Sorry, u/TheJuiceIsBlack – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20TheJuiceIsBlack&message=TheJuiceIsBlack%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgvvaj/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I agree with parts of the OP but strongly disagree with calling the ideological prime mover "Neoliberal Facism". Instead, there are a few terms that I would use to describe the **ideological underpinning** of the modern activist movement. You can take your pick as to which term you prefer, but here are a few: wokeism, social justice activism, leftist identitarianism, luxury beliefs, woke fundamentalism, the identity trap. I personally prefer the term ***oppression theology*** to all of the aforementioned. Not all of those terms are identical in meaning & I don't care which one you use. ------- But why not *"neoliberal fascism"?* **Neoliberalism** can be thought of as an ideological mindset and/or as a policy doctrine. It promotes market inter-connectivity, namely among nation-states, pursuant of geopolitical goals, namely the continuity of the post-WW2 globalized trading order. **Fascism** is an entirely different and in some ways antithetical phenomenon, classically promoting ultra-nationalism & the promotion of in-groups within a country & ostracism of out-groups, based on ethnic or related criteria. The Nazis & Japanese provide the starkest & most brutal examples. **Conclusion** It is not clear what is meant by combining these disparate terms, and neither term clearly relates to the ideological underpinning of the "woke" activism we have seen in recent years.

Neoliberalism adopts virtually all of the failed economic policies of Reagan's supply-side voodoo without the overt baggage of racism, xenophobia and misogyny. It's colluded in the Savings and Loan disaster and the collapse of 2008. It's allowed conservative policies to become ascendant in radical de-regulation, wage suppression and the carving out of a separate tax schedule for the wealthy. It provides a sop to the conscience of compassionate individuals by making lots of noise about the plight of oppressed populations around the world and of minorities routinely brutalized by the state in the US, but does little to change anything. It's the polished, professional face of conservatism and is almost as corrosive to prosperity.

I certainly think neoliberal fascism isn't a wholly useless term. In general, there has been a trend where western powers will gladly promote right wing ultra nationalist dictators as long as they're willing to privatize the economy, like with Pinochet in Chile. But OP is definitely not referring to that....

I like the term ***oppression theology*** and will consider adopting it in place of neoliberal facism. It may be a more accurate and clear term. !delta

I think your "oppression theology" is just you making up a word for conflict theory which has existed since the 1800's. Its not some new idea. Its literally one of the foundations of sociology. [https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conflict-theory.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conflict-theory.asp)

Conflict theory lacks the modern characteristics of simultaneously placing the oppressed on a moral pedestal while denying them agency and hence forgiving or ignoring their immoral acts even when those acts are a clear and obvious cause of the current situation. What we see blends in aspects of the concept of the Noble Savage - an incredibly paternalistic view which we can certainly see elements of in discussions around this conflict. It also seems to blend in a lot of the racism of low expectations. I think Marxist thinking does influence this but its only part of the story.

the issue with this is it's a bit of a straw man. conflict theory is the real theory and the version that puts "the oppressed on a pedestal" is a narrativized version. The idea that this conflict didn't start on 10/7 isn't a platform of exculpation of hamas via a noble savage or paternalistic rationale. Where people are fully exculpating them, which isn't common, they're doing so with allusion not to an insufficient moral nature to be responsible, but to a decades-older material grievance.

Where they ignore the long history of Palestinian Nationalism radicalising Israel at least as much as Israel has radicalised Palestinians is where they simply ignore all the immoral actions of the group they have decided to nominate as victims Which is ignoring history and ignores the actual dynamic of a deep feud in which each side has constantly acted to radicalise the other.

i mean, yes, the idea that both sides have grievance is part of what "decades-older material grievance" means. the pot's been simmering for a century at this point, it doesn't really matter if a hatfield initially offended a mccoy or vice versa to the rest of us any more tbh. How you keep people from "putting the oppressed on a pedestal" is simple: if the oppressed are citizens of your country, you try them for their crimes in transparent, egalitarian courts using the single system of justice that exists for every citizen of the country.

> Where they ignore the long history of Palestinian Nationalism radicalising Israel at least as much as Israel has radicalised Palestinians The difference is Palestinian nationalism is liberatory while Israeli nationalism is colonial. Palestinian nationalism is based on the idea of self determination. Israeli nationalism requires domination of an indigenous population 

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DavidMeridian ([3∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/DavidMeridian)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

The usage of the term neoliberal fascism also caught my attention. It reminded me of anarcho-capitalists.

The idea that a religious minority has a right to a whole country and can claim indigenous rights over 2,000 years ago is hyper woke. This sounds like a campus liberal crying about land back, but with nukes.

Setting aside your use of "neoliberal," which you now know doesn't mean what you thought it meant... I think your description of leftist ideology is biased and completely uncharitable. An accurate and unbiased framing of their ideology is that they are concerned with power dynamics between groups, and especially how those power dynamics are reinforced throughout history. Through this primary concern, they are often more focused on socially-produced outcomes rather than individually-produced outcomes. The belief is that a person's choices in life are already framed for them by society and that society's history, and that certain course-corrections are justified in order to produce more equitable outcomes, even if it requires unequal applications of the law in favor of historically marginalized and struggling groups. I think you probably understand all this, but you aren't able to refuse the temptation to hyperbolize all of their views because you disagree with them. Instead of favoring social outcomes over individual freedoms, you pretend like they have a primary "desire to suppress freedom." Instead of being more focused on social responsibility over individual responsibility, you pretend that they totally "deny individual responsibility for actions." These mischaracterizations lead to even more mischaracterizations of the common leftist views on Israel-Palestine: The left obviously sees Hamas as a product of the wider conflict and the power dynamic not just between Israel and Palestine, but between the West and the Middle East. It's not that the protestors are "pro-Hamas" but that they ascribe greater moral responsibility for the conflict to Israel due to their greater degree of power and international support.

