Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "Robinson Erhardt" channel.

@william6223 In the face of aggression there is no choice between people dying and no people dying, only between aggressors dying and their prospective victims, so yes, I've thought about it. And either you haven't, or you just hate Jews and favor anything that hurts them. Israel is finally fighting total war by the same rules the Anglophone allies fought by in the Second World War. Those rules did not preclude civilian casualties then, and they don't now.
13
@andyjackson3414 The Palestinians have been fully in Israel's power at least since the 1960s. If genocide were the Israeli policy the Palestinians would be extinct by now instead of more numerous on the basis of Israeli supplied water. You don't spend millions providing water to folk you want to exterminate in an arid land when they aren't even paying for it. You are just parroting talking points you haven't examined critically.
11
@Grrrr3FKAGrrrrGrrrrGrrrr "Israel has consistently denied Palestinians the necessary resources (e.g. water) and infrastructure (e.g. airports)." Israel provided Gaza with water at her own expense. That is why they were able to close the spigot in wartime. The desalination plants were in Israel. To Hamas, an aircraft is an expensive missile.
7
The Israeli claim to the land is not based solely on priority, but on the fact that they bought the land, they improved the land, and the land is theirs by international law. Priority, purchase, creation, law, conquest. By every standard that has ever certified title in any age of civilization, Israel owns the land, even if one is disinclined to consult the decree of God in the matter. Moreover those who want to conquer Israel also want to conquer everybody else. You can't make deals with folk who won't grant your right to live in freedom and won't negotiate in good faith. Property is a civilizational concept and only has meaning to the civilized. Leftist alignment with jihad is temporary and tactical both ways, both want to destroy the free world.
5
"not sure if this type of 'both sides' debate should be done" Of course you don't. "this guy spewing propaganda without being checked" You want an unceasing, uncontested, one sided narrative with no challenge. When the combined weight of the establishment captured institutions of lower and higher education, academia, legacy media, government bureaucracy, social media algorithms, etc. presents the Palestinian favoring view, presenting both sides is redundant. I am reminded of Rush Limbaugh who said "I don't have to give equal time, I AM equal time." You facilitate viewpoint diversity by presenting the suppressed viewpoint. "What's mine is mine and what's yours is half mine, too" won't fly here, and shouldn't anywhere.
5
He has an argument backed up with historical facts. You have an assertion.
5
"genocide" The Palestinians have been fully in Israel's power at least since the 1960s. If genocide were the Israeli policy the Palestinians would be extinct by now instead of more numerous on the basis of Israeli supplied water. You don't spend millions providing water to folk you want to exterminate in an arid land when they aren't even paying for it. You are just parroting talking points you haven't examined critically. Israel is not executing genocide, but waging total war by the same rules the Western Allies fought World War 2 by. They didn't preclude civilian casualties then, and they don't now. You don't commit ground troops early to minimize civilian casualties if civilian casualties is a central war aim. I really don't know what is meant by pretending not to see what is in plain sight. The "genocide" idea is not being waved away, it evaporates under a critical gaze. Kill ratio is not relevant to the moral distinction between terrorism and self defense. "a 'case for Israel', with no intention to be fair-minded." Vilifying the victim equally with the aggressor is not true or just. When the combined weight of the establishment captured institutions of lower and higher education, academia, legacy media, government bureaucracy, social media algorithms, etc. presents the Palestinian favoring view, presenting both sides is redundant. I am reminded of Rush Limbaugh who said "I don't have to give equal time, I AM equal time." Swimming as we do in such a sea of slander, you facilitate viewpoint diversity by presenting the suppressed viewpoint. "What's mine is mine and what's yours is half mine, too" won't fly here, and shouldn't anywhere.
4
@Kurtlane When the combined weight of the establishment captured institutions of lower and higher education, academia, legacy media, government bureaucracy, social media algorithms, etc. presents the Palestinian favoring view, presenting both sides is redundant. I am reminded of Rush Limbaugh who said "I don't have to give equal time, I AM equal time." You facilitate viewpoint diversity by presenting the suppressed viewpoint. "What's mine is mine and what's yours is half mine, too" won't fly here.
4
He said nothing of the sort. You're attacking the argument you wanted him to make, straw man fallacy. Israel is finally engaged in total war by the same rules the Western Allies fought World War 2 by. These rules didn't preclude civilian casualties then, and they don't now. When the barbarians attack, civilization responds with just war, and your life and freedom depends on it.
2
@samehabuerreish8785 There is. Most of the aid has to be spent on US weaponry, so it isn't much "economic stimulus" to the Israeli economy. But Israel is a world class technological center and at least a regional economic powerhouse.
