately after the withdrawal. 

September 2005: Just hours after the final Israeli troops withdrew from Gaza, Palestinian militants fired Qassam rockets toward the town of Sderot.

Later in 2005: Following the withdrawal, Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups continued to fire rockets from Gaza into Israeli communities. A major rocket attack in September, which followed an explosion during a Hamas rally, led to retaliatory Israeli airstrikes. 

Edited by Inliytened1

 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zazen Ok, maybe Trump's deal will be the political solstice.


🏔 Spiral dynamics can be limited, or it can be unlimited if one's development is constantly reflected in its interpretation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zazen said:

neither was the acknowledgment of 1967 borders which is and has been the baseline for any credible peace plan

This, as you know, is a lie. In 2002, the so-called Arab peace agreement was being negotiated, which included returning to the 1967 borders. A member of Hamas carried out the Passover massacre, making this negotiation impossible.

Three years later, the population of Gaza elected Hamas, thereby implicitly approving of the attack and denying the possibility of a peace agreement, since their objective is the same as Hamas's: the total expulsion of the Jews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

And you seem to have a problem with the survival game  War and conquest is going to exist for a long time..this is because of the different levels of consciousness that different people are at or.just their general disagreement.  Jews were almost wiped out and they learned and adapted. Don't hate them for it.  Hate the game.  Which you aren't doing.  Ever heard the saying Don't hate the player hate the game? Well it applies here.

Wars happen because wars are built on wars. History didn't start yesterday. It's a through line of conquest, suppression, domination. Wars don't stop until someone breaks the cycle of violence, usually the ones with power and will. That's essentially what the critiques are about. When will the ones with the power stop the violence? Not that violence will stop after that, not that one must not respond to attacks, but will violence be kept to a minimum, will one fight to de-escalate tensions rather than build them, will one express temperance and tact, and seek diplomatic solutions, compromises. Israel has lately chosen the path of extermination, of utter domination, the same path that Hitler took, although debatable in scale. And we see the cycle of violence. Even if Palestinians get a win at some point like the Jews did after WW2, will they not return the same? Will they not perpetuate the cycle of violence? Or will they choose not to?


Intrinsic joy = being x meaning ²

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Israel has lately chosen the path of extermination,

13 hours ago, zazen said:

 

They've destroyed 70% of the buildings, and 3% of the population has died(according Hamas). Why do people talk about extermination and genocide? It's hard to understand.

It seems no one understands that Israel cannot tolerate a nation tied to its own, one that has as its essential identity the disappearance of Israel and brainwashes its children from kindergarten with ideas of martyrdom. That needs to be reset, and that's what's happening. It's increasingly clear that there's no hunger in Gaza, and that Israel downplays the death toll, but Europe is an emo continent with an IQ of 60, and it's impossible for them to understand anything beyond the fact that Voldemort is evil and Harry Potter is good.

Edited by Breakingthewall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, it's very strange and comical that all Western media outlets accept Hamas's casualty figures as valid. The death toll is probably 20,000, more than half of whom are Hamas militants, that's the estimation of belfer center of Harvard 

But Europe loves Hamas. It wants Palestine to be free so it can be sodomized by Hamas, because there's nothing better than being oppressed by Islamist fanatics. Free Palestine means civil war , execution of all the collaborationist and sharia for everyone, plus hereditary dictatorship 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 10/4/2025 at 6:47 PM, Breakingthewall said:

This, as you know, is a lie. In 2002, the so-called Arab peace agreement was being negotiated, which included returning to the 1967 borders. A member of Hamas carried out the Passover massacre, making this negotiation impossible.

Three years later, the population of Gaza elected Hamas, thereby implicitly approving of the attack and denying the possibility of a peace agreement, since their objective is the same as Hamas's: the total expulsion of the Jews.

Wrong.

The initiative was with the PA, not Hamas. So Hamas’s attack making “negotiations impossible” is nonsense. Israel already expressed disinterest in it before the massacre.

 It’s also been reAdopted multiple times after that, even if it was impossible then, it was plenty possible afterward.  Even Israeli officials claimed they’d offer counter proposals to negotiate it, but never did.

They also still negotiated their own deal later, you yourself brought up them leaving Gaza. They can’t agree to a broad peace deal, or even negotiate it, but can leave Gaza and negotiate their own adeal?

You are making up a nonsense excuse so idiotic that even Israelis don’t bring it up. You know that accepting it would create peace; but have to reach for every excuse justify your support for apartheid. 


If Hamas’s election was the obstacle; we wouldn’t have a problem in the West Bank, yet the occupation there continued despite Hamas not being in power.

Hamas’s itself said they would accept two states in their new charter, so the “goal” you presume is also irrelevant.