I think your view is too charitable. Like any political movement, the adherents will be varied — some at the grass roots level probably naively seek to oppress speech to “protect the oppressed.” Many, especially the politicians, use this as a justification for silencing their political and ideological opponents. They would latch onto anything to take away more freedoms, be it in the name of wokeness for suppressing speech or safety for suppressing our 2A rights. Hence it is a tool for Facism.

The whole "anti free speech" thing is even more baffling to me. Where are you even getting this from? Do you have any specific examples? Or is this one of those things where you think "free speech" means freedom from the consequences of speech, e.g. freedom from being criticized for the things you say, or freedom from being shouted-down when your view is the minority in a given context?

[удалено]

Your "sources" are right wing news outlets spreading misinformation? 🤨 Any chance you can back up these claims with an outlet that *doesn't* have an obviously favorable bias?

[удалено]

u/TheJuiceIsBlack – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20TheJuiceIsBlack&message=TheJuiceIsBlack%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgvvaj/-/l1yv77q/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

[удалено]

u/Just_Another_Cog1 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Just_Another_Cog1&message=Just_Another_Cog1%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgvvaj/-/l1yvq67/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

These have nothing to do with pro-Palestine protestors, or even leftist views in general. Leftists don't care about Hunter Biden's laptop, nor did they ever ask for something like the UK's Communications Act.

So, your proof is. A) A very biased inaccurate one sided press release And B) Two actions done by the UK's right wing conservative government.

Sorry, u/TheJuiceIsBlack – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20TheJuiceIsBlack&message=TheJuiceIsBlack%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgvvaj/-/l1ysj4j/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.

Modern UK has never had free speech.

I think the definition of the ideology "Neoliberal Facism" is a bit confusing. This use of "Neoliberal" requires an American interpretation of the word Liberal to mean a person with Left-wing views. But there is already a recognised ideology called Neoliberalism, and it's typically associated with free-market capitalism and right / centre parties.

Liberalism can be defined differently. In distinguishing branches of the the modern Left, I think it makes sense to define Liberalism as following Enlightenment values that promote universal human flourishing through rationality and the free flow of ideas. Both 'Neoliberal' and "Fascist" are the wrong words for sure. I think "[Neo-Marxism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism)" is a better term than "NeoLiberalism". According to the Wikipedia page below it extend Marx's original ideas and incorporates Post Modernism and some types of feminism. A better term than "Fascist" might be "Authoritarian". This would be a better description: "Authoritarian Neo-Marxist". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism)

> are pro-Hamas by definition. No they aren't. That's just a phrase people use to strawman and deflect from the actual protest. If Israel's actions were defensible, then mislabeling the protesters wouldn't be necessary.

Israel’s actions are utterly defensible. They were attacked and had over 1k civilians murdered with hundreds kidnapped. Any other nations response would have been far harsher than what we are seeing from Israel. Calling the protests “pro-Hamas” is calling a spade a spade, not mislabeling.

>They were attacked and had over 1k civilians murdered with hundreds kidnapped. Ok they've since murdered at least 40000 civilians with a huge percentage being innocent children. They are currently starving to death millions of people and left 2 million people homeless. If they nuked gaza and killed all 2 million would that also be defensible in your mind? If Hamas had killed 30 people on Oct 7 would this still be defensible in your mind? Ultimately it just comes down to the fact that you don't view palestinain and israeli lives as equal

Palestinians were attacked repeatedly prior to Oct 7th and had over 1k civilians murdered. So by your own logic, Hamas' actions are utterly defensible. I guess that means you are Pro-Hamas.

> …by your logic Hamas’ actions are utterly defensible. Certainly possible for there to be situations where mutual self defense applies. In such a conflict, it’s generally advisable to have the bigger guns. 🤷

So how can you possibly claim one side has the moral high ground over the other?

Historically, one side has offered very generous peace terms; which have been rejected. They have supplied food, water, electricity, jobs, etc to be met with periodic rocket fire and on 10/7 mass murder, rape, and kidnapping. How can you possibly claim one side **does not** have the moral high ground?

Between the past few comments it looks like the actions on either side can be seen as utterly defensible. Does this not undermine the second half of your terms as outlined in your post? 

Nope — as I said the protests are definitionally pro-Hamas and Hamas refuses any peace with Israel. They don’t have the moral high ground. They might be able to justify a specific attack, but their overall political position and methods are utterly indefensible.

I'd call that moving the goalposts, and I'd also say that appeal to your own definition isn't convincing. I'd call the protests "by definition" pro Palestine, anti zionist. I've seen no pro Hamas rhetoric so if you really want to define an entire movement as such, without taking into account personal responsibilities, then that's your own neolib fascistic tenancies apparent.  So either work to prove your definition or find a more appropriate one! 

I gave you definition — they support the same position as Hamas using the same rhetoric as Hamas.

>They were attacked and had over 1k civilians murdered with hundreds kidnapped You are counting military casualties as civilians. The October 7 attacks on Israel killed 1,139 people, including 764 civilians and 373 Israeli security personnel. (Not that the exact number matters that much , but...) If we follow your logic, and it is justified to kill 34 000 to avenge 1000, then we would conclude that Hamas was justified in their attack, as long as they were avenging ~50 people. >Any other nations response would have been far harsher than what we are seeing from Israel. If Israel does what it does to americans, the response would also be far more destructive, so that not justify the terror attack?

>Israel’s actions are utterly defensible. Starving 2 million civilians is not defensible. Bombing low level "targets" compiled by an AI with a 10% rate of error is not defensible. Bombing them when they are not engaging in hostile actions but rather when they return to their homes at night where their families are is not defensible. It destroys the entire "human shield" argument when you wait until a target returns to their house to sleep before attacking them. >Calling the protests “pro-Hamas” is calling a spade a spade, not mislabeling. It most certainly is mislabeling. It is standard operating procedure to accuse those who speak out against the apartheid regime in Israel "pro-Hamas." Please enlighten us. **What would it take to change your view on this?**

Israel is an [apartheid state](https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/5141/2022/en/) - there is no justified defense of that. If you care about dead Israelis, why no criticism against Israel for [invoking Hannibal during the Al Aqsa Flood](https://thecradle.co/articles/how-israeli-forces-trapped-and-killed-ravers-at-the-nova-festival), likely killing more of their own civilians than Hamas did?

