Evil begets Evil (Page 3): 👍👍👍👍👍...

EmilyD

Big Kahuna wrote:

You forgot one very important point. The muzzies s... (show quote)

👍👍👍👍👍

Justice101

straightUp wrote:

I didn't experience the holocaust myself, so I won't pretend to know what it's like but I can't imagine a more horrible experience. Right-wing Nazis making it a policy to marginalize Jews through a system of apartheid out of which they were systematically extracted and killed. Ethnic cleansing as a cold and calculated business.

We often think of this as a closed chapter in a dark history. But unfortunately, evil has reproductive powers. I've heard the phrase "evil begets evil" and that certainly applies. Many people arrested for domestic violence, for instance are found to have themselves been victims of abusive parents. It seems there is a property to evil that transmits to the victim where it could develop into another instance of the same evil that they were once assaulted by.

I have often looked at the Zionists as being another example. They often cite the holocaust as justification for them to create a country for themselves in the Levant and certainly it was the holocaust that generated sympathy for their cause in the U.S. and around the world.

But then they set up yet another apartheid system, this time to marginalize the Palestinians. They took their land and their possessions, just like the Nazis did to the Jews and they routed them to Gaza to remain imprisoned in a small strip of land isolated from the rest of the world. Just like the Nazis did to the Jews.

They gave the Palestinians the "right" to govern themselves, but only within the confines of their imprisonment, just like the Nazis did for the Jews in their ghettos.

They also gave the Jewish settlers the right to harass and even kill Palestinians in occupied territories. Just like how the Nazis refused to discipline the German people for harassing or even killing Jews on the streets.

It really is incredible the parallels that show up when you start to think about it.

The only thing missing from Israel are the forms of eradication that the Nazis used, such as the ovens. Perhaps that would make the resurrection of Third Reich evil too obvious and unlike Germany, Israel actually depends on another country to defend its claim of "legitimacy" so they have to at least put on the act.

But, I think Netanyahu, the modern version of Hitler, is finding alternative methods of eradication. Such as pressure cooking the Palestinians in such horrible life-threatening conditions that they eventually snap and THEN using that as an excuse to "defend" themselves from "aggressive" Palestinians.

It's very clear to me and everyone else outside the U.S.-Israeli media bubble, that the IDF is not targeting Hamas but as much of the people as possible.

I don't know which is worse... being guided to the showers only to realize for a brief moment that you are being killed, or surviving night after night of waiting in the dark with your family to be killed as bombs shake the ground all around you and knowing thousands of soldiers who hate you will be coming next.

What Israel, the spawn of Nazi Germany, is doing right now in Gaza is making the holocaust look humane.

I didn't experience the holocaust myself, so I won... (show quote)

Israel is not the one denying the Palestinians an independent state.
Ariel Kliegman April 27, 2019

It is easy to forget that, in 1947, when the United Nations recommended the creation of a Jewish state in Mandatory Palestine, the international body also recommended the creation of an Arab state—what would today be a national home for the Palestinians. The idea was to partition the land into two separate entities—in other words, a two-state solution. Indeed, in 1988, the Palestine National Council described the partition resolution as what "still provides those conditions of international legitimacy that ensure the right of the Palestinian Arab people to sovereignty." Yet at the time of the resolution, the Arabs—no one used the term "Palestinians" then—boycotted the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine, which the General Assembly empowered to make recommendations about the future government of the territory, rejecting both the partition and a single, binational state. Then the Arabs completely, and unambiguously, rejected the General Assembly's partition plan, believing that, once the British left Mandatory Palestine, they would defeat the Jews and control the entire area. Of course, the Arabs failed, despite the help of several armies. The Jewish state of Israel, established in 1948, endured, and the Palestinian Arabs, who could have had their own state, remained stateless.

Since then, the Palestinians have repeatedly turned down offers of statehood. First, they did not seek the West Bank when Jordan controlled it from 1949 to 1967. Only when the land was back in Israeli control following the Six-Day War did the Palestinians again call it disputed. Twelve years later, Israel worked to offer the Palestinians autonomy, which would have been a major step toward full independence, to no avail. Then in 2000 and 2008, Israel offered the Palestinians control of virtually all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with a capital in East Jerusalem. Each time the Palestinians rejected the offer, even waging a violent uprising against the Israelis following the failure in 2000. One would be hard-pressed to find another national independence movement, beyond the Palestinian one, that has turned down formal offers of statehood in the territory they claim. Indeed, the Palestinians have, time and again, set new standards for stubbornness.

