I think he’s saying they would have to make fogs gray

Hamas has around 90% approval in Gaza:

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514

I’m sorry, but that’s not what the article says. 90% of respondents think Abbas should resign, but that is separate from “approval”. FTA:

Despite the devastation, 57% of respondents in Gaza and 82% in the West Bank believe Hamas was correct in launching the October attack, the poll indicated. A large majority believed Hamas’ claims that it acted to defend a major Islamic shrine in Jerusalem against Jewish extremists and win the release of Palestinian prisoners. Only 10% said they believed Hamas has committed war crimes, with a large majority saying they did not see videos showing the militants committing atrocities.

/r/AnarchyChess

Lmao

I’m sorry, but I don’t think you’re asking this question in good faith because I already did link credible news sources. If you think the sources I’ve linked are not credible, provide credible sources of your own to prove that point.

If you can’t do that, that’s OK and that doesn’t prove either of us right or wrong about this! But if you can’t do that, you’re just some random person with bias on the internet, exactly like the sources that you yourself claim are non-credible.

The person I responded to specifically wanted independent news outlets, so the fact that none of these pages are “major news sources” is I think exactly what they are looking for. I’m not sure though, goalposts have a tendency to move when it comes to this kind of conversation

I looked for the Al Jazeera article you mentioned and found that the 19-year-old who was killed by Israeli settlers in the West Bank on October 6 was named Labib Dmaidi. Then I made a Google search for Labib Dmaidi, filtered to remove aljazeera.com. I hope this helps!

https://www.google.com/search?q=labib+dmaidi+-site%3Aaljazeera.com&client=firefox-b-1-m&sca_esv=d0136fcaccc01fe6&sxsrf=ACQVn08uLISkrQemvg2ra3jokEwWkAJeOA%3A1709478913422&ei=AZTkZYi6GZTfkPIPwJq22Ao&oq=labib+dmaidi+-site%3Aaljazeera.com&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIiBsYWJpYiBkbWFpZGkgLXNpdGU6YWxqYXplZXJhLmNvbUiLmQFQxhJYto8BcAd4AJABAZgBuQGgAesaqgEFMTEuMTm4AQPIAQD4AQGYAg6gAsgKwgIKEAAYgAQYChiwA8ICCxAAGIAEGKIEGLADwgIFECEYoAHCAggQABgWGB4YCpgDAIgGAZAGBJIHAzYuOKAHgiE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp

Look, man. You’re substantially editing your comments after I respond to them. You’re accusing me of conflating Hamas with all of Islam when all I said was that they are a religious group, while also accusing me of having poor reading comprehension. You’re saying that the government of a nation is not a national group. You’re claiming that Israel is defending itself while it is in the process of fighting a retaliatory war on non-Israeli soil.

If anyone is doing mental gymnastics in this conversation, it is not me. I recommend anyone reading this to add a tag to this account saying “edits comments”

You do realize that Hamas is an acronym, right? The English translation of what it stands for is “Islamic Resistance Movement”. If that is not a religious group, I don’t know what is.

You also realize that Hamas is the government of Gaza, right? If that is not a national group, I also do not know what is.

I have literally no idea what you’re talking about

From your link, emphasis mine:

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I don’t have to pretend, your “argument” is based on the definist fallacy

It’s only genocide if it comes from the Munich area of Germany, otherwise it’s just sparkling mass murder

I don’t think we can trust any information obtained by the Shin Bet. They’re infamous for torturing and killing Palestinians.

Kamal Adwan Hospital director Ahmad Kahlot of Jabalya in northern Gaza has confessed to the Shin Bet that Hamas took over his hospital as a military operations center, it was revealed on Tuesday.

Kahlot told his interrogators that he joined Hamas in 2010 at the equivalent rank of a brigadier general.

If you put someone in enough pain, they will say anything to make it stop. Notice how he is wearing a thick, heavy jacket that covers all exposed skin except his face.

That’s kinda funny, I also found that Oxford Reference page by checking wikipedia citations. It’s #5 in the same article

You used a learner’s dictionary definition of the word, which is a little bit different. Learner’s dictionaries are for people who are first learning their first language, and give simple definitions using simple language. Think of it like comparing Wikipedia to Simple Wikipedia

Why did you use the Oxford Leaner’s Dictionary to define Zionism, as opposed to the Oxford Reference? From the Oxford Reference, emphasis mine:

A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.

In the same vein, why didn’t you use wikipedia to define Zionism like you did for for kahanism? FTA on Wikipedia about Zionism, emphasis mine:

Zionism (/ˈzaɪəˌnɪzəm/; Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת Tsīyyonūt, [tsijoˈnut]; derived from Zion) is a nationalist movement that emerged in the 19th century to enable the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, a region roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition.

What both of these definitions point out that the one you linked did not mention is that original Zionism was about more than just the creation of a Jewish state–it was about the creation of a Jewish state in the Jewish holy land. That last bit is important-- there would be no Israeli-Palestinian conflict if Israel was located in Idaho.

It appears the main festive flotilla was perhaps a distraction. Organisers had decided early during the convoy that a smaller supply boat, the most crucial in the mission, should take a different route and not go with the main group to the vicinity of Second Thomas Shoal, which is a major flashpoint.

“Because everybody was looking at the main convoy and the mother ship, what they didn’t know was that ML Chowee [the supply boat] was already in safer, more shallow waters, and was able to sneak past all the tension,” said David.

SECRET SANTA SECRET SANTA

I think the difference between these two situations is the disruption of commerce.

Capitalists do not give a shit about protests until the protests start affecting their bottom line. That’s why blocking freeways is such a big deal–it speaks to them in a language that they understand. It’s effective not because John Q Taxpayer can’t get to work on time, but because Corporation Q Capital-owner can’t exploit John’s labor without his butt in his seat and without trucks full of resources coming in regularly. Corporations lose much, much more than regular people do when commerce is disrupted.

Grabbing the microphone like is disruptive, but it does not disrupt commerce. If anything, it shows that his goal is to deplatform someone (someone whose platform is the very reason he is there tonight, by his own admission) or to elevate his own platform.

Then that means they don’t lack empathy-- that just means that, by your estimation, they misallocate empathy.

The thing about allocation of empathy is that it is subjective. Some people will allocate more empathy to some groups of people than they will others, and that’s just part of the human condition. I care more about homeless people and transgender rights than I do men’s rights in divorce and tax breaks for the middle class–not because of a lack of empathy for the second groups, but because of an abundance of empathy for the first.

It’s the same way here–some people support Israel with all its benefits and flaws over Palestine with all its benefits and flaws, or the other way around, because they have more empathy for one group than the other.

Don’t get me wrong, there are definitely people on both sides who have no empathy for enemy civilians, and frustratingly both of those groups of people have somewhat reasonable arguments informing that lack of empathy. But saying that an entire group of people has no empathy is painting with far too broad of a brush and somewhat ironically shows a momentary lapse of empathy from the person saying it.