I already told you all of this, 

As per usual, unable to comprehend clear new information, you reply with stupid sarcasm, failing to evidence any of your claims, and deflected to something else.

Do you think you’re winning arguments when you do this? You just look dense.

On 10/5/2025 at 9:15 AM, Breakingthewall said:

By the way, it's very strange and comical that all Western media outlets accept Hamas's casualty figures as valid. The death toll is probably 20,000, more than half of whom are Hamas militants, that's the estimation of belfer center of Harvard 

But Europe loves Hamas. It wants Palestine to be free so it can be sodomized by Hamas, because there's nothing better than being oppressed by Islamist fanatics. Free Palestine means civil war , execution of all the collaborationist and sharia for everyone, plus hereditary dictatorship 

Wrong.

Both US government and Israeli government officials confirm the death toll is accurate. Multiple independent investigations find it is accurate or not large enough. No credible evidence it is fake has been presented.

Its not laughable the mainstream media refers to it. They should go with facts, not propaganda that biased low intelligent minds fall for which you repeat.

There is no evidence “20,000” dead are Hamas militants. The IDF’s own data finds only 17% of the dead are suspected militants.

Your last paragraph is just irrelevant fantasies, Hamas said they’d disarm in exchange for an end to the occupation. How can you have a civil war without weapons? 

As always you have no idea what you’re talking about.

On 10/5/2025 at 7:01 AM, Breakingthewall said:

They've destroyed 70% of the buildings, and 3% of the population has died(according Hamas). Why do people talk about extermination and genocide? It's hard to understand.

It seems no one understands that Israel cannot tolerate a nation tied to its own, one that has as its essential identity the disappearance of Israel and brainwashes its children from kindergarten with ideas of martyrdom. That needs to be reset, and that's what's happening. It's increasingly clear that there's no hunger in Gaza, and that Israel downplays the death toll, but Europe is an emo continent with an IQ of 60, and it's impossible for them to understand anything beyond the fact that Voldemort is evil and Harry Potter is good.

Because they arc looking at the facts, you have a biased bigoted preconceived notion divorced from facts or any background knowledge.

3% is similar to the amount killed in the Bosnia genocide and Yazidi genocide, among others.

 It’s called a extermination because they said the goal is to destroy the population and expel them.

The world food program and Red Cross as well as every relevant institution has found evidence of hunger in Gaza. Even pro Israeli outlets like the free press reported there is hunger in Gaza. Basically your denial is based on nothing, as most of your beliefs.

Edited by Raze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 10/4/2025 at 11:17 PM, Inliytened1 said:

You're skipping the part where Hamas did launch rockets in 2005 immediately after the withdrawal. 

September 2005: Just hours after the final Israeli troops withdrew from Gaza, Palestinian militants fired Qassam rockets toward the town of Sderot.

Later in 2005: Following the withdrawal, Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups continued to fire rockets from Gaza into Israeli communities. A major rocket attack in September, which followed an explosion during a Hamas rally, led to retaliatory Israeli airstrikes. 

AI failed me. That sucks and no one can condone it - but it is understandable in the larger context which is that Israel withdrew from Gaza but didn't withdraw their control over Gaza. The withdrawal was seen as a reconfiguration of occupation by simply moving the troops to the periphery. If I'm in a toilet that's occupied you don't need to be sitting on my lap to occupy and exert control over me - you standing outside the cubicle not letting me out also counts as exerting occupational control over me.

This is why things need to be part of a peace process that has a political horizon resolving the root issue. Israel withdrawing unilaterally which isn't in the context or framework of them doing so as part of a phased peace plan with a political path to Palestinian statehood (whether its one state with equal rights or two separate ones) isn't ending the conditions that perpetuate Hamas to want to continue firing rockets. The logic of "we can't give them freedom because they're violent" just creates a circular trap where the conditions that generate desperation and violence are maintained, then the violence is cited as proof those conditions must continue. This is flipping cause and effect. It says Palestinians are denied freedom because they’re violent - when in reality, their violence comes from being denied freedom.

If the argument is that Hamas can’t be trusted because of its violent past, history itself refutes that logic. Movements engaged in armed struggle often transition into political actors once their grievances are acknowledged and negotiations become genuine. Terrorism didn’t disqualify the Zionist or Irish independence movements - Menachem Begin bombed the King David Hotel and became Prime Minister of Israel. So did Yitzhak Shamir who was part of Stern gang and who ''the British arrested twice for his militant activities.''. The IRA bombed London and got the Good Friday Agreement. The ANC used violence and got South Africa. You don't de-radicalize people by keeping them in radicalizing conditions.