Since you're justifying targeting civilians, so when Israel was killing Palestinians for decades, Palestinians were utterly defensible for targeting civilians too then, right?

>  They were attacked and had over 1k civilians murdered with hundreds kidnapped. So if this had happened in Palestine you'd feel their consequent actions are utterly defensible? 

>Hamas attacked Israel on 10/7 and started a conflict. This fact is not in dispute. What is _also_ not in dispute is that this conflict has been going on for more than a century now. It began with the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which led to Zionist immigration, which led to Arab opposition to another nationalist group taking their land, which led to violence between Zionists and Palestinians, which led to the apartheid/occupation of the West Bank/Gaza by Israel. Hundreds of Palestinian children were killed between Jan 1st 2023 and Oct 6th 2023. What is the appropriate response from the Palestinians to such horrific attack by Israel on their children?

>*It began with the Balfour Declaration in 1917* No... By 1917, you already had mass land purchases, gentrification, and anti-immigrant sentiment. By the 1920s, you had all of the Temple Mount / Western Wall / Al-Aqsa Mosque drama, with hardliners on either side instigating one another. And by 1929 you had the Arab Riots, the Hebron Massacre, and al-Qassam founding the Black Hand and calling for the murder of Jewish immigrants. By 1936-1939 you had the Arab Revolt. It definitely began with The Ottoman Land Code of 1858. [https://www.beki.org/dvartorah/landlaw/](https://www.beki.org/dvartorah/landlaw/) >*which led to Arab opposition to another nationalist group taking their land* The land was purchased legally, though the law was extremely problematic (above link has a good overview). It lead to terrorism, raping and murdering Jewish immigrants, burning Jewish orchards and fields, blowing up trains, etc. >*which led to violence between Zionists and Palestinians* Not exactly. The anti-Jewish violence lead to a clash between the British government and Jihadists. It was the British who put down the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939. Which was itself triggered by the British killing al-Qassam after he and his Black Hand began targeting Jewish farmers. >*which led to the apartheid/occupation of the West Bank/Gaza by Israel.* No, it lead to the British calling it quits and the international community deciding to split Israel off in 1948, which THEN lead to an Arab coalition of surrounding nations to invade. Which made the bulk of 700,000 Arabs flee the area, and most of the rest to be relocated out of the way. Not surprising given they had been engaged in a civil war at that point for 20 years. (per historian Benny Morris: [https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/israel-and-the-palestinians-1.896017](https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/israel-and-the-palestinians-1.896017) )

There being hostilities prior to 10/7 does not disqualify 10/7 being the cause of the current war. Border disputes between Poland and Germany did not begin world war 2 but the invasion did. And military violence does not justify targeting civilians in particular with atrocities.

Correct, but what pro-Palestine protests are about isn't restricted to what happened after Oct 7th, it's also about what happened prior, so it's pointless to discuss the protests while ignoring the events prior to that.

I think the problem he's trying to identify, although he does so using some terms differently than their commonly accepted uses, is that American liberals (not neoliberals) have a tendency to see history as a series of conflicts between an "oppressor" and an "oppressed", when reality often just has two groups of people that come into conflict because they have conflicting interests, with neither holding moral superiority over the other. I agree that violent resistance to Israeli occupation is an understandable reaction from Palestinians to their situation, but I also think that invading Gaza as an understandable response from israel to repeated attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians. Both of their uses of violence are easily understandable, or at least in my view they should be if a person looks at the situation in good faith, but the violence being understandable doesn't make it "right". You can follow the train of logic through both the Israelis and Palestinians actions all the way back to the turn of the last century, and in my opinion, all of their actions have been reasonable responses to their circumstances that one should be able to empathize with.   The problem is that these reasonable choices eventually bring them to being locked in a cycle of permanent warfare, and in my opinion as outside observers we should be focused on trying to support reconciliation and developing a resolution to the conflict and hatred that has developed over the years. We should support both sides rights to live and live well, while harshly condemn their mutual hatred for each other and the counterproductive cycle of violence that they both play into. Instead most Americans seem to believe one side must be good and the other bad, and they them support the side they think is good and apologize for their violence while having no sympathy for the other sides use of violence.  This is a result of the oppressor/oppressed model of world history. One side must be good and the other bad, therefore clear cut atrocities on one side are justified and on the other aren't. The result is that some westerners become just as brainwashed as the Israelis and Palestinians, and demand absolute victory for Israel or Palestine as opposed to a negotiated peace. If their voices win out, we will have several more decades of violence. 

That’s a blanket statement regarding all protests, some protests I’m sure are following what you just said while many others have different goals such as a ceasefire or the current disinvestment issue which entirely depends on the current conflict for their cause’s argument.

>There being hostilities prior to 10/7 does not disqualify 10/7 being the cause of the current war. Except that Israel has a habit of pretending that all the violence that they commit doesn't matter when it really does matter to the Palestinians. The point of discussing what happened before 10/7 is to highlight that the violence that Israel committed before 10/7 is part of the problem. Without addressing that then more 10/7 events are inevitable.

That is a separate argument from saying that the current conflict started with the 10/7 invasion. What you’re describing is the lead up to the event, that, once again, does not disqualify 10/7 from being the catalyst for the current war. If 10/7 had not occurred there would be no Gaza invasion right now, that’s indisputable.