2
When the combined weight of the establishment captured institutions of lower and higher education, academia, legacy media, government bureaucracy, social media algorithms, etc. presents the Palestinian favoring view, presenting both sides is redundant. I am reminded of Rush Limbaugh who said "I don't have to give equal time, I AM equal time." You facilitate viewpoint diversity by presenting the suppressed viewpoint. "What's mine is mine and what's yours is half mine, too" won't fly here, and shouldn't anywhere. You have the floor here in the comment section. If you have an argument, make it. Saying "Shut up" isn't an argument.
2
The Palestinians have been fully in Israel's power at least since the 1960s. If genocide were the Israeli policy the Palestinians would be extinct by now instead of more numerous on the basis of Israeli supplied water. You don't spend millions providing water to folk you want to exterminate in an arid land when they aren't even paying for it. You are just parroting talking points you haven't examined critically. Israel is not executing genocide, but waging total war by the same rules the Western Allies fought World War 2 by. They didn't preclude civilian casualties then, and they don't now. You don't commit ground troops early to minimize civilian casualties if civilian casualties is a central war aim. I really don't know what is meant by pretending not to see what is in plain sight.
2
@mioszlupinski4652 "genocide doesn't have to be quick," But it does have to reduce the net population. The Palestinian population has increased since the 1960s. The main thing is you have to be trying to wipe out the target for it to be genocide. That is the defining characteristic and it demonstrably does not apply in this case.
2
@loganlowe3731 Ignorant of what, precisely. An assertion is not an argument.
2
The question is, can you respond to his arguments? If you can't, no amount of speculation about his motives is relevant at all.
2
@jazura2 I'm generally on your side, but this isn't quite right. The Canaanites are mostly extinct or absorbed into other peoples. The original Arabian peninsula Bedouins were descendants of Ishmael, and thus of Abraham. The West Bank Palestinians are what the Romans called "Idumeans", Old Testament "Edomites" (of Esau), also "Moabites" (of Lot) with an influx of blood of Bedouin conquerors. All of those three peoples speak Arabic and are today considered "Arab". The ancient Egyptians were Hamites, but also have an influx of Arab blood from the Islamic conquests. The Gazan "Palestinians" are mostly of that mixed Egyptian stock. The Iranians aren't Arab and don't speak Arabic. They are "Persians" and speak Parsi. But yes, Jews are "Semites" of Middle Eastern stock, as confirmed by DNA studies.
2
@Mhmusiccc So, all you can do as usual is repeat formulaic assertions and call people names. You can't engage arguments because there is no "Palestinian case".
2
@Mhmusiccc Nobody is claiming that. Israel is fighting existential total war by the same rules Australia, New Zealand, the US, and the UK fought by in World War 2. Those rules did not preclude civilian casualties then, and they don't now.
2
"Jews being shipped to Palestine post WW2 is by definition a refugee status." The difference is that the Jews forced to flee Arab countries are not considered to have a "right to return" to get compensated for the real estate and other property they couldn't take with them, much less assert the right to displace those who forced them to leave. "dis proportionate slaughter of Palestinian civilians" Proportion isn't relevant. The point of the exercise is to end the terrorist attacks. The Israelis are waging total war by the same rules the Western Allies did in World War 2. Those rules didn't preclude civilian casualties then, and they don't now. Fortunately the adults were in charge then, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation. "the desire to return to Israel to the Right to ownership and control of that section of the region" The only "region" Israel is not willing to negotiate about is the region they were granted by international law, the land they BOUGHT. If they had been left alone in the land they had legal sovereignty over, which they bought and improved with their own hands, there would be no "Palestinian issue". The Palestinians demand the extirpation of the Jews from Israeli land, all of it, and genocide is their preferred method. If that's OK with you, you're a monster, whether motivated by Jew hatred or a desire to destroy Western civilization.
2
@dignes3446 Scientific fact is so regressive!
2
@andyjackson3414 "dangerous as using the Old Testament as a justification for Zion." How are those two dangerous, other than being dangerous to obscurantism?
2
@jmo8525 "Israel and the Middle East in general has zero foundational, historical, economic, or national security interest to the U.S.." There is not a scrap of truth to that statement. The geographic location of the Middle East, as well as the presence of oil, and oil financed and leftist financed jihad make the region important. Even if we are not totally dependent on Middle Eastern oil, many of our allies are. Remember, we are the "Great Satan" in the jihad pantheon. If ever they destroy Israel the US is next on the list. But, anyway, this wasn't a policy argument. It was an argument about the relative merit of the Israeli and Palestinian causes. It is morally bankrupt to base your moral evaluation of others and endorse slander on the basis of personal interest. Perhaps foreign policy cannot be divorced from national interest, but it is rank hypocrisy and self delusion to pick your "facts" on that basis.