And yet, despite this history, most of the world seems to blame Israel for the Palestinians' situation. Just look at the recent wave of articles and comments assailing the Jewish state that followed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's election victory earlier this month. Naturally, the New York Times led the charge, "reporting" that, with Netanyahu's reelection, Palestinian families see "no light at the end of the tunnel." In a front-page feature, the Times discusses how the Palestinians are despairing about the stalemate in the peace process. Importantly, the article notes that many Palestinians see the Palestinian Authority, or P.A., for the corrupt, ineffective regime that it is, and that at least some want to make peace with Israel. But look at how the Times portrays the general state of the peace process:

Palestinians have wanted to shake free of Israeli domination since the West Bank was first occupied in the Arab-Israeli War of 1967. For more than a quarter-century they have waited for the United States-led peace process to deliver them a state of their own.

That is fair enough, but what is the very next paragraph?

But on the eve of Israel's April 9 elections, Mr. Netanyahu said he planned to begin applying Israeli sovereignty over West Bank land, which the Palestinians have long counted on for an eventual state. For many of them, his victory has pushed a two-state solution far beyond the already distant horizon, where it existed in the minds of Palestinian politicians.

So the Palestinians had some hope, according to the Times, until Netanyahu's victory less than three weeks ago. And now the peace process, which of course had been making such public progress over the last 10 years, is finally dead. This narrative is at best delusional, and at worst intentionally misleading. It omits the fact that, for decades, the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to compromise on any agreement that would acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state, even if that agreement would also create an independent Palestinian state alongside it. Time after time, the Palestinians have shown that thwarting Israel is more important than realizing their own goals. Until the Palestinians care more about their own happiness than denying Israelis theirs, there will never be peace.

Palestinians have made deliberate decisions that left them stateless. Just look at what Saeb Erekat, chief Palestinian negotiator, recently told P.A. TV. Erekat explained that, in 2008, Israel offered the Palestinians even more territory than the full area of the West Bank and Gaza, agreed to take 150,000 Palestinian refugees, and proposed for Jerusalem that "what's Arab is Arab, and what's Jewish is Jewish"—in other words, the best deal realistically possible for the Palestinians. And yet, P.A. leader Mahmoud Abbas, who serves in the same role today, rejected the offer. So do not expect the Palestinians to accept a deal—any deal—now. Until the Palestinians accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state on what they deem Muslim, Palestinian land, and until the Palestinians realize they cannot destroy Israel and control all of its territory, they will never get a state.

fullspinzoo

son of witless wrote:

" Yeah, I think this topic is too advanced for you. If you're saying the holocaust in Gaza is a result of Hamas poking the bear, you're clueless. "

So the Hamas murders were merely poking the bear ? Do they teach college courses in doing what you do ? I bet the reunions back at old Propaganda Socialist Islamic University are a blast.

I think you are right, way over his pay grade. The 19 or so synonyms for narcissist fit him so well. Hard to cover over all 'I am the greatest' syndrome.

Big dog

Justice101 wrote:

Israel is not the one denying the Palestinians an independent state.
Ariel Kliegman April 27, 2019

It is easy to forget that, in 1947, when the United Nations recommended the creation of a Jewish state in Mandatory Palestine, the international body also recommended the creation of an Arab state—what would today be a national home for the Palestinians. The idea was to partition the land into two separate entities—in other words, a two-state solution. Indeed, in 1988, the Palestine National Council described the partition resolution as what "still provides those conditions of international legitimacy that ensure the right of the Palestinian Arab people to sovereignty." Yet at the time of the resolution, the Arabs—no one used the term "Palestinians" then—boycotted the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine, which the General Assembly empowered to make recommendations about the future government of the territory, rejecting both the partition and a single, binational state. Then the Arabs completely, and unambiguously, rejected the General Assembly's partition plan, believing that, once the British left Mandatory Palestine, they would defeat the Jews and control the entire area. Of course, the Arabs failed, despite the help of several armies. The Jewish state of Israel, established in 1948, endured, and the Palestinian Arabs, who could have had their own state, remained stateless.

