Opinion of this quote

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I don't actually disagree with anything in it, tbh. It doesn't change the fact the Israeli government is a bunch of morons and assholes and at this point bear most of the responsibility for the failure of peace talks.

You agree that the US has a responsibility to ensure that Israel maintains a "military edge?"

If that's necessary to prevent the neighboring countries from destroying it, then yes. Though I know that's not the case right now, Israel has historically been much less trigger-happy than its old enemies.

Why is it America's job to provide for Israel's defense?

Powerful nations should do their job to protect smaller nations from aggression, in general. The fact that Israel is probably the single State in the world that the most other countries would like to see crushed makes its defense particularly necessary.

Israel's very existence is a form of aggression.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I don't actually disagree with anything in it, tbh. It doesn't change the fact the Israeli government is a bunch of morons and assholes and at this point bear most of the responsibility for the failure of peace talks.

You agree that the US has a responsibility to ensure that Israel maintains a "military edge?"

If that's necessary to prevent the neighboring countries from destroying it, then yes. Though I know that's not the case right now, Israel has historically been much less trigger-happy than its old enemies.

Why is it America's job to provide for Israel's defense?

Powerful nations should do their job to protect smaller nations from aggression, in general. The fact that Israel is probably the single State in the world that the most other countries would like to see crushed makes its defense particularly necessary.

Israel's very existence is a form of aggression.

How is that? (This should be good)

Israel was founded on the idea of turning a mostly Arab-populated area into a homeland for a diaspora by expelling said Arabs, and then proceeding to colonize more land than was even given in the UN proposal for Palestine (and now slowly spreading beyond that in the form of the West Bank settlements, enclosing the Palestinians into ever-smaller bantustans). Zionism is inherently aggressive just as all colonialism is inherently aggressive.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I don't actually disagree with anything in it, tbh. It doesn't change the fact the Israeli government is a bunch of morons and assholes and at this point bear most of the responsibility for the failure of peace talks.

You agree that the US has a responsibility to ensure that Israel maintains a "military edge?"

If that's necessary to prevent the neighboring countries from destroying it, then yes. Though I know that's not the case right now, Israel has historically been much less trigger-happy than its old enemies.

Why is it America's job to provide for Israel's defense?

Powerful nations should do their job to protect smaller nations from aggression, in general. The fact that Israel is probably the single State in the world that the most other countries would like to see crushed makes its defense particularly necessary.

Israel's very existence is a form of aggression.

How is that? (This should be good)

Israel was founded on the idea of turning a mostly Arab-populated area into a homeland for a diaspora by expelling said Arabs, and then proceeding to colonize more land than was even given in the UN proposal for Palestine (and now slowly spreading beyond that in the form of the West Bank settlements, enclosing the Palestinians into ever-smaller bantustans). Zionism is inherently aggressive just as all colonialism is inherently aggressive.

You realize you could apply this logic to almost every country in the world, right? I don't see you advocating for the dissolution of the US, returning it to the Natives, and having us all go back to Europe/Asia/Africa, etc.

I don't think all the Jews should be forced to leave Israel; their settlement is a fait accompli (not to mention that a limited Jewish population had lived in the Levant well before the formation of Israel). The only solution is a single Palestinian state which guarantees equal rights for all citizens of all backgrounds; it may sound silly now, but it's how a racially egalitarian South Africa sounded about thirty years ago.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I don't actually disagree with anything in it, tbh. It doesn't change the fact the Israeli government is a bunch of morons and assholes and at this point bear most of the responsibility for the failure of peace talks.

You agree that the US has a responsibility to ensure that Israel maintains a "military edge?"

If that's necessary to prevent the neighboring countries from destroying it, then yes. Though I know that's not the case right now, Israel has historically been much less trigger-happy than its old enemies.

Why is it America's job to provide for Israel's defense?

Powerful nations should do their job to protect smaller nations from aggression, in general. The fact that Israel is probably the single State in the world that the most other countries would like to see crushed makes its defense particularly necessary.

Israel's very existence is a form of aggression.

How is that? (This should be good)

Israel was founded on the idea of turning a mostly Arab-populated area into a homeland for a diaspora by expelling said Arabs, and then proceeding to colonize more land than was even given in the UN proposal for Palestine (and now slowly spreading beyond that in the form of the West Bank settlements, enclosing the Palestinians into ever-smaller bantustans). Zionism is inherently aggressive just as all colonialism is inherently aggressive.

You realize you could apply this logic to almost every country in the world, right? I don't see you advocating for the dissolution of the US, returning it to the Natives, and having us all go back to Europe/Asia/Africa, etc.

