Are they still around though? I think they filed for bankruptcy. The jeezus wannabe ceo was a good con artist.

Holup. Planetside is still around???

What other options do the Palestinian people have

That’s part of the crux. Both the Palestinians and the Israelis need better leadership.

Unfortunately, we are never returning to the 68 borders. If I had the power to magically make it happen, I would do it in a snap. But the reality is that it’s never happening. Each side has to concede something to move forward. Palestinians need to accept the Jewish state at this point --whether it’s fair or not. 10 million Israelis are not going to just up and leave as much as we wish that could happen. Israelis need to demolish illegal settlements and restore occupied territories even if they are not going to concede the 68 borders.

I don’t really know what the best answer is but the onus is on both parties. I agree Israel has the upper hand militarily, but Israel does not want another 100 years of suicide bombers either. There has to be a path forward.

We agree a lot more than you think. I’m not saying the Palestinians don’t feel justified in fighting. Hamas still enjoys broad support among Palestinians.

The point where we diverge I think is that it goes both ways. The Palestinians never accepted the establishment of a Jewish state, even before the Peele commission even happened. The issue as I see it, that sentiment never wavered even though the context has changed drastically.

Not that any of that justifies the conduct of the IDF in this current conflict. We agree - all I’m saying it’s not so simple as an occupying force creating an apartheid condition.

I don’t know that Israel closed all diplomatic options. There were plenty of offers on the table that Hamas / PLO walked away from.

I don’t think Israel are good guys and they are effective opportunists with the land grabs / settlements. I also don’t think Hamas cares one bit about the Palestinian people either. I feel like they always seem to get carte blanche to act with impunity because the Palestinians are oppressed --which, don’t get me wrong, they absolutely are. It just seems we always single out one party, but to me they are both culpable of exploiting the suffering of the Palestinians. Just my opinion.

Why were they holding hostages to begin?

Yea I agree. It’s a strange way to phrase it

It might be a language issue. You asked for a source that nations have a right (some would argue a ‘human’ right) to join alliances:

Actually that is a human right

Source?

So the question asking for a source on ‘human rights’ is kinda nonsensical, that’s why they responded the way they did. You can’t provide a source for ‘human rights’. That’s a philosophical / metaphysical question. There is no official source for human rights hence why the question makes no sense.

On another note, are you the guy I was discussing a while back about conscription in Ukraine? Can’t remember. Hope you are all right if you are.

Why are we creating our own definitions for words? Fascism is a term used to describe a very specific form of governance characterized by elements not included in your description. Chief among them is ruling by a dictatorship and exclusive single party.

The things you described are indeed bad things, some which have been adopted and implemented by fascist regimes as well. But just because two people engage occasionally in the same practices it doesn’t make them twinsies by definition. Sometimes me and my buddy wear the same shirt, but he’s a communist and I’m a liberal. Just because we wear the same shirt sometimes it doesn’t suddenly make him liberal or me communist.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race

There is a strange fetishization of this word online and it has since lost any meaning it used to originally have because now every bad thing has become a fash. It’s meaningless.

That’s a declaration of human rights, not a philosophical logical demonstration of why we are endowed with rights. The person was pointing out the silliness of your original question.

Why do you conflate two different things --both bad-- but cant distinguish the definitions for each? There’s a reason we have separate words for Imperialism and fascism? There’s a weird fetish for this word here and you are very intent on applying it for some reason.

What an emotional response

Man, at this point the word has no more meaning. The definition has been coopted and broadened so much that anything bad is a fash

Why are you intent on muddling the meaning of words?

The guy you are arguing with conceded that America did bad things, just those things are called something else. What is it with the fetishization of this word in particular?

We can all agree:

Imperialism=bad

Fascism=bad

Imperialism definitionally is not fascism. Words have meaning for a reason.

Parts of the definition do not make the definition. Are you intentionally obfuscating? Just because some actions share fascistic traits doesn’t de facto a fascist country make. Perhaps educate yourself on the definition of fascism?

But what does that have to do with the definition of fascism? That is an evil action that inspired a fascistic government.

Usually when discussing a heated topic (politics, gun control-take your pick) and trying to discuss the facts of the matter in a neutral manner but the response comes back with every phrase super charged with morally loaded words. Examples of a conversation I had recently (emphasis mine):

sure as hell isn’t PANDERING! What the fuck is wrong with you??

Typical apologist tactic

PRETENDING to care about the brutal slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians

deflecting to your conspiracy theory

shows that YOU don’t care enough about Palestinian lives

It’s very pronounced on this site for some reason. I don’t know why.

Yea, I agree. That’s why I used the word discuss because when the debate-bro mindset kicks in you’re definitely dealing with an angsty teenager (also the constant invocation of logical fallacies).

Me too. But in my view they are not fully developed adults and still have some emotional intelligence left to grow.

For me personally the first tell is when they are morally loading every statement in an argument and are unable to engage with a topic directly. Adults should be able to discuss or debate certain topics on the value of the arguments alone without feeling pressured to include a declarative virtue signal in every clause.