Since then, the Palestinians have repeatedly turned down offers of statehood. First, they did not seek the West Bank when Jordan controlled it from 1949 to 1967. Only when the land was back in Israeli control following the Six-Day War did the Palestinians again call it disputed. Twelve years later, Israel worked to offer the Palestinians autonomy, which would have been a major step toward full independence, to no avail. Then in 2000 and 2008, Israel offered the Palestinians control of virtually all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with a capital in East Jerusalem. Each time the Palestinians rejected the offer, even waging a violent uprising against the Israelis following the failure in 2000. One would be hard-pressed to find another national independence movement, beyond the Palestinian one, that has turned down formal offers of statehood in the territory they claim. Indeed, the Palestinians have, time and again, set new standards for stubbornness.

And yet, despite this history, most of the world seems to blame Israel for the Palestinians' situation. Just look at the recent wave of articles and comments assailing the Jewish state that followed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's election victory earlier this month. Naturally, the New York Times led the charge, "reporting" that, with Netanyahu's reelection, Palestinian families see "no light at the end of the tunnel." In a front-page feature, the Times discusses how the Palestinians are despairing about the stalemate in the peace process. Importantly, the article notes that many Palestinians see the Palestinian Authority, or P.A., for the corrupt, ineffective regime that it is, and that at least some want to make peace with Israel. But look at how the Times portrays the general state of the peace process:

Palestinians have wanted to shake free of Israeli domination since the West Bank was first occupied in the Arab-Israeli War of 1967. For more than a quarter-century they have waited for the United States-led peace process to deliver them a state of their own.

That is fair enough, but what is the very next paragraph?

But on the eve of Israel's April 9 elections, Mr. Netanyahu said he planned to begin applying Israeli sovereignty over West Bank land, which the Palestinians have long counted on for an eventual state. For many of them, his victory has pushed a two-state solution far beyond the already distant horizon, where it existed in the minds of Palestinian politicians.

So the Palestinians had some hope, according to the Times, until Netanyahu's victory less than three weeks ago. And now the peace process, which of course had been making such public progress over the last 10 years, is finally dead. This narrative is at best delusional, and at worst intentionally misleading. It omits the fact that, for decades, the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to compromise on any agreement that would acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state, even if that agreement would also create an independent Palestinian state alongside it. Time after time, the Palestinians have shown that thwarting Israel is more important than realizing their own goals. Until the Palestinians care more about their own happiness than denying Israelis theirs, there will never be peace.

Palestinians have made deliberate decisions that left them stateless. Just look at what Saeb Erekat, chief Palestinian negotiator, recently told P.A. TV. Erekat explained that, in 2008, Israel offered the Palestinians even more territory than the full area of the West Bank and Gaza, agreed to take 150,000 Palestinian refugees, and proposed for Jerusalem that "what's Arab is Arab, and what's Jewish is Jewish"—in other words, the best deal realistically possible for the Palestinians. And yet, P.A. leader Mahmoud Abbas, who serves in the same role today, rejected the offer. So do not expect the Palestinians to accept a deal—any deal—now. Until the Palestinians accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state on what they deem Muslim, Palestinian land, and until the Palestinians realize they cannot destroy Israel and control all of its territory, they will never get a state.

Israel is not the one denying the Palestinians an ... (show quote)

Well said and extremely accurate. I’m fairly certain that if all the jews left and went to the moon, the Palestinians would want to blow up the moon.

son of witless

fullspinzoo wrote:

I think you are right, way over his pay grade. The 19 or so synonyms for narcissist fit him so well. Hard to cover over all 'I am the greatest' syndrome.

straightUp rationalizes Hamas's evil constantly. Hamas murders mass numbers of Israelis and it is Israel's fault.

EmilyD

Justice101 wrote:

Israel is not the one denying the Palestinians an independent state.
Ariel Kliegman April 27, 2019

It is easy to forget that, in 1947, when the United Nations recommended the creation of a Jewish state in Mandatory Palestine, the international body also recommended the creation of an Arab state—what would today be a national home for the Palestinians. The idea was to partition the land into two separate entities—in other words, a two-state solution. Indeed, in 1988, the Palestine National Council described the partition resolution as what "still provides those conditions of international legitimacy that ensure the right of the Palestinian Arab people to sovereignty." Yet at the time of the resolution, the Arabs—no one used the term "Palestinians" then—boycotted the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine, which the General Assembly empowered to make recommendations about the future government of the territory, rejecting both the partition and a single, binational state. Then the Arabs completely, and unambiguously, rejected the General Assembly's partition plan, believing that, once the British left Mandatory Palestine, they would defeat the Jews and control the entire area. Of course, the Arabs failed, despite the help of several armies. The Jewish state of Israel, established in 1948, endured, and the Palestinian Arabs, who could have had their own state, remained stateless.