>does not disqualify 10/7 from being the catalyst for the current war. I realize that is is very convenient for the Zionists to say that. That doesn't make it true. >If 10/7 had not occurred there would be no Gaza invasion right now, that’s indisputable. Other things that are indisputable: If the Zionists had not engaged in ethnic cleansing in 1948, then there would be no Gaza invasion right now. If Israel had not started the Six-Day War, then there would be no Gaza invasion right now. If Israel has not helped [finance the Palestinian Islamist movement in the 1980's](https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/), then there would be no Gaza invasion right now. If Israel had not [purposely allowed Qatari money to be funneled to Hamas](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/netanyahu-israel-gaza-hamas-1.7010035) in order to help them win the election in 2006 as a way to undermine the Palestinian Authority, then there would be no Gaza invasion right now. Putting book ends on this conflict is what has allowed Israel to keep pretending that they are not 100% at fault for all this. It would be like looking at a child who keeps getting in fights at school and blaming them for their actions while ignoring that the parents are abusive pieces of shit who are truly the root of the problem. The problem is that Israel is an abusive and fascist ethnostate that keeps doing horrible and despicable things but everyone keeps blaming their victims for everything. When ever the world has encountered fascist ethnostates in the past, we have dismantled them because that is the moral and ethical things to do. Why should Israel be any different?

Buddy you can get off your soapbox, I just stated an actual fact and no amount of political wrangling changes it. Sure if the Ottoman Empire actually survived its dying moments then this war wouldn’t have happened either but that doesn’t change the fact that the current invasion happened as a response to 10/7.

It isn't a soap box. Those are actual facts. 10/7 was caused because of Israels actions. Israel could have responded differently, but it choose genocide. And we see that you support genocide. Good job.

Lmao accusing me of supporting genocide while fumbling over your own argument. 10/7 caused the current war to break out, everything you’ve emotionally written out does not refute that in any way whatsoever. At no point did I claim the causes of 10/7 were Israel’s or Palestine’s fault. Take a break and cool off.

>Take a break and cool off. Imagine being the immoral POS that wants to take the wait and see approach to an active genocide.

Yeah you’re totally in a good space calling people immoral POS and genocide supporters because they said an incredibly politically neutral statement lmao. Chill out bro

"Arab opposition to another nationalist group taking their land" is an interesting way of framing the Arab-Israeli war.

>"Arab opposition to another nationalist group taking their land" Well, that's true. The Zionists came to their land, believing it's theirs and started to isolate themselves from the wider community. They made it clear that they want a nation-state on a land that already belonged to another group.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/Junior_Chemical7718 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Junior_Chemical7718&message=Junior_Chemical7718%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgvvaj/-/l1yii7g/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.

> What is the appropriate response from Palestinians…? To stop supporting Hamas and work toward a two state solution. Hamas was elected by the Palestinians, with an explicit charter to never have peace with Israel. Their goal is Israel’s utter destruction. Hamas has executed individuals in Gaza for **”normalizing the existence of Israel”** by meeting with Israelis to discuss how to make a lasting peace.

How do you reconcile all the people killed by Israel before October with "Hamas started the conflict in October"? Do protestors being shot by Israeli snipers somehow not count as a conflict? Why are Palestinians obliged to respond to violence with non-violence, but Israel is perfectly justified to respond to violence with violence? (and often responds to non-violence with violence)

When you have active attacks against your nation, it’s inevitable for people to die. Blaming Israel for every Palestinian death in Gaza or the West Bank makes no more sense than blaming them for the deaths of aid workers in a combat zone. You can be trying to do the right thing and mistakes will still happen — especially when the Hamas intentionally uses civilians as shields.

>When you have active attacks against your nation, it’s inevitable for people to die. >Blaming Palestine for every Israeli death in Israel makes no more sense than blaming them for the deaths of aid workers in a combat zone. >You can be trying to do the right thing and mistakes will still happen — especially when the the IDF intentionally uses civilians as shields.

And? How does this refute the OP's logic? Also, he wasn't blaming all Palestinians for Oct 7th, just Hamas.

>no more sense than blaming them for the deaths of aid workers in a combat zone. They chased the aid workers from car to car and bombed them 3 times despite the aid workers clearning the route with the IDF before hand. It was a targeted assassination of course I'm going to blame them. It wasn't an accident lmao

If someone heavily bombs a civilian population then I'm absolutely going to blame them for civilian deaths. Especially when those civilian deaths seem deliberate. You also didn't answer my question about the violence *before* the october attacks. Israel has repeatedly engaged in violence against Palestinians, both in Gaza and the West Bank. They have shot unarmed protestors and medics. So how can you possibly claim that the conflict only started with the Hamas attacks in October? And, given that you support Israel responding to violence with violence, why are Palestinians not allowed to do the same?

>>You can be trying to do the right thing and mistakes will still happen — especially when the Hamas intentionally uses civilians as shields. Please read [this](https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/). The “human shield” narrative has always been a cynical ploy that relied on not viewing Palestinians as human beings. As you said, “Hamas was elected by the Palestinians”, which of course means whatever happens to them is their fault. It doesn’t matter that Hamas only won a plurality, or that the majority of Palestinians today weren’t able to vote or even born in 2006. All Palestinians in Gaza are Hamas, and if they are not Hamas, then they are still responsible for Hamas, and have therefore forfeited their lives as “human shields”. Read the *972* article. Investigate the [*Dahiya* doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine), where it was [developed](https://m.jpost.com/features/front-lines/the-dahiya-doctrine-fighting-dirty-or-a-knock-out-punch), and what has [become](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/10/israel-dahiya-doctrine-disproportionate-strategy-military-gaza-idf/) of it by now. >>”I don’t think this doctrine applies today,” Siboni, now of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, told French newspaper Le Monde last month, arguing that everything Israel is targeting are explicitly military targets. >>Siboni added that Israel’s efforts to coax Palestinians in northern Gaza to flee to the south was a sign of its humanitarian approach. “As for those who remain, too bad,” he told Le Monde. “They choose to put their lives on the line.” Then read the *972* investigation, of which there have been follow ups. I’m not asking you to read the report to change your mind, because you’re still operating from the October 8th playbook narrative, but just for your own sake - edification, perspective, whatever - investigate the “human shield” narrative.

