Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "A framework for Israeli-Palestinian peace" video.

  1. His stance isn't "objective". If there are 1200+ Palestinian hostages, being held indefinitely by Israel, without charges, prior to Oct 7 ... if there are 200+ Palestinians killed, this year alone, by the IDF and settlers, prior to Oct 7 ... if there are never ending settlements, colonizing the West Bank, prior to Oct 7 ... if Israel is operating an ongoing open air WWII style fascist ghetto, in Gaza, prior to Oct 7 ... then, in what reality, did Hamas "start" the aggression? In what reality is Israel "defending" itself, if they're the aggressor? Also, legal objectivity ... Israel is considered to be occupying the Palestinian territories, according to the International Court, the UN GA, and the UN SC. International law actually gives those being occupied the right to resist occupation. On the flip side, it does not give the occupier the right to use collective punishment. It is objectively against international law, to use collective punishment. It is also against international law to colonize occupied territories. Israel is, objectively, a rogue occupier nation, that constantly violates international law, and faces no consequences, in large part due to US vetoes.
    3
  2.  @James-gq4tb  Nope. You're just factually wrong. When the Hamas attack happened, David acted like they were the ones that started something.
    2
  3. The single state solution would actually be easier. You'd only have to convince the Palestinians. Israel, well before Netanyahu, has shown no desire to compromise, and give back land it had stolen, to make a two state solution possible. For a single state solution, Palestinians would just simply have to surrender. Israel has indicated it wants to own the entirety of Israel/Palestine, so let them. They are now the government of Palestine, as well. Demand equal rights, a right of return for Palestinian refugees, and part of the federal budget, to raise the Palestinians' standard of living.
    2
  4.  @James-gq4tb  Nope. He very clearly crapped on people who were giving context, as to what Israel was doing, prior to Oct 7, to provoke an attack, not just those vocalizing support for Hamas. Then he proceeded to go on a bit of an anti-Muslim rant, while dishonestly claiming that a colonizing ethnic cleansing nation is "progressive", ignoring that those things aren't progressive, and ignoring that Netanyahu himself propped up, and funded, Hamas, to weaken the Palestinian Authority, and avoid possible peace. A Netanyahu Israel is a supporter of Hamas, on top of everything else it does. Then, after rejecting any explanation as to what Israel was up to, prior to the Hamas attack, he hypocritically immediately pivoted into explaining what Israel would do, in "response", and why it would be expected. He didn't want to hear about what Israel had done to make an attack by Palestinians expected, but then turned around and made like it was perfectly reasonable and expected for Israel to hit back ... but not letting anyone say they hit first.
    1
  5.  @James-gq4tb  Ze'ev Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall, 1923 ... "There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority. My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent. The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage." It is apparently very expected, and always has been expected, that the natives would "respond" badly to colonialism, and yet Israel continues to do it. Colonialists are never not the aggressors, when it comes to the native population. If you don't want to hear about anything the colonialists did, prior to the Powhatan Confederacy's massacre of Jamestown civilians, and act like that is the first thing that happened, and then argue as if it's reasonable and expected that the colonialists would "respond ", then you're not getting an objective picture, at all. Native Americans got to the point where they wanted nothing more than to push the white man back into the sea, and it wasn't simply that he was white. Jews lived in Muslim nations for 1300 years. Muslims took them in, gave them refuge, when Christian nations offered conversion, death, or exile. The Ottomans even okayed very early Zionism, which was closer to simply immigration. Everything changed when Zionism turned colonialist, and they started talking about carving out a colonialist nation. Muslim nations didn't just magically turn anti-Semitic, for no reason one day.
    1
  6.  @SethAndrews111  Israel was founded on terrorism, and elected terrorists, dumb dumb. Look up the Irgun, Lehi, and Menachem Begin. They still celebrate those terrorists as "heroes". They taught their neighbours everything. Rivlin hosts 90th anniversary of founding Irgun Zvai Leumi (Etzel) By GREER FAY CASHMAN Published: MARCH 1, 2021 "Etzel is most famously known for the bombing of the King David Hotel on July 22, 1946" They also bombed many Palestinian markets, killing civilians, including children, even including Palestinian Jews (who didn't support Zionism). Prior to Oct 7, Israel had 1200+ Palestinian hostages, held without charges, the IDF and settlers had killed 200+ Palestinians, Israel continued its unending colonization of the West Bank, and its continued operation of an open air WWII style fascist ghetto.
    1
  7.  @UltimateUnknown  They would have to move to a Lebanon style government, I would think. But, you hit the nail on the head, as to why Israel has never wanted peace, to avoid a right of return for refugees, because it would threaten their majority.
    1