Since then, the Palestinians have repeatedly turned down offers of statehood. First, they did not seek the West Bank when Jordan controlled it from 1949 to 1967. Only when the land was back in Israeli control following the Six-Day War did the Palestinians again call it disputed. Twelve years later, Israel worked to offer the Palestinians autonomy, which would have been a major step toward full independence, to no avail. Then in 2000 and 2008, Israel offered the Palestinians control of virtually all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with a capital in East Jerusalem. Each time the Palestinians rejected the offer, even waging a violent uprising against the Israelis following the failure in 2000. One would be hard-pressed to find another national independence movement, beyond the Palestinian one, that has turned down formal offers of statehood in the territory they claim. Indeed, the Palestinians have, time and again, set new standards for stubbornness.

And yet, despite this history, most of the world seems to blame Israel for the Palestinians' situation. Just look at the recent wave of articles and comments assailing the Jewish state that followed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's election victory earlier this month. Naturally, the New York Times led the charge, "reporting" that, with Netanyahu's reelection, Palestinian families see "no light at the end of the tunnel." In a front-page feature, the Times discusses how the Palestinians are despairing about the stalemate in the peace process. Importantly, the article notes that many Palestinians see the Palestinian Authority, or P.A., for the corrupt, ineffective regime that it is, and that at least some want to make peace with Israel. But look at how the Times portrays the general state of the peace process:

Palestinians have wanted to shake free of Israeli domination since the West Bank was first occupied in the Arab-Israeli War of 1967. For more than a quarter-century they have waited for the United States-led peace process to deliver them a state of their own.

That is fair enough, but what is the very next paragraph?

But on the eve of Israel's April 9 elections, Mr. Netanyahu said he planned to begin applying Israeli sovereignty over West Bank land, which the Palestinians have long counted on for an eventual state. For many of them, his victory has pushed a two-state solution far beyond the already distant horizon, where it existed in the minds of Palestinian politicians.

So the Palestinians had some hope, according to the Times, until Netanyahu's victory less than three weeks ago. And now the peace process, which of course had been making such public progress over the last 10 years, is finally dead. This narrative is at best delusional, and at worst intentionally misleading. It omits the fact that, for decades, the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to compromise on any agreement that would acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state, even if that agreement would also create an independent Palestinian state alongside it. Time after time, the Palestinians have shown that thwarting Israel is more important than realizing their own goals.

Palestinians have made deliberate decisions that left them stateless. Just look at what Saeb Erekat, chief Palestinian negotiator, recently told P.A. TV. Erekat explained that, in 2008, Israel offered the Palestinians even more territory than the full area of the West Bank and Gaza, agreed to take 150,000 Palestinian refugees, and proposed for Jerusalem that "what's Arab is Arab, and what's Jewish is Jewish"—in other words, the best deal realistically possible for the Palestinians. And yet, P.A. leader Mahmoud Abbas, who serves in the same role today, rejected the offer. So do not expect the Palestinians to accept a deal—any deal—now. Until the Palestinians accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state on what they deem Muslim, Palestinian land, and until the Palestinians realize they cannot destroy Israel and control all of its territory, they will never get a state.

Israel is not the one denying the Palestinians an ... (show quote)

Very well stated!! This post of yours clearly shows what people have been seeing for decades happening. We have seen "Palestine" (a bunch of desert-roaming Arabs, imo) refuse offer after offer of places they could settle. Maybe the offers weren't 'perfect' for them, but at least they were gestures of peace by Israel - several times.

This particular sentence of yours: "Until the Palestinians care more about their own happiness than denying Israelis theirs, there will never be peace." Says it all in a nutshell!!!!

Big dog

EmilyD wrote:

Very well stated!! This post of yours clearly show... (show quote)

👍

fullspinzoo

son of witless wrote:

straightUp rationalizes Hamas's evil constantly. Hamas murders mass numbers of Israelis and it is Israel's fault.

I've noticed that. Way off base. Will ignore. They're asking just how evil it has been right this minute on Mediabuzz - Kurtz.

fullspinzoo

fullspinzoo wrote:

I've noticed that. Way off base. Will ignore. They're asking just how evil it has been right this minute on Mediabuzz - Kurtz.

