This might be, in truth, one of the dumbest comments I’ve ever seen.

Israel lives with a terrorist group next door that is constantly launching rockets at them and planning and executing genocide on the people of Israel. That needs to be addressed. Israel is sick of it and they decided to remove Hamas.

“Genocide on the people of Israel”? The entire “Israeli” identity is based on settler-colonial genocide. You might as well speak of the American native resistance’s “genocide on white settlers.” Just beyond idiotic. The reason, as though you seem not to know, that this “terrorist group” (Israel’s bombing not being “terrorist” of course!) constantly launches rockets at them is due to the settler-colonial occupation of their land and the war of extermination against the Palestinian people.

“We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture” — Moshe Sharett, second PM of Israel

What Leading Israelis Have Said

It’s a completely ridiculous and absurd idea that Israel simply has this belligerent neighbor who attacks them for no reason.

The US weapon guardrails are mainly to define what an appropriate use of each weapon type would be. Lots of the weapons provided to Israel are not allowed for use in Gaza due to the type of damage they cause deemed incompatible with the type of conflict. If the US pulled out of these weapon deals, all the weapons (bombs) that are currently banned would be on the menu to Israel. If you think Gaza is taking damage now, consider that the damage so far has been hampered through limitations imposed by the West.

Israel has the choice not to accept US weapons deals. If there were better deals on the table, they would be taken, so it’s complete nonsense to act as if conditional deals are some hamper on Israel’s genocide when, so too, we have seen them routinely violate int. law and be protected against repercussions by the US. Truly harm reduction in the extreme!

The fastest route is to end the Hamas rule as quickly as possible and transition to rebuilding Gaza and establishing Palestinian statehood. That’s what the US is currently working on. I have not seen anyone here propose a solution that would move faster towards enduring peace.

What came first was Israeli occupation and ethnic cleansing. This is the father of Hamas, and to act like this is some tumor that must be cut out for “peace” ignores that it is only a reaction to this “tumor cutting.” The US is not working towards peace. See:

1998: Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (A/RES/53/42) | In Favor: 154 // Against: 2 (Israel & U.S.) 2000: Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (A/RES/55/55) | In Favor: 149 // Against: 2 (Israel & U.S.) 2021: Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (A/RES/76/10) | In Favor: 148 // Against: 9 (Israel & U.S., Australia, etc.) 2022: Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (A/RES/77/25) | In Favor: 153 // Against: 9 (Israel & U.S., Canada, etc.)

Hamas is mostly at fault for our current state of affairs

Ignorance of history in the extreme. Again, Israeli colonialism came first. Hamas is only a reaction.

“Just get Israel to stop and back off” is exactly how we ended up with Hamas terrorizing Gaza this century and using civilians as shields - learn the history circa 2005-7.

This is wondrous! Israel backing off is when they enforce a total blockade and control travel! Who knew? As for human shields, you’ve revealed yourself as a complete charlatan, as there is simply no evidence of this practice being used by anyone other than Israel itself. [1] [2] [3]

We might be reminded of the case of Israel killing a Palestinian medic and then dishonestly editing a video of her to be used as “proof” that she was being used as a human shield by Hamas.

If you want to make a “harm reduction” argument, don’t do it this dishonestly. You know this “heartbreaking” comment is nonsense because she has clearly said she won’t condition US support for Israel. As for “ceasefire,” she’s talking about a temporary pause, as proven by her previous “ceasefire” comment people appealed to. She does not believe in the self-determination of the Palestinian people nor a two-state solution, and to act like she does is to pure nonsense.

All you care about is words and appearances. Well, alright, where are Kamala’s words from the end of August spouting Oct. 7th atrocity propaganda and extolling Israel’s “right to defend itself”?

We get Trump’s stance on protestors, but not Kamala’s? Wondrous! If you recall, Harris put out a statement against the anti-genocide protestors in Washington (along with numerous anti-genocide protestors being arrested throughout these months) when her supporters were embarrassing themselves by saying she was against Netanyahu’s visit despite her scheduling a separate meeting and her campaign confirming her absence wasn’t a political statement.

To predict responses if they come, the flaws with the image will be ignored, and people will repeat: “do you think Trump will be better?” Probably not, but if you have to resort to genuine idiocy to say the inverse, then it seems like you truly don’t believe Trump will be much worse, and all we can take as proof is vibes and intuition. Kamala has repeatedly emphasized that she will be harder on immigration than Trump, but here of course her words can’t be believed!!

Can you give me an example of this? It’s so ubiquitous it can be generalized, so surely it will be easy!

Despite the common allegation of the commentators getting paid for their posts, the paper suggested there was “no evidence” that they are paid anything for their posts, instead being required to do so as a part of their official party duties.

This is from the extremely short main body of the article sent to you supposedly “confirming” your beliefs. If you had even read this bit you would’ve realized the entire thing is unsupported nonsense. And again, from a later section:

David Wertime, writing in Foreign Policy, argued that the narrative where a large army of paid Internet commentators are behind China’s poor public dialogue with its critics is “Orwellian, yet strangely comforting”. Rather, many of the Chinese netizens spreading nationalist sentiment online are not paid, but often mean what they say.

Of course the first indication you’re wrong would be having to use an AI-generated image that employs a term which—again referring back to the article you were incapable of reading beyond the title (genuinely embarrassing)—is criticized even by an analyst at a US “N”GO as leaning towards racism. Also, “Hit them in the pocketbook ;)”? Even if the people you’re replying to really were paid for posting, how would this make them lose money, or even a single payment? It’s all nonsense.

Of course I’m not really replying to you, because your tactic is to, as you admit, “drop this image as a response to any of them and ignore whatever they say”, which you’ve done below when confronted with your hypocrisy. You’ll respond with the same vapid nonsense, because to do otherwise would be to lose your “superiority”; but to anyone else who sees this I think it will be clear that you’re not really superior, and the dismissive attitude with which you deflect all responses is just a petty rhetorical method used to hide the holes in your beliefs.

“Never believe that anti‐Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side” — Jean-Paul Sartre