1
Rebels don't pay tax, they cost funds to suppress.
1
Thanks.
1
Didn't you hear him? His career options were limited by his opinions, not the other way around. You are ignoring the reality not only of his personal journey, but that of the whole status of academia, journalism, and media. There can be no "conservative sellouts" in the current market because by far all the money is on the other side. Besides, your attack is Bulverism. Rather than engage his arguments, you give yourself and your readers and excuse to dismiss them prior to consideration. Quote from Bulverism by C. S. Lewis: You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the natural dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century. Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
1
@BearFlagRebel " Don't tell me anything different." I will confront significant error when I find it. Conservative think tanks are not where the money is. If you think that conservative content is the path to easy money, you haven't the merest clue about the media landscape. Every conservative spokesman goes into the field knowing he could make many times more hawking the other side. The side underwritten by oodles of well connected billionaire donors. The side that never has to worry about demonitization, cancellation, censorship or subsidized industrial strength slander, harassing litigation, organized subsidized pre-pardoned harassment and outright naked violence, and political prosecution from a lockstep monolithic power bloc of the bureaucratic state, legacy and state sponsored media, the electronic gatekeepers, their shady cynical oligarchs, and their many dupes and henchmen. It just irks the hell out of you that we work-stained Bob Cratchits in our deplorable masses can glean a ha'pence here, a tu'pence there and have the unmitigated gall to pool our penury and prayers; our blood, sweat, tears, and toil; our individually feeble voices and indomitable goodwill to collectively support a few brave and talented men and women to publish some genteel and diffident criticism against the most powerful corrupt political machine the world has known. "It's not FAIR", sobs the crybully in agony as he lays on the whip. "There ougta be a LAW!!" It never occurred to anyone in the history of mankind to speak the truth to power FOR MONEY, for good and sufficient reason. It's bad for business. "that is very much part of mainstream academia and are ideological gatekeepers" Show me an MSM report or article, a Hollywood movie, or an Ivy League college that presents Israel in a positive light. You can't.
1
If you have a response to his arguments, let's hear it. Calling him names is not the same thing.
1
If you have a response to his arguments, let's hear it. "My daddy can beat up your daddy" doesn't contribute to the dialogue.
1
@patriciakimball8150 As far as I know you and I are doing what we can in that regard. I'm not an expert on publicity. I argue. I vote. I pray. I boost positive messages on social media when I can.
1
Shout down? How about shout to be heard over irrational chants?
1
@Kurtlane Sorry, I retract the personal misunderstanding, but I think the post is relevant to the thread, so I'll leave it up.
1
He said that open homosexuals or "found out" homosexuals would be killed there. Are you denying THAT? If you are, you're delusional. HAMAS may not be devout, but they are sure playing Islamism for all it's worth and they wouldn't let the lives of a few minorities, Palestinian or not, stand in the way of that.
1
His argument is clear. In order to favor the "Palestinian" claim to all the Levant "from the river (Jordan) to the (Mediterranean) sea, one is using standards and definitions that are never applied elsewhere. Consequently THAT Palestinian claim (the only claim that their leaders will accept), at least, is spurious. It is always possible to fail to understand an argument if you are sufficiently determined not to understand it. That's not Dr. Hanson's fault, it's yours.
1
Palestinians have been completely in Israel's power since the 1960s. If genocide were Israel's policy, the Palestinians would be extinct instead of more populous than ever thriving on Israel-supplied water and electricity. If genocide has BECOME Israel's policy, they wouldn't be sending in ground troops so soon to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza. Genocide requires and intent and attempt to extirpate a target population, which is the intent and attempt of most Palestinians toward Israel. I am astonished at the extreme efforts expended to not see what the Palestinians themselves admit. You are turning the moral simplicity of the conflict on its head.
1
@ricb7801 Yes, intent was what we disproved. Try to keep up.
1
@TomHawk640 The "DNA argument" is a response to the unhistorical and unscientific claim that modern Jews are not the descendants of Biblical Jews, in other words a response to a false claim levied against Jewish nativity in the Levant. If the nativity of Jewry were not relevant, folk wouldn't be lying about the nativity of Jewry. It is too late to claim a line of argument is irrelevant after you have rhetorically fought on that ground and been driven from the field.
1
@TomHawk640 "The Palestinians are of course “indigenous” in this sense as well" The vast majority of the "Palestinians" present in 1948 were "indigenous" in the sense that they had just arrived or had been there for one generation. The Zionist movement was buying and improving land and creating job opportunities in a way that drew in Arabs and Egyptians long before the establishment of the State of Israel. There had been an Arab presence prior, but there had been a Jewish presence all along.
1
@Helen-xy9qj No Israeli is holding land they didn't BUY.
1