How can we ever have a good faith argument if you believe anyone that says something supportive of Israel has been indoctrinated to do so "most of their lives"?
How can you have a good faith argument if you create strawman arguments instead of acknowledging the point the person was making?
Everyone in the US and Europe has been indoctrinated to support Israel for most of their lives. That’s those who support Israel and those who don’t.
If you went to literally any school, or watched any television, in the US or Europe any time in the last 7 decades, every lesson taught, every broadcast made, that could have involved Israel was pro-Israel and pro-Zionism.
Not a single program or teacher has been able to share the viewpoint that religious ethnostates should not exist, or that the native Palestinian people didn’t deserve to be genocided to make room for one. If you expressed such a view, you’d be prevented from teaching or broadcasting. For decades.
Are you suggesting that if you are from the US, you are unable to form an opinion of the facts that are presented from both sides?
I did have to go to school some time ago, but I also gained access to the internet during that time that allows anyone to research both sides of a topic. There are tons of books available that provide descriptions from both sides.
Why do I have to be on one side or the other? Is it because of my push back against a specific side, you assumed I aligned with the other?
Are you a troll? Why do you keep willfully misrepresenting or twisting what others are saying into something slightly different?
My point, that from the 1950s through the 2010s, no one in the US or Western Europe has been presented facts from both sides, and seeking out facts from the "wrong" side would result in social, financial, and possible criminal penalties, was incredibly clearly stated.
Because of the way you keep twisting others' words, it seems pretty safe to assume you would side with the fascist religious ethnostate that's been committing a genocide for decades with the financing and approval of the US and EU state, military, financial, media, and educational apparatuses.
People who oppose fascism don't communicate the way you have communicated in this thread.
Its interesting that you did not quote any of my reply while accusing me of "willfully misrepresenting or twisting what others are saying into something slightly different". The goal was for me to make sure I understood what you are communicating.
It seems we agree. The internet was much more available 15 years again in 2010 than it was prior. Since then, unlimited opportunity has opened to research each perspective, and even share those with people across the world.
At no point in this thread have a resorted to name calling, I hope your day is better.
Ah, diverting the argument whether killing innocents (hundreds of thousands and counting) is fine or not to an argument about what a word means... whatever helps you sleep at night.
Next you can argue that this number is wrong, and since you believe the number is lower, then... it's not a big deal.
Ironically, who introduced the phrase "good faith argument" in this yelling-at-each-other?
An acceptable number for me is 15027 civilian deaths.
A farcical answer for a farcical question (which is also deflecting from the actual issue).
You seem to want to have an argument about the borders of discussion, and are moaning that blah A, blah B, blah C, that some bored people on the Internet who are on "the other side" of the argument is doing is preventing you to have a discussion. You're having a "fight" but it's not even about the genocide ("Wait, what's a genocide!?! Define that!"), but about the terms of discussion.
If we can't agree on terms, how do we make sure we understand each other?
I want to understand what your expectations of Israel were after October 7th. I believe my questions have been very specific, but I realize you have no desire to have an actual discussion. Good day.
