The arrest of a senior military figure who allegedly leaked footage purporting to show Palestinian prisoners being abused has shocked Israel and ignited a major political row.
That seems to me to be about hostages, rather than the genocide.
One in five still think killing palestinians is more important than saving the lives of hostages, but that doesn’t mean all of the other four in five oppose having killed all those palestinians.
People are upset about netanyahu prolonging the war and killing hostages for the sake of his career, but that’s not the same thing as opposing genocide.
"As international commentators wring their hands over the war in Gaza, Israelis themselves are clear: the battle is not over, and it must be won.
A new poll released Wednesday night shows a striking 65% majority of Israelis support the capture of Gaza City and the central refugee camps—still largely under Hamas control—compared to 32% opposed. Just 3% said they had no opinion."
I don’t think someone can be this ignorant so I will just assume you’re a shill.
You don’t think about 47% to 64% of the population holding a position counts as widespread? Then I guess your 69% favoring getting hostages back over continuing the in the here and now aren’t widespread either.
It’s always strange how like a day after I block someone…
I get replies from accounts who haven’t been active in months, suddenly jump in and want to continue an argument for the account I stopped replying to.
Benefit of the doubt, why would you think I wanted to continue this after I stopped replying to people?
My last post was yesterday so I don’t know what you are talking about inactivity. It may be that you don’t see them due to language filters I guess.
I came across your comment which seemed to display either a severe misunderstanding or egregious bad faith. I wanted to call it out while making it clear why your comment was so wrong. Whether you want to continue the conversation is up to you. If you do, that’s great, if you don’t then my comment is there for others stumbling across it like I did.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt with your last trolly comment because we’ve had good exchanges in the past but i’ll bow out of this conversation now.
Is there a word for this? It’s not exactly a strawman cause that would involve creating a separate argument to win. But what is it called when you just ignore literally everything and declare victory? A bush? A bushman argument maybe?
That seems to me to be about hostages, rather than the genocide.
One in five still think killing palestinians is more important than saving the lives of hostages, but that doesn’t mean all of the other four in five oppose having killed all those palestinians.
People are upset about netanyahu prolonging the war and killing hostages for the sake of his career, but that’s not the same thing as opposing genocide.
Give me a minute to read all the sources and polling numbers you just provided…
https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/poll-strong-majority-of-israelis-back-idf-push-into-gaza-city/
"As international commentators wring their hands over the war in Gaza, Israelis themselves are clear: the battle is not over, and it must be won.
A new poll released Wednesday night shows a striking 65% majority of Israelis support the capture of Gaza City and the central refugee camps—still largely under Hamas control—compared to 32% opposed. Just 3% said they had no opinion."
I don’t think someone can be this ignorant so I will just assume you’re a shill.
I’m just pointing out that poll doesn’t support your argument. Prioritizing hostages is just not the same as opposing genocide.
From 5 months ago: 82% want to expell all palestinians in gaza and 47% want to kill every man woman and child
From june: 64% believe they are no innocents in gaza, which justifies killing even children.
So…
You admit you were wrong?
Glad to hear!
You don’t think about 47% to 64% of the population holding a position counts as widespread? Then I guess your 69% favoring getting hostages back over continuing the in the here and now aren’t widespread either.
It’s always strange how like a day after I block someone…
I get replies from accounts who haven’t been active in months, suddenly jump in and want to continue an argument for the account I stopped replying to.
Benefit of the doubt, why would you think I wanted to continue this after I stopped replying to people?
My last post was yesterday so I don’t know what you are talking about inactivity. It may be that you don’t see them due to language filters I guess.
I came across your comment which seemed to display either a severe misunderstanding or egregious bad faith. I wanted to call it out while making it clear why your comment was so wrong. Whether you want to continue the conversation is up to you. If you do, that’s great, if you don’t then my comment is there for others stumbling across it like I did.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt with your last trolly comment because we’ve had good exchanges in the past but i’ll bow out of this conversation now.
Is there a word for this? It’s not exactly a strawman cause that would involve creating a separate argument to win. But what is it called when you just ignore literally everything and declare victory? A bush? A bushman argument maybe?
It’s called being a fascist.
Sure matches their M.O., just look at Trump.