Your argument boils down to "it's not genocide if they aren't really human ;)" rationalizing. It's quite easy to "other" any group, or be convinced to do so by years of media propaganda. See how some people here do it to the Jews.
That said, applying morality to group conflicts is silly and is what social justice warriors do. Nobody deserves to exist. It doesn't matter if they are a positive influence or not. Ultimately the only thing that matters is force. If Palestinians don't have the ability to defend their territory, they don't have territory, or a right to exist. Simple law of nature. Whether they should be allowed to live in their old homelands in Israel or not is a different question.
I can probably synthesize our positions together by restating your demand for proof as "does it benefit Israeli to stop killing the palestinians?" or "does it benefit the United States to help the palestinians?" Then I can agree with you that the answer is no. I don't know see how it benefits us to help Israel either. Military and economic reasons exist, but we can always swap one ally for another. Syria, Lebanon, or Jordan could all be excellent partners in the region.
It's not genocide if an aggressive enemy refuses to stay down. Israel would be right to wipe the Gazans off the map for the same reason the United States would have been right to wipe the Japanese off the map, had the nukes not knocked some sense into them.
Ironically, Palestine's existence was caused BECAUSE of a 'genocide' (don't fuck with Roman Emperor Hadrian) so it not existing anymore by another one is almost a dark irony.
They will continue to exist. You will know because the same Zionists who are one degree removed (if that) from "total nigger death" language about them now will immediately pivot to talking about the need for compassion and the benefits of diversity when the fighting dies down because they're going to dump them in white countries. Stop falling for counter-jihad like a retard.
I doubt a single person here can explain why Palestinians existing is in any way positive.
You can say that for almost any group.
Generally the problem with genocide is that you are targeting a group with potential...to better the human race which is why it is an atrocity.
If you're an absolute fucking sociopath, sure.
By all means though prove me wrong.
I don't have to; you could for the sake of argument be absolutely correct, but still be wrong on murdering innocent men, women, and children being the just thing to do. Even if they were 'low quality' men, women, and children.
Show me why a violent group of backwards nomads deserves to exist in an overcrowded world. Someone convince me that they have made any positive impact towards humanity as a people.
Convince me you have any positive impact towards humanity. Convince me anyone here has that positive impact. Most people in general do not. If we're going by your criteria, it's time to wipe out 90% of most peoples.
I don't believe we should require such proof to merit mere existence. That's an incredibly stupid prospect, and any enforcement of such an idea - no matter who carries it out - is going to be a fucking disaster.
But, hey, you do you.
EDIT: Ah, yes, the controversial "anti-genocide" take.
Your argument boils down to "it's not genocide if they aren't really human ;)" rationalizing. It's quite easy to "other" any group, or be convinced to do so by years of media propaganda. See how some people here do it to the Jews.
That said, applying morality to group conflicts is silly and is what social justice warriors do. Nobody deserves to exist. It doesn't matter if they are a positive influence or not. Ultimately the only thing that matters is force. If Palestinians don't have the ability to defend their territory, they don't have territory, or a right to exist. Simple law of nature. Whether they should be allowed to live in their old homelands in Israel or not is a different question.
I can probably synthesize our positions together by restating your demand for proof as "does it benefit Israeli to stop killing the palestinians?" or "does it benefit the United States to help the palestinians?" Then I can agree with you that the answer is no. I don't know see how it benefits us to help Israel either. Military and economic reasons exist, but we can always swap one ally for another. Syria, Lebanon, or Jordan could all be excellent partners in the region.
It's not genocide if an aggressive enemy refuses to stay down. Israel would be right to wipe the Gazans off the map for the same reason the United States would have been right to wipe the Japanese off the map, had the nukes not knocked some sense into them.
You’re jewish aren’t you
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Oy vey, I heard they decapitate babies
Ironically, Palestine's existence was caused BECAUSE of a 'genocide' (don't fuck with Roman Emperor Hadrian) so it not existing anymore by another one is almost a dark irony.
They will continue to exist. You will know because the same Zionists who are one degree removed (if that) from "total nigger death" language about them now will immediately pivot to talking about the need for compassion and the benefits of diversity when the fighting dies down because they're going to dump them in white countries. Stop falling for counter-jihad like a retard.
You can say that for almost any group.
If you're an absolute fucking sociopath, sure.
I don't have to; you could for the sake of argument be absolutely correct, but still be wrong on murdering innocent men, women, and children being the just thing to do. Even if they were 'low quality' men, women, and children.
Convince me you have any positive impact towards humanity. Convince me anyone here has that positive impact. Most people in general do not. If we're going by your criteria, it's time to wipe out 90% of most peoples.
I don't believe we should require such proof to merit mere existence. That's an incredibly stupid prospect, and any enforcement of such an idea - no matter who carries it out - is going to be a fucking disaster.
But, hey, you do you.
EDIT: Ah, yes, the controversial "anti-genocide" take.