Beyond imaginable.

Justice101

EmilyD wrote:

Very well stated!! This post of yours clearly show... (show quote)

I referenced to Ariel Kliegman as the author in the beginning of the article but I thank you very much for quoting from it. I also found it so appropriate for today's war in Israel and an excellent answer to straightup's post.

EmilyD

Justice101 wrote:

I referenced to Ariel Kliegman as the author in the beginning of the article but I thank you very much for quoting from it. I also found it so appropriate for today's war in Israel and an excellent answer to straightup's post.

I agree…A very good and factual response! And I appreciate the effort you made to recognize its importance and bring it to our attention! I have passed it on to several people I know will appreciate it.
Thanks 👏👏👏

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

straightUp wrote:

I didn't experience the holocaust myself, so I won't pretend to know what it's like but I can't imagine a more horrible experience. Right-wing Nazis making it a policy to marginalize Jews through a system of apartheid out of which they were systematically extracted and killed. Ethnic cleansing as a cold and calculated business.

We often think of this as a closed chapter in a dark history. But unfortunately, evil has reproductive powers. I've heard the phrase "evil begets evil" and that certainly applies. Many people arrested for domestic violence, for instance are found to have themselves been victims of abusive parents. It seems there is a property to evil that transmits to the victim where it could develop into another instance of the same evil that they were once assaulted by.

I have often looked at the Zionists as being another example. They often cite the holocaust as justification for them to create a country for themselves in the Levant and certainly it was the holocaust that generated sympathy for their cause in the U.S. and around the world.

But then they set up yet another apartheid system, this time to marginalize the Palestinians. They took their land and their possessions, just like the Nazis did to the Jews and they routed them to Gaza to remain imprisoned in a small strip of land isolated from the rest of the world. Just like the Nazis did to the Jews.

They gave the Palestinians the "right" to govern themselves, but only within the confines of their imprisonment, just like the Nazis did for the Jews in their ghettos.

They also gave the Jewish settlers the right to harass and even kill Palestinians in occupied territories. Just like how the Nazis refused to discipline the German people for harassing or even killing Jews on the streets.

It really is incredible the parallels that show up when you start to think about it.

The only thing missing from Israel are the forms of eradication that the Nazis used, such as the ovens. Perhaps that would make the resurrection of Third Reich evil too obvious and unlike Germany, Israel actually depends on another country to defend its claim of "legitimacy" so they have to at least put on the act.

But, I think Netanyahu, the modern version of Hitler, is finding alternative methods of eradication. Such as pressure cooking the Palestinians in such horrible life-threatening conditions that they eventually snap and THEN using that as an excuse to "defend" themselves from "aggressive" Palestinians.

It's very clear to me and everyone else outside the U.S.-Israeli media bubble, that the IDF is not targeting Hamas but as much of the people as possible.

I don't know which is worse... being guided to the showers only to realize for a brief moment that you are being killed, or surviving night after night of waiting in the dark with your family to be killed as bombs shake the ground all around you and knowing thousands of soldiers who hate you will be coming next.

What Israel, the spawn of Nazi Germany, is doing right now in Gaza is making the holocaust look humane.

I didn't experience the holocaust myself, so I won... (show quote)

At bare minimum, your diatribes remain grammatically sound though the use of contractions is questionable.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

straightUp wrote:

I didn't experience the holocaust myself, so I won't pretend to know what it's like but I can't imagine a more horrible experience. Right-wing Nazis making it a policy to marginalize Jews through a system of apartheid out of which they were systematically extracted and killed. Ethnic cleansing as a cold and calculated business.

We often think of this as a closed chapter in a dark history. But unfortunately, evil has reproductive powers. I've heard the phrase "evil begets evil" and that certainly applies. Many people arrested for domestic violence, for instance are found to have themselves been victims of abusive parents. It seems there is a property to evil that transmits to the victim where it could develop into another instance of the same evil that they were once assaulted by.

I have often looked at the Zionists as being another example. They often cite the holocaust as justification for them to create a country for themselves in the Levant and certainly it was the holocaust that generated sympathy for their cause in the U.S. and around the world.

But then they set up yet another apartheid system, this time to marginalize the Palestinians. They took their land and their possessions, just like the Nazis did to the Jews and they routed them to Gaza to remain imprisoned in a small strip of land isolated from the rest of the world. Just like the Nazis did to the Jews.

