03-31-2024, 03:19 PM
(03-31-2024, 02:49 PM)Dill Wrote: When examined in light of my actual statements, though, these do not turn out to be "solid, logical reasons," but unsupported accusations.
They are the very model of that reduction of issues to black and white with no grey area that you claim to be against, because they make one look
dogmatic, and just imputed to me.
E.g., you define "Hamas talking points," de facto, as commonly agreed on claims about international law and human rights violations,
which I do indeed "parrot on a frequent basis." Fine with me if you "replace Hamas with the KKK" on that score.
The upshot is that ANY legitimate acknowledgement of Israeli war crimes becomes eo ipso "supporting terrorism" and "mitigating Hamas."
And when I ask you to get specific--e.g., show me an "anti-semitic" statement which isn't simply a criticism of human rights violations recognized by many respected Israeli historians and legitimate international bodies, I don't get "solid reasons"; I get crickets.
I recently reminded you that I have said Hamas must be destroyed in order for a two-state solution to become possible, and asked you if that
constituted support for Hamas. First you answered a different question about two-date viability; then when I re-asked, silence. Still silence. Dodgery.
In engaging with you on the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I've added to forum discussions rather a lot of information about the conflict which is mostly absent from the U.S. press and certainly from IDF statements. Especially about the illegal occupation. That's what triggers the "Dill=Hamas supporter" claims. That's what you reduce to "blaming the West and Israel." It's just an attempt to stop any backstory which DOESN'T reduce the conflict to black and white. Howz that make ME "dogmatic"?
You literally stated Israel should not exist in any form it has taken since it's post WW2 reformation. Doesn't get much worse than that.