Piers Morgan always used to say he's in a moral quagmire with this situation - I don't think its much of a moral quagmire as much as it is a logistical one. Theirs pretty much global consensus and moral clarity on what the problem and solution is which is to end occupation and establish a path to Palestinian rights / statehood rather than them being indefinitely left in a limbo of statelessness. It's about how to get there in a low-trust environment which is why third parties need to be involved. The problem is that the worlds unipolar hegemon has no pressure or incentive to change the status quo but instead underwrites the entire situation - maybe that's slowly changing now. In past liberation struggles there were costs inflicted on the occupier that made them end their occupation. This is why much discourse and anger is targeted towards the US - rightly so.

It comes down to a few key points

1. A political problem can't be resolved with a military solution. The military solution only works if its total ie genocide or ethnic cleansing. Fortunately or unfortunately for some this isn't possible today as it was in the past (Australia or USA being settled) because the norms have changed.

2. You can't de-radicalize people by keeping them in the same conditions that caused them to become radical - siege, humiliation, and statelessness.

3. The argument of Palestinians being denied freedom because they’re violent flips cause and affect. In reality, their violence comes from being denied freedom.

4. Every liberation movement had radicals and fighters once branded as terrorists, yet they all transitioned into legitimate governance once a political path opened. Statehood incentives behaviour in such a way that being stateless doesn't - because in the former you have stake in something you can lose, in the latter you have nothing to lose.

5. Palestinian rights and statehood isn't in question - that has been settled by global consensus. It's the implementation of it in a low trust environment which requires third party mediation but that is blocked by the current uni-polar hegemon who claims to be the mediator. The US is a key variable in perpetuating the injustice of this status quo.

Edited by zazen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2025 at 3:19 PM, Raze said:

Wrong.

The initiative was with the PA, not Hamas. So Hamas’s attack making “negotiations impossible” is nonsense. Israel already expressed disinterest in it before the massacre.

 It’s also been reAdopted multiple times after that, even if it was impossible then, it was plenty possible afterward.  Even Israeli officials claimed they’d offer counter proposals to negotiate it, but never did.

They also still negotiated their own deal later, you yourself brought up them leaving Gaza. They can’t agree to a broad peace deal, or even negotiate it, but can leave Gaza and negotiate their own adeal?

You are making up a nonsense excuse so idiotic that even Israelis don’t bring it up. You know that accepting it would create peace; but have to reach for every excuse justify your support for apartheid. 


If Hamas’s election was the obstacle; we wouldn’t have a problem in the West Bank, yet the occupation there continued despite Hamas not being in power.

Hamas’s itself said they would accept two states in their new charter, so the “goal” you presume is also irrelevant.

I already told you all of this, 

As per usual, unable to comprehend clear new information, you reply with stupid sarcasm, failing to evidence any of your claims, and deflected to something else.

Do you think you’re winning arguments when you do this? You just look dense.

Wrong.

Both US government and Israeli government officials confirm the death toll is accurate. Multiple independent investigations find it is accurate or not large enough. No credible evidence it is fake has been presented.

Its not laughable the mainstream media refers to it. They should go with facts, not propaganda that biased low intelligent minds fall for which you repeat.

There is no evidence “20,000” dead are Hamas militants. The IDF’s own data finds only 17% of the dead are suspected militants.

Your last paragraph is just irrelevant fantasies, Hamas said they’d disarm in exchange for an end to the occupation. How can you have a civil war without weapons? 

As always you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Because they arc looking at the facts, you have a biased bigoted preconceived notion divorced from facts or any background knowledge.

3% is similar to the amount killed in the Bosnia genocide and Yazidi genocide, among others.

 It’s called a extermination because they said the goal is to destroy the population and expel them.

The world food program and Red Cross as well as every relevant institution has found evidence of hunger in Gaza. Even pro Israeli outlets like the free press reported there is hunger in Gaza. Basically your denial is based on nothing, as most of your beliefs.

The thing is you might want to rip him apart but is it really that far off to say that Hamas is not above Israel in level of Consciousness or goals? His point on the bias of Europe doesn't seem that far off.   The Palestinians may be the "good" guys but if they support Hamas then they are Hamas in a sense.  If you could say with 100 percent certainty that Hamas has no bigotry and they would just be happy with a Palestinian state then OK.  But I wouldn't be so quick to say that either.  My point in the thread was to show the bias against Israel in Europe.  You're saying well Israel is the bad guy based on what we have seen so far.  But it does take two to tango.  They just want their own state is OK but meanwhile are you sure they wouldn't take Israel and wipe them out if the opportunity presented itself? I wouldn't be so quick to say no based on their history as well.  And it would be foolish for Israel to assume that.  So I think he was just presenting that argument and you immediately just shut it down. 