They gave the Palestinians the "right" to govern themselves, but only within the confines of their imprisonment, just like the Nazis did for the Jews in their ghettos.

They also gave the Jewish settlers the right to harass and even kill Palestinians in occupied territories. Just like how the Nazis refused to discipline the German people for harassing or even killing Jews on the streets.

It really is incredible the parallels that show up when you start to think about it.

The only thing missing from Israel are the forms of eradication that the Nazis used, such as the ovens. Perhaps that would make the resurrection of Third Reich evil too obvious and unlike Germany, Israel actually depends on another country to defend its claim of "legitimacy" so they have to at least put on the act.

But, I think Netanyahu, the modern version of Hitler, is finding alternative methods of eradication. Such as pressure cooking the Palestinians in such horrible life-threatening conditions that they eventually snap and THEN using that as an excuse to "defend" themselves from "aggressive" Palestinians.

It's very clear to me and everyone else outside the U.S.-Israeli media bubble, that the IDF is not targeting Hamas but as much of the people as possible.

I don't know which is worse... being guided to the showers only to realize for a brief moment that you are being killed, or surviving night after night of waiting in the dark with your family to be killed as bombs shake the ground all around you and knowing thousands of soldiers who hate you will be coming next.

What Israel, the spawn of Nazi Germany, is doing right now in Gaza is making the holocaust look humane.

I didn't experience the holocaust myself, so I won... (show quote)

Hitler was a socialist. His party was named The National Socialist German Workers Party.

Wonttakeitanymore

straightUp wrote:

I didn't experience the holocaust myself, so I won't pretend to know what it's like but I can't imagine a more horrible experience. Right-wing Nazis making it a policy to marginalize Jews through a system of apartheid out of which they were systematically extracted and killed. Ethnic cleansing as a cold and calculated business.

We often think of this as a closed chapter in a dark history. But unfortunately, evil has reproductive powers. I've heard the phrase "evil begets evil" and that certainly applies. Many people arrested for domestic violence, for instance are found to have themselves been victims of abusive parents. It seems there is a property to evil that transmits to the victim where it could develop into another instance of the same evil that they were once assaulted by.

I have often looked at the Zionists as being another example. They often cite the holocaust as justification for them to create a country for themselves in the Levant and certainly it was the holocaust that generated sympathy for their cause in the U.S. and around the world.

But then they set up yet another apartheid system, this time to marginalize the Palestinians. They took their land and their possessions, just like the Nazis did to the Jews and they routed them to Gaza to remain imprisoned in a small strip of land isolated from the rest of the world. Just like the Nazis did to the Jews.

They gave the Palestinians the "right" to govern themselves, but only within the confines of their imprisonment, just like the Nazis did for the Jews in their ghettos.

They also gave the Jewish settlers the right to harass and even kill Palestinians in occupied territories. Just like how the Nazis refused to discipline the German people for harassing or even killing Jews on the streets.

It really is incredible the parallels that show up when you start to think about it.

The only thing missing from Israel are the forms of eradication that the Nazis used, such as the ovens. Perhaps that would make the resurrection of Third Reich evil too obvious and unlike Germany, Israel actually depends on another country to defend its claim of "legitimacy" so they have to at least put on the act.

But, I think Netanyahu, the modern version of Hitler, is finding alternative methods of eradication. Such as pressure cooking the Palestinians in such horrible life-threatening conditions that they eventually snap and THEN using that as an excuse to "defend" themselves from "aggressive" Palestinians.

It's very clear to me and everyone else outside the U.S.-Israeli media bubble, that the IDF is not targeting Hamas but as much of the people as possible.

I don't know which is worse... being guided to the showers only to realize for a brief moment that you are being killed, or surviving night after night of waiting in the dark with your family to be killed as bombs shake the ground all around you and knowing thousands of soldiers who hate you will be coming next.

What Israel, the spawn of Nazi Germany, is doing right now in Gaza is making the holocaust look humane.

I didn't experience the holocaust myself, so I won... (show quote)

Spoken like a true leftist liar and denier

Sonny Magoo Loc: Where pot pie is boiled in a kettle

‭‭Matthew‬ ‭27:24‭-‬25‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
[24] When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.” [25] And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”

https://bible.com/bible/114/mat.27.24.NKJV