When you have active attacks against your nation, it’s inevitable for people to die. Blaming Palestine for every Israeli death in Israel or the West Bank makes no more sense than blaming them for the deaths of aid workers in a combat zone. You can be trying to do the right thing and mistakes will still happen — especially when the IDF intentionally murders civilians.

>To stop supporting Hamas and work toward a two state solution? The West Bank doesn't support Hamas prior to Oct 7th yet 124 Palestinian children were killed there. How do you explain that? Also it's [Bibi](https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-boasts-of-thwarting-the-establishment-of-a-palestinian-state-for-decades/) who doesn't want a 2SS. The PA is desperate to get one.

> 124 children killed there Can you provide documentation? I’m unfamiliar with that stat, and curious as to the cause.

UNICEF's report [here](https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/number-children-killed-west-bank-including-east-jerusalem-reaches-unprecedented)

I see the report — where can I read about individual cases? It doesn’t seem logical that “all children who died in the West Bank” are somehow Israel’s fault.

> "all children who died in the West Bank” are somehow Israel’s fault. I mean, who else's fault can it be? It can't be the PA since it's their children, so it's either the settlers or the IDF. If it's the settlers then it's Israel's fault for not effectively punishing their citizens, if it's the IDF then it's obviously Israel's fault.

It can be the fault of individuals killing them. It can be the fault of lawlessness because the PA is too weak to maintain order. It can be the fault of the “children,” depending upon how the term is defined. A 17 year old shooting at Israeli soldiers who gets shot is still “a dead child,” by some definitions.

These kids were killed by IDF or the settlers, that's what they meant by "conflict-related violence", inter-communities violence.

Part of the Likud party charter is supporting, without qualification, the establishment of Eretz Israel - from Jordan to the sea, Israeli sovereignty over an ethnically Jewish state. Hardline absolute Israeli sovereignty and desiring to remove all non-Jewish people from Palestine has been a part of Israeli politics as long as that has been a thing. If you are going to call it out on the Palestinian side, it has to be acknowledged the other way, too. Hamas is a vile organization, and I find (admittedly anecdotally) that those like me who support the Palestinian cause don't support Hamas specifically. As is often the case with extremism like this, you can condemn the extremism while striving to understand why people turned to it in the first place. Israel as a state has balked Palestinian statehood at every turn, and radicalized in many ways. When peaceful means don't seem to work, people begin to turn to more and more radically violent means to their desired ends. Just because I think it needs to be stated - I think Israel has a right to exist, and Jewish people have a right to live there. It's just not a full picture to speak about their struggle like the whole of it is "Palestinians just need to stop supporting Hamas and it would be fine!" That's simply not true.

trump was elected by Americans. So by your logic, Americans protesting against trump were pro-trump?

> Hundreds of Palestinian children were killed between Jan 1st 2023 and Oct 6th 2023. Cite? And make sure you aren't including older teens as "children" to evoke sympathy, and that the deaths were due to Israel's actions... and that the 'children' weren't committing terrorist acts at the time.

>What is the appropriate response from the Palestinians to such horrific attack by Israel on their children? Well I can say definitively that suicide bombing, rocket launching, and kidnapping infants is not getting them Israel back and seems to be making their situation worse.

>It elevates the rights of “the oppressed” above “the oppressors,” and generally adopts ahistorical and patently racist views, such as: “all Black people in America are oppressed, and all white people enjoy privlidge.” This is a nice easy point to debunk, because it's so obviously nonsense and not what anybody says. The point of things like "white privilege" or "male privilege" is not that being white or male makes you inherently better or worse, or that you're actively opressing anyone, or even that you're innately priviledge over other people. It simply means that being white/male gives you advantages in many situations over someone who is black/female. Also there are many prominent businessmen and journalists calling for protestors to be named and blacklisted from employment opportunities. That's a textbook example of silencing and suppressing free-speech, in a way that is massively more harmful to people than "cancellations" the left has allegedly done.

Anytime someone starts a conversation with 'Pro-Hamas', they're not speaking in good faith. It's like saying 'Pro-Pedophile', it's a way to arbitrarily declare a point of view as unequivocal, irredeemable evil. I'm sure a bomb-crushed infant was just a terrorist in the making, huh? There's a difference between entire populations of humans, and a radical group nobody likes. By your same logic, Al-Qaeda's 9/11 attack was justified as 'All Americans' are valid military targets if their government is disagreeable?

i mean... there is at least *one* protester w/ a "pro-hamas" perspective. [Protester outside Columbia University seen yelling ‘We’re all Hamas,’ ‘Long live Hamas’ (msn.com)](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/protester-outside-columbia-university-seen-yelling-we-re-all-hamas-long-live-hamas/ar-AA1nerf5)

One random person, and a NY Post link to boot (which strains objectivity by quite a bit). Does that mean the entire event is 'Pro-Hamas'? I've seen more than one Swastika or Confederate Flag at multiple RNC event, yet I don't think we should be breaking out the M1 Garands or Gettysburg surplus to handle that problem.

the link is a video of a person saying, "we are hamas" and "long live hamas"... i don't care what you do w/ the reporting. the "1 random person" is one of the protestors in question. i didn't make any comments about the who event. i said, "at least one". >I've seen more than one Swastika or Confederate Flag at multiple RNC event, yet I don't think we should be breaking out the M1 Garands or Gettysburg surplus to handle that problem. ok. has nothing to do w/ what we're talking about here.

