Comments by "Harry Stoddard" (@HarryS77) on "Corey Gil-Shuster" channel.

It's interesting how the most open-minded responses tended to come from the women wearing head scarves and who looked the most conservative.
18
Just saying they're pro apartheid.
6
I thought his point was that laws are made by rulers to control others, but it's better if there are no rulers to create laws in the first place. He dounded less like an American-style "libertarian" and more like an anarchist. But his answer was brief and cryptic, so it's hard to say.
5
To answer the question at 2:40, we had trials for war crimes, truth and reconciliation, the dissolution of the Nazi regime, reparations, etc. It wasn't simply a matter of "you go on" and forget.
4
"We don't want to conquer anything. We just want to"—proceeds to give the rationale for conquest.
4
It seems like there's a growing sense among younger people that the 2 state solution is unworkable and would just be a continuation of Palestinian subjugation under different terms.
3
@Iyas kelu Gaza—an open air prison choked off by Israel, regularly bombed and raided (the expression is "mowing the lawn"), with an average age of 18, 70% unemployment, no airstrip, only occasional power, where children are right now being killed. The West Bank—a separate, dislocated territory under military occupation, with settlements being regularly built, dispossessing Palestinians of their homes, strategically cutting off areas of the West Bank from each other. What fantasy land are you living in? Why do the Palestinians need the munificence of the Israeli government to grant them (tenuous, always liable to be revoked) access to their own land, land which in many cases is only a refuge for people who were dispossessed of their homes during the Nakba?
3
@sandrad9695 Almost everything about what you said is untrue. Please see the above or read the HRW report. Colonizers always spuriously claim that the land they're seizing was "unoccupied" or "undeveloped." This isn't new. Saying that Jews lived in the area thousands of years ago isn't a justification for present day occupation and apartheid. We don't erect states based on biblical accounts and ancient lineages; we base it, in the best cases, on the self-determination of people living there, something Palestinians cannot do while being systematically displaced. If Palestine didn't exist as a nation-state before the modern period, neither did Israel. Neither did Poland, Ukraine, any number of other countries—all countries, in fact, because they're all social constructs, not objective, eternal entities, and it happens that Israel is, by all accounts, behaving as an apartheid state.
3
It's telling how many of the interviewees. both Israeli and Palestinian, have to have the word "atheist" explained to them.
2
@joshualance6005 What if I showed up to your house and said, you know what, what am I if not generous? I'll let you keep 70% of your house. Not the nice parts of it—those are mine. And it won't be contiguous space, so you'll have to pass through my checkpoints. But hey, it's a deal, right? Btw my cousins think they have the right to your whole house, and if/when they start moving into your space, I'm going to back them up.
1
An apartheid country cannot be peaceful.
1
@waylander7777 It wasn't my analogy. Corey used it. Go bitch to him.
1
@sandrad9695 They lived/live there and are being expelled from their homes. It's really not complicated. When B-Tselem, Human Rights Watch, the UN, and practically every government are saying the same thing, maybe it's worth paying attention.
1
@sandrad9695 If you look at polling, support for a two-state solution is highest among Arab Israelis and about equal among Israeli Jews and Palestinians (probably not surprising given one is the occupier and the other the occupied), and lowest among settlers. Support for a one-state solution is about equal, gaining support recently.
1
@sandrad9695 I've already explained it. And I'll also reiterate that I'm not calling them occupiers. Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, the UN, and practically every government, and even Israel's own courts, regard the West Bank as under military occupation, East Jerusalem as an illegal annexation, and the settlements as illegal. You're trying to act as if this is controversial when it's not in the slightest.
1
@sandrad9695 Not all Palestinians think that, as I showed by referencing polling. Some do think so, just as many Israeli Jews do. For the Palestinians, it's because that's where their families lived, not thousands of years ago but in recent memory, before being displaced during the Nakba with no ability to return and now as Israel is evicting refugees from an area they've illegally annexed and claimed spurious jurisdiction over. If no one's answering your question, maybe it's because it's a stupid question to be asking when we're talking about apartheid.
1
@sandrad9695 Get a grip.
1
@sandrad9695 Don't be an apologist for apartheid and ethnic cleansing, then we can talk about manners.
1
@בןעמר-ר9מ Basically everything you said is false or a misrepresentation of the facts. Israel is an apartheid state, and this has been recognized by multiple historians, Israeli activists, and human rights groups. This isn't a debate anymore.
1
@robertakurtz2830 Citation needed. This is another piece of Zionist, pro-settler propaganda meant to justify apartheid. Initially the Zionist says, When we came here, there was nothing and no one; we built a real country. Then: oh, those 700,000 people? They left their land and homes to us of their own accord. Such rationalizations appear in every instance of colonial history. For instance, Robert Fisk, one of the most highly-regarded Middle East correspondents in Britain, writes, "The Arab armies that invaded the new Israel were driven out, together with between 500,000 and 700,000 Arab Palestinians whose homes had been in that part of Palestine that was now Israel or in those areas of Arab Palestine that Israel captured. For decades after their War of Independence, the Israelis claimed that most of the Arab Palestinians had left of their own free will after being urged by Arab radio stations to leave their homes and take sanctuary in neighboring states until the Arab armies had conquered the upstart new Israeli nation. Israeli scholars now agree that these radio appeals were never broadcast and that the allegations were fraudulent. The Palestinian Arabs left their homes because they were frightened, often because they had heard stories—accounts which were perfectly true—of the massacre of Arab civilians by Jewish gangs" (Pity the Nation 17). The notion that Palestinians left their homes voluntarily is dehumanizing and deeply anti-Arab and anti-Muslim. It requires us to believe that they are a treacherous and scheming group, abandoning their homes not out of fear or necessity—sympathetically human responses—but in order to more expeditiously exterminate Jews. And if we believe that, then whatever punishment Israel can mete out is justified for reasons of self-preservation. However, if "most" didn't flee voluntarily (it even feels absurd to write that: flee voluntarily), suddenly Israel's illegal annexations, its settler policies, its siege of Gaza, its refusal to grant the right of return—all of them become illegitimate.
1
@hansdampf6916 What if Israel was "forced" into a one state solution and no longer allowed to be an apartheid regime?
1
@Abilliph Israel is clearly an apartheid state, contrary to the hurt feelings of Zionists.
1
He's an Israeli.
1
@אלישעאבגינה If you watch his other videos, he does the same to Palestinians. Don't know why anyone would need to be neutral about ethnic cleansing, but.
1
@אלישעאבגינה Sure, you can read statements and reports by B'Tselem and HRW on cleansing in East Jerusalem. The latter report is over 100 pages long. Should be more than enough elaboration.
1
@אלישעאבגינה You should read the report. I think I already did allude to what I meant, but I can repeat it for you. Israel is engaged in ethnically cleansing Palestinians from illegally annexed land in East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank under the dubious platitude of "evictions" or "real estate disputes." I think it's rather shameful that when confronted with state atrocity, conservatives and apologists, to avoid addressing facts and analysis by experts, fixate on what their interlocutor knows or doesn't, like a schoolboy who MUST know that you know what a dirty word means. The fact of Israel's apartheid regime and project of ethnic cleansing would be true regardless of whether I or anyone else knew anything about it.
1