TimHauck

Hamas is not Palestine, and them being elected 17 years ago doesn’t mean much today. Also, I’m still laughing at your hypocrisy. @Strike: “From the river to the sea is something that shouldn’t be said.” also @Strike: Well it’s okay if Israel says it

My point is that “from the River to the Sea” means a war must take place (like what is occurring). It doesn’t mean everyone on the other side needs to die.

Please explain. I’m being my usual centrist self. The phrase “from the River to the Sea” means that a war must take place for either side to control “from the River to the Sea.” It doesn’t mean either side necessarily wants everyone from the other side to die.

To use the words of @jerryskids, for Israel to control “from the River to the Sea,” do you think a “violent uprising” would need to occur?

No dumbazz, learn to read. Eradicating Jews does mean all Jews have to die. But wanting “Palestine to be free from the river to the sea” can be done without eradicating Jews/all Jews needing to die.

We’ve been over this. “Palestine” doesn’t want to kill all the Jews. Hamas is not Palestine.

Wow, only took @Strike an hour to prove his hypocrisy. Maybe a new record? Please explain how saying “from the river to the sea” is different from saying “from the river to the sea.” This should be good.

@EternalShinyAndChrome said it. Multiple times. That’s how the argument started. But interesting that you’d rather congratulate me for “winning the semantics Olympics” than correct him on his incorrect statement.

Never said it would be non-violent. Just that not all Jews in the world or even just in Israel would need to die for them to win. I still find a pretty big distinction between the two, I know @jerryskids does not, not sure about you.

You said the initial meaning. Most sources I’ve seen trace it back to the 1960’s, before Hamas existed.

Lol no they’re not

Still would like to see the link for this jerry. TIA.

I said that from the beginning. You don’t think that there’s a significant difference between calling for a “violent uprising” and calling for “the eradication of Jews”? That’s a pretty significant distinction even if only talking about the ones in Israel. But the below quote certainly implies it means ALL Jews, even ones outside of Israel.

Yes like I’ve said multiple times, the phrase implies a war must take place. But it doesn’t mean all the Jews need to die.

You’re conflating the arguments. Yes, Hamas wants to kill all the Jewz. But the original argument was that most of the people that say “Palestine will be free from the River to the Sea” (especially college students) don’t want to kill all the Jewz. In response to @MDC, you claimed the initial meaning of “from the river to the sea” means “the extermination of Jews.” Got a link to that?

Link to the initial meaning being the extermination of Jews, including those that don’t live in Israel? Most of what I’ve read is pretty vague, and just says it “goes back to the 1960’s” without pointing to who is believed to have first said it and in what context. I’ve read a Syrian dude quoted about throwing Jews into the sea, but the quote doesn’t even include “from the river to the sea.”

I think she’d get less arguments about that than shooting a 14 month old puppy. But that statement kinda shows she wasn’t really sad to execute her puppy

Pretty despicable that she keeps correlating murdering a puppy to decisions she made during covid

Yes as I said, they supported “the attack.” And as I said before Hamas was even brought into the discussion, “from the River to the Sea” implies there will need to be a war for “Palestine to be free,” so it’s not surprising that they’d support an attack on Israel. So I’d agree that anyone saying “from the River to the Sea” is supporting a war against Israel. What I was disputing was that the majority of them want to kill all Jews, especially those that don’t live in Israel. Question 7 looks like it’s more about them having to pick among the available options, and yes as I said they’d rather Hamas than the other currently available options. But figure 25 can’t be much more clear: “which of the following political parties do you support” and only 34% answered Hamas. There were also more specific questions about who they thought should be the individual leader and the guy with the most support was not Hamas (although he’s currently in jail for murder), with around 30%+ saying they wouldn’t even participate in the elections. Doesn’t sound like much “support” to me. Also worth noting that in the March poll, 62% supported a two state solution. By definition that doesn’t mean killing all the Jews in Israel. That number is up significantly vs the prior polls, but it was always 1/3+ (and I assume there were more than 2 answers given but it doesn’t show for that one).

Wasn’t there a poster here that said no gender surgery until 26 or something?

This is literally the poll that all of the MSM articles are referring to, dumbazz. It’s called a primary source, I know you don’t believe in those and just trust what you read from the MSM. Already addressed #2

I literally said they supported the attack. But you said “a majority support Hamas and their actions re: Israel.” That is two different claims. The first one is wrong, it’s okay you can admit it.

@Cdub100 I’m still confused how you concluded that my reply meant I wanted a “fatherless child and the mother living on welfare”?

A majority support “their actions” on October 7, and they prefer them over some of the other options, but a “strong” or “overwhelming” majority do not support Hamas as a whole. Interestingly, only 2% of those saying “Hamas did not commit atrocities on 10/7” actually saw any videos of it. While it is higher than Fateh, the polling says that only 34% support Hamas. And if elections were held today, over 1/3 would not participate. In fact, 62% said they would want a new government that is “not under the control of political parties” (Hamas is a political party). It may be beneficial for you to read primary sources and not just repeat the talking points from your masters. Particularly @Strike (who has a history here of believing lies from the media) and @jonnyutah who have once again been proven wrong; at least @Mark Davis’s comment left some room for interpretation. https://pcpsr.org/en/node/973

If God isn’t mentioned in the Bible, how do you know he is against divorce?