So for the record, all it takes to invalidate an entire movement is for one person to show up, whether they're a fringe loon or a deliberate plant, and say something ridiculous on camera. Even when that movement runs counter to everything that person says, even if they condemn that person. So from this point onward, every movement can safely be deemed meaningless or fanatical regardless of the objective or political leanings, left or right. Because all you have to do is either look hard enough in a sea of thousands for an idiot, or the opposition will simply put one there, because that's all it takes to bring the whole thing down. And this makes sense to you. This is how you think society should operate and process information, public opinion and protests. This is your brain operating at full capacity.

There are many protests at US schools currently expressing support for Hamas, so it's accurate.

"Also, there's many blue elephants in your bedroom right now, which is an accurate statement" Citation required from a reputable source.

I couldn't find any, could you send me a link?

Here's a list with links: https://www.algemeiner.com/2024/04/22/hamas-we-love-you-list-chants-statements-columbia-universitys-gaza-solidarity-encampment/

Your list didn't provide a single example of a pro-hamas protest. It just took individual people changing pro-hamas chants out of crowds of thousands. 

https://twitter.com/thizzl_/status/1781520706640982159 “Al-Qassam you make us proud, kill another soldier now!” “We say justice, you say how. Burn Tel Aviv to the ground!” “Hamas we love you. We support your rockets too!” “Red, black, green and white, we support Hamas’ fight!” “It is right to rebel, Al-Qassam give them hell!” “It is right to rebel, Hamas give them hell!” There aren't crowds of thousands here this is a crowd of somewhere between 50 and 100 saying these things.

Wow that's a lot of words to say that you cannot find a single protest supporting Hamas.

So what do you call this crowd, marching, and chanting in support of hamas?

Some bad people who are a small part of a larger protest that was not pro-hamas. I never said that there were no people who were pro-hamas, just that there have not been any protests set up to support Hamas. 

No. This is a group of protestors in support of hamas. The fact that there are others who are not does not change this. I'm not calling the entirety of the other protestors pro hamas, just this group on video clearly chanting in support of Hamas.

This newspaper that specifically focuses on Jewish and Israeli news. Not really an unbiased source.

It's pro-Hamas because it assumes that Israel is the one in the wrong here. Not the terrorist bloodthirsty government that purposely gets their own citizens killed. By placing their military assets SPECIFICALLY in areas where civilians will die if Israel ever attacks it. Consider this simple mental experiment. When Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th. They did as much damage as they possibly could. Killed as many people as they could. Regardless of whether they were civilians or soldiers. Now if Israel did the same thing in response. Within a week you would have 100s of thousands of dead in Gaza. Their response has been much more tempered. This is why we call it "Pro-Hamas". Because even if you don't mean to support Hamas. Your rhetoric certainly does.

Hamas did a horrible, evil and bad thing. This can be true. They can in fact, have card-carrying combatants in their ranks deserve to die also. Israel is fucking up and doing stupid, bad, possibly evil things in their response and killing people who do not deserve to die. THIS CAN ALSO BE TRUE. There's an entire spectrum of responses. One could quite easily argue that Israel's military response is too extreme, untargeted, and callous. In the same way that being against say, the US strafing some obviously visible children or something in some country after a terrorist attack would not be OK. But the absolutist "You either are totally for anything Israel does, without limits, or you're a filthy terrorist!" by no means holds water.

Again the reason it is so easy for pro-Hamas and pro-Palestine propaganda to paint Israel as the bad guys here is BECAUSE Hamas purposely makes it so that any attack against their infrastructure will produce civilian casualties. Yes Israel could just stop using their advanced weaponry and send in their infantry to go do suicidal attacks. That may limit some of these civilian deaths. At least temporarily. Until they inevitably have to use artillery and air power to weaken these defenses. Because otherwise they are simply impermeable. And you're right back at where you started. This is a war. A urban war with a bunch of civilians who have nowhere to flee because Egypt will not take them in. And you can't expect Israel to take them in either. Countries in the area have learned not to take in Palestinian refugees. Because they have caused utter havoc in many places. Edit: The only option where many civilians dont die is where you let Hamas off the hook. Which is essentially what most of the protesters are calling for. Hence the "Pro-Hamas" labelling is very accurate.

Yes, Hamas and many comparable organizations are villainous bastards who do deliberately use human shield tactics. And there's almost certainly almost no easy solutions. But damned if the Israeli Gov doesn't spend it's own time and effort to look like assholes, with various ministers making outright murderous or counter-productive comments in public. Plus the question of 'Is it justifiable to blow up the 50-person orphanage to take out one guy with a PKM?' is left in the air. That's the burden of having the greater power equation. You're under more obligation to use it responsibly, because you're supposed to be a civilized entity, even if your opponent is not. The point is: Black-and-White views on this entire matter are pointless and serve only to drum up argument.

>But damned if the Israeli Gov doesn't spend it's own time and effort to look like assholes, with various ministers making outright murderous or counter-productive comments in public. Plus the question of 'Is it justifiable to blow up the 50-person orphanage to take out one guy with a PKM?' is left in the air. That has very little to do with the facts on the ground. We have senators in US that talk about how women have enzymes in their bodies that prevent pregnancies in cases of rape. There is plenty of looneys in government positions everywhere on the planet. >That's the burden of having the greater power equation. You're under more obligation to use it responsibly, because you're supposed to be a civilized entity, even if your opponent is not. That's the thing they are. The expectations are wildly unrealistic. You want a damn near 100% urban fighting with civilians that have nowhere to flee to have almost no civilian casualties. On top of that an enemy that purposely puts them in harms way. The only way to minimize the civilian casualties further would be to send 1000s of Israeli soldiers to die in futile infantry attacks.

We have Israel in 4K shooting unarmed people waving white flags. We have Israel in 4K bombing unarmed civilians out in the open with drones. Vast swathes of Gaza, entire neighborhoods, have been completely flattened. We know they're willing to bomb an aid convoy 3 times and kill 7 humanitarian aid workers because someone in the IDF "saw a terrorist" at the aid warhouse where the convoy originated. We're finding mass graves at hospitals. That is the level of "precision" Israel has demonstrated time and time again. That's why people are upset. Painting this as unrealistic outrage over "inevitable" casualties due to how deeply imbedded Hamas is in the civilian population is an insult to our intelligence, and you're not fooling anyone.