I don't think all the Jews should be forced to leave Israel; their settlement is a fait accompli (not to mention that a limited Jewish population had lived in the Levant well before the formation of Israel). The only solution is a single Palestinian state which guarantees equal rights for all citizens of all backgrounds; it may sound silly now, but it's how a racially egalitarian South Africa sounded about thirty years ago.

If you operate on the premise that the Jews won't have to leave, then a two state solution is the only answer. The bloodshed isn't going to end just because a single state of Palestine is established, but just like the bloodshed would not end if Israel fully annexed the territories but granted all the citizens full rights and citizenship. The views of Hamas are not nuanced, they want the Jews gone or dead. Although a two state solution wouldn't fully rectify this problem either due to the fact that they'd share a border, it easily is the least bad option.

No, because that codifies the existence of the Jewish settler state while relegating the Arab Palestine state to two cut-off pieces of land and leaving the Arab residents of Israel as de facto second-class citizens. Hamas would almost certainly be relegated to a minor party if not for the sheer brutality of Israel against Gaza and the West Bank. Look at the bargaining position of Israel versus that of Palestine--Tel Aviv is almost entirely responsible for the lack of peace just as the Afrikaner leaders were responsible for the South African conflict, or the British in Ireland.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The rewriting of history by the anti-Israel crowd is just shameless. 

The land Israel sits on is the Jewish homeland.  That area was conquered by Assyrians, Seleucid Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Mamluk Turks.  Jews didn't leave Israel by choice for the most part.  They were mostly sold in slavery in the Roman Empire and forced to flee at various points.  That's not to say that Israel belongs to Jews.  I don't think any land belongs to any one national group per se.  But, the land of Israel is not an ancestral Arab territory.  So, there's that.

Why was Israel created?  The places where Jewish people did live between the 1880s and 1940s were none to hospitable.  What instigated the two great migrations to Israel?  You have the horrible persecution in the Russian Empire by Alexander III and the holocaust. (Do the Israel haters have a problem with Jews escaping to Argentina or the United States?  Isn't that colonizing in your book?) Well, all that came to a head in the holocaust and you had a horrible refugee problem.  What were Jews supposed to do post-holocaust?  Stay in Poland?  Jews had been prevented from moving anywhere and when they stayed put, people killed millions of them and oppressed them.  So, if you give Jews an opportunity to have their own state, they're going to see it as a singular chance to find a place to live in peace and security.  Whose fault is that?  Not the Jews clearly, that's the fault of Russia and Germany.

Would it have been better if Jews were all allowed to immigrate to the US?  I think so.  But, that didn't happen.  What happened was that Jews took that singular chance and founded their own state.  Was that a majority Arab state?  No.  Israel in 1948 was majority Jewish in population.  Did Jewish people steal land?  Maybe some did, but most bought land from Arabs.  So, before Israel was invaded by the entire Middle East, Israel was being as fair as possible and not creating their state using mass violence.  Once Israel was invaded, Israel needed defensible borders and you had the logical insanity of war.  One side does something bad, the other retaliates and so on.  That's what wars are like, it's never nice or fair.  Every war like that has refugees.  But, Israel has no reason to apologize for winning for its survival.   

Once you get to that point, what's the solution?  Kill the Arabs with kindness?  Refuse to defend yourself because, who really deserves to have a state anyway?  Israel could have been better, sure.  But, just imagine if the roles were reversed.  Wouldn't the Palestinians just start an outright genocide?  That's the moral difference here.  God bless Elizabeth Warren for realizing that and defending the Jewish people.  That's the liberal, progressive thing to do.  Israel is a convenient target because they actually listen to critics and they're a "white" western, powerful country.  But, just as might doesn't make right, might doesn't make wrong. 

Your racism is showing.

"But why can't white people use the n-word?!?!"

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Snowstalker is actually completely correct in this thread, although that doesn't the change the fact that he's being an irritating troll in expressing those (correct) opinions.

The rewriting of history by the anti-Israel crowd is just shameless. 

[insane diatribe about THE JEWISH HOMELAND]

Okay, I'm convinced, obviously the foundation of Israel and its continuing slide into deranged genocidal expansionism is completely justified because the Assyrians kicked the Jews out of Israel a couple of millenia back.

By Bedstuy's logic, Israel would probably be jousting for control of Mesopotamia with the neo-Mongols and the neo-Ottomans.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

If the Iron Dome has blocked nearly all of Hamas's bottle rockets, why is their response necessary?

And no, Israel will not fully occupy Gaza. They need Hamas to exist as a propaganda tool.