Edited by Inliytened1

 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, zazen said:

AI failed me. That sucks and no one can condone it - but it is understandable in the larger context which is that Israel withdrew from Gaza but didn't withdraw their control over Gaza. The withdrawal was seen as a reconfiguration of occupation by simply moving the troops to the periphery. If I'm in a toilet that's occupied you don't need to be sitting on my lap to occupy and exert control over me - you standing outside the cubicle not letting me out also counts as exerting occupational control over me.

This is why things need to be part of a peace process that has a political horizon resolving the root issue. Israel withdrawing unilaterally which isn't in the context or framework of them doing so as part of a phased peace plan with a political path to Palestinian statehood (whether its one state with equal rights or two separate ones) isn't ending the conditions that perpetuate Hamas to want to continue firing rockets. The logic of "we can't give them freedom because they're violent" just creates a circular trap where the conditions that generate desperation and violence are maintained, then the violence is cited as proof those conditions must continue. This is flipping cause and effect. It says Palestinians are denied freedom because they’re violent - when in reality, their violence comes from being denied freedom.

If the argument is that Hamas can’t be trusted because of its violent past, history itself refutes that logic. Movements engaged in armed struggle often transition into political actors once their grievances are acknowledged and negotiations become genuine. Terrorism didn’t disqualify the Zionist or Irish independence movements - Menachem Begin bombed the King David Hotel and became Prime Minister of Israel. So did Yitzhak Shamir who was part of Stern gang and who ''the British arrested twice for his militant activities.''. The IRA bombed London and got the Good Friday Agreement. The ANC used violence and got South Africa. You don't de-radicalize people by keeping them in radicalizing conditions.

Piers Morgan always used to say he's in a moral quagmire with this situation - I don't think its much of a moral quagmire as much as it is a logistical one. Theirs pretty much global consensus and moral clarity on what the problem and solution is which is to end occupation and establish a path to Palestinian rights / statehood rather than them being indefinitely left in a limbo of statelessness. It's about how to get there in a low-trust environment which is why third parties need to be involved. The problem is that the worlds unipolar hegemon has no pressure or incentive to change the status quo but instead underwrites the entire situation - maybe that's slowly changing now. In past liberation struggles there were costs inflicted on the occupier that made them end their occupation. This is why much discourse and anger is targeted towards the US - rightly so.

It comes down to a few key points

1. A political problem can't be resolved with a military solution. The military solution only works if its total ie genocide or ethnic cleansing. Fortunately or unfortunately for some this isn't possible today as it was in the past (Australia or USA being settled) because the norms have changed.

2. You can't de-radicalize people by keeping them in the same conditions that caused them to become radical - siege, humiliation, and statelessness.

3. The argument of Palestinians being denied freedom because they’re violent flips cause and affect. In reality, their violence comes from being denied freedom.

4. Every liberation movement had radicals and fighters once branded as terrorists, yet they all transitioned into legitimate governance once a political path opened. Statehood incentives behaviour in such a way that being stateless doesn't - because in the former you have stake in something you can lose, in the latter you have nothing to lose.

5. Palestinian rights and statehood isn't in question - that has been settled by global consensus. It's the implementation of it in a low trust environment which requires third party mediation but that is blocked by the current uni-polar hegemon who claims to be the mediator. The US is a key variable in perpetuating the injustice of this status quo.

Alright let's see what happens.   In the end.  The US and Israel have the power. They worked for it. You could call it Capitalism if you want to.  Let's see what happens.  Fair or unfair, it is what it is.  Hopefully there can be peace.  But I think here you have to remember history.  Nations were always won through military strike.  They were not won though armchair talks.


 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5.10.2025 at 1:01 PM, Breakingthewall said:

They've destroyed 70% of the buildings, and 3% of the population has died(according Hamas). Why do people talk about extermination and genocide? It's hard to understand.

I was talking about the extermination of Hamas. But reducing the city to rubble so it's unliveable, of course means that the people who live there, cannot live there.

Edited by Carl-Richard

Intrinsic joy = being x meaning ²

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I was talking about the extermination of Hamas. But reducing the city to rubble so it's unliveable, of course means that the people who live there, cannot live there.

UN Definition

“Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;

2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.“

The definition of looking unlivable. Zios will say they hit Hamas though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zazen said:

UN Definition

“Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;

2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.“

The definition of looking unlivable. Zios will say they hit Hamas though.

The only problem is Israel doesn't have intent.

This is especially good that you pointed this out so that you can see your own devilry.   

You see you desperately want Israel to have intent to destroy because that would validate your earlier discoveries about the goings on in the Middle East.  But the truth is your just a guy in London who probably hasn't even traveled there.  Yet you have an awful lot to say about how evil Israel is.  

The problem that remains for you is proof of intent. You won't be able to do that simply because it isn't there.  

Edited by Inliytened1

 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now