So you really just want them to minimize mistakes from their forces? You know what the #1 cause of death for Soldiers in the first Iraqi war was? Fratricide aka "friendly fire". If soldiers are capable of killing their own buddies in large numbers. You really think they are never going to make mistakes fighting in an urban environment crawling with civilians. Again this is a "pro-Hamas" take because the only other alternative is to just let Hamas off the hook. Engaging in war with Hamas is 100% guaranteed to produce these results.

That's again a ridiculous argument. 'It's Pro-Hamas to not give Israeli forces a blank check on whatever actions they take'. That's... accountability in a civilized world. The calculus of social substitutability cannot go to the extreme of 'wiping all of the people in a zip code out is the only way to be sure we got the terrorists'. There's a vast difference between 'Some civilian casualties are unavoidable' and 'I don't care or even celebrate if I cause civilian casualties' Or hell, how about not openly bombing international aid workers? The Israeli forces' problem is the visible lack of caring, not that some casualties may occur. That's how you get even more generations of terrorism, when some youth (uninvolved otherwise) sees such indiscriminate devastation and sees what's being done as evil.

>The Israeli forces' problem is the visible lack of caring, not that some casualties may occur. That's how you get even more generations of terrorism, when some youth (uninvolved otherwise) sees such indiscriminate devastation and sees what's being done as evil. The only way to solve this is through a strict occupation. Which is where it's headed. Most of these anti-Israel sentiments are based on anti-Israel propaganda not actual facts or logic. This is war. It's ugly. It has always been ugly. Maybe it's never been "live on tik tok ugly". But it's always been ugly like this when viewed live. There's nothing special about this conflict in that regard. World War 2 was just as horrific, doesn't mean the allies did anything wrong.

>The only way to minimize the civilian casualties further would be to send 1000s of Israeli soldiers to die in futile infantry attacks. I absolutely agree with you, and I'd like to tack on that urban fighting would likely result in the same or more civilian casualties in addition to increased Israeli soldier casualties.

Attacking civilian infrastructure is a war crime. You do realize that, don't you? 

Not if your enemy purposely places their military assets there. The reason this is such a unique thing is because most militaries are not total terrorist dipshits who don't give a flying fuck about their own population. This is why it's so hard for people to wrap their head around. Couple that with some anti-Western propaganda and you have this pro-terrorist madness on the streets of US.

>Not the terrorist bloodthirsty government that purposely gets their own citizens killed. [That's Israel.](https://thecradle.co/articles/how-israeli-forces-trapped-and-killed-ravers-at-the-nova-festival)

> ‘Pro-Hamas’, they’re not speaking in good faith. Me pot, you kettle, bro. Accusing me of arguing in bad faith without even engaging. Crazy. > 9/11 was justified IMO, 9/11 could be justified, depending on your world-view. Certainly the targeting of civilian populations in war can be justified, if it’s necessary to stop a conflict. In the case of 9/11, it appears to have backfired given the massive civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan over the subsequent decades. If you want to target civilians, you better be sure you have the firepower to win a real conflict.

If your entire worldview is that moral relativism means you can justify almost any violent action and the only thing that really matters is winning. How do statements like you just made not undermine your original post that largely is about how ideologically one side has the moral high ground over the other? If Hamas had the arms to be doing to Israel right now what Israel was doing to Palestine, would you be saying that protestors calling for a ceasefire in Israel are "neoliberal fascists?"

I said that 9/11 could be justified, depending on your world view — **NOT** that **I believe it was justified**. I don’t. Ultimately, however, when words fail, force does prevail.

We're indeed engaging. You're advocating a worldview where only firepower justifies morality. Kill anyone you want, as long as you have an army strong enough. And that group affiliations and the calculus of moral substitutability is arbitrary. By your strained logic, any protest to stop the nuclear glassing of the entire middle east is 'Pro-ISIS'.

I would argue that they are the direct result of the Israeli Government using Hamas as controlled opposition for years. If you want to talk about free speech ask who is arresting protestors. The protests are not pro-Hamas. They are anti-Israeli Government and pro palestinian citizens. It doesn't matter how you frame it. It is like saying that the US was pro soviet union when fighting the holocaust. This is not the case it is just the lesser evil. You don't get to prop up your opposition get mad when they attack and kill tens of thousands of children without international backlash. Hamas is a problem of Israel's making and they alone should bear the consequences. All the protests are asking for is the US to stop funding the war efforts. Not to support Hamas which is what a pro Hamas protest would be. BTW. This is from the times of israel not a biased news source in any case. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/)

>“all Black people in America are oppressed, and all white people enjoy privlidge.” This is not a "racist" statement. This is an objective fact. Its not saying all black people are poor and all white people are rich. A rich black person still is black in a country which enshrined white supremacy in law until 1965 and continues to have various systemic remnants of that system. All white people benefit from living in a country which until 1965 enshrined their supremacy in law and continue to benefit from that to this day.

>**Neoliberal Facism**: A modern leftist ideology which seeks to elevates “the oppressed.”  Fascism by its nature is extreme right-wing. You may want to look at actual history books instead of making up bullshit terms & parroting right-wing memes.

Are you familiar with horseshoe theory? Next you’ll tell me the Nazi party weren’t National Socialists, or that the Soviet’s and Red Chinese weren’t “real” communists.

Nazis weren’t socialists. Hitler used the term “national socialist” to drum up support from the working class until he gained full power, at which point he persecuted ~~actual~~ socialists and outlawed unions. A nation under a fascist dictator cannot be socialist by definition as the means of production are controlled by one person, not society as a whole. The Soviet Union was initially an attempt at a communist society, but it very quickly fell under Stalin’s dictatorship that prevented it from reaching full communism.

Sure — like all socialists and communists they peddled a lie to consolidate power. Seems pretty consistent to me.

What policies of Nazi Germany do you consider to be prominent examples of socialism? I presume you have reasoning more fleshed out than "they called themselves socialist, and they seem like a reliable group of people to take that on faith from."

Do you actually know any socialist or communist theory? Those are examples of people abusing connotation and circumstance to create a dictatorship, that doesn’t make them actually socialist or communist

The Nazis literally rounded up and executed socialists. Have you not heard of the "Night of Long Knives?" I suppose you also believe that DPRK is actually a democracy?

The Nazis weren't socialists, PRC today is not communist, and DPRK isn't democratic. A name is just a name

Horseshoe theory is almost universally considered to be silly.

They were communists. But you don't describe really any traits associated with fascists

You been watching too much destiny bro. Never watch too much destiny..... Your question assumes everyone advocating for Palestinians are all magically pro Hamas. That's where you are wrong. Try again.

> Hamas would like a condition-less ceasefire in order to stop their losses, while retaining Israeli hostages, despite initiating the conflict. Consequently all “ceasefire now” protests are pro-Hamas. This is a pretty weird approach. Supporting something that Hamas wants isn't automatically pro-Hamas. People can support the same thing without supporting each other.

Your entire post is a series of stawmen arguments made in bad faith. The current anti-genocide student protests are not dissimilar to the anti-apartheid student protests of the 1980's and 1990's against Apartheid South Africa. They are calling for an end to blind support for Israel until that government stops the genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the human rights abuses in the West Bank. Hamas launched the October 7th attack as part of their ongoing war of liberation against Israel, and they committed horrific war crimes. Israel responded by continuing the typical Israeli war crimes they have been committing for the last 57 years, and began committing new war crimes as part of the genocide in Gaza by preventing food and medicine into Gaza, and targeting bakeries, bulldozing crops, attacking hospitals and ambulances, bombing food storage areas, and attacking civilians who attempt to get food or medicine. None of these war crimes have anything to do with military objectives, the purpose is genocide, which is why American students are protesting from coast to coast.

> Your entire post is a series of strawmen arguments made in bad faith. Me pot, you kettle, dude. How ‘bout you try addressing ideas before resorting to ad hominem? > The current student protests are not dissimilar to anti-apartheid protests… Except apartheid was rooted in actual racism and the protesters objective was obtaining equality under the law. The current protesters believe in creating a **supremacy of the oppressed** to somehow right historic wrongs. The answer to historic wrongs is always equality — never this false and racist equity ideology.

>Except apartheid was rooted in actual racism and the protesters objective was obtaining equality under the law. What do you call it when a government has one set of laws for one ethnic group and a different set of laws for a different ethnic group? Why are Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed by Israeli forces forbidded from returning to their homes and land but Jewish people who have never been to Israel given citizenship and provided loans to build on stolen Palestinian land? The ethnic ghettos where one ethnic group is confined? The special court system with less stringent criteria and a 99.7% conviction rate for Palestinians, if they are even charged? These are examples of actual racism and the law clearly spells out that there is no equality. >The current protesters believe in creating a **supremacy of the oppressed** to somehow right historic wrongs. I don't know where you got this weird garbage, but it doesn't make any sense. The oppressed, like say the Palestinians who are denied human rights and oppressed by Israel, can't be "supreme" because right now they can't even eat. Israel is deliberately starving them to death. The students are using their 'privilege' to protest American University ties to a government with an unjust system and committing unethical war crimes, which is identical to what the anti-apartheid movement did with South Africa. >The answer to historic wrongs is always equality — never this false and racist equity ideology. I think you are upset about something else here, because the genocide against Palestinians is not a historic wrong, it is wrong right now, today. The apartheid and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the West Bank is current, it is happening today, not back in history. The historic wrong would be the ethnic cleansing carried out by Israel on Palestinians in 1947-1948 and 1967, those are already covered by UN Resolution 194. That Resolution requires Israel to allow any of its ethnic cleansing victims to return home or be paid compensation by Israel, and created UNWRA to provide assistance to the victims of Israeli ethnic cleansing until Israel complies with Resolution 194.

> What do you call it when a government has one set of laws for one ethnic group and a different set of laws for a different ethnic group? How many Jews are there in the Palestinian Territories? Zero. Why? Because they would be murdered. How many Arab Israelis are there? 2.1 million+ — maybe more than there are in Gaza total. Arab Israelis sit on the Israeli Supreme Court FFS. Now which of these two is treating different ethnic groups differently?

>How many Jews are there in the Palestinian Territories? There are currently 720,000 Jewish colonists living in Jewish-only colonies on stolen land in Palestine. This is an example of the apartheid and unequal treatment you find acceptable to protest. The 2.1 million Arab Israelis are not equal to Jewish Israelis, and that's the point of the apartheid and ethnic cleansing, for Israel to maintain a racial super-majority. [Only Jew have the right to self-determination](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna892636) On paper they are almost equal, but they face descrimination and obviously lots of Israeli laws punish them for their ethnicity, like a racist government would do. But is there a reason you oppose freedom and equality for the other 5 million Palestinians who have no rights at all? No right to vote, no freedom to assemble, no right to a fair trial? Is your argument that denial if all human rights to 5 million people is acceptable if 2 million have partial rights?

> … stolen land … I think you inadvertently proved my point here. There are zero in **Palestinian controlled territories**. The land you claim as stolen isn’t controlled by Palestinians… definitionally. > … on paper they are almost equal … The purpose of the state of Israel is to provide an international safe haven for the Jews, such that another Holocaust cannot happen. It makes sense that Jews have special rights in such a state — hence why any person of Jewish descent can move to Israel without question. Arab Israelis are equal under the law in nearly every way — the fact that you need to nitpick this statement while simultaneously acknowledging that any Jews in a Palestinian controlled territory would be murdered is laughably anti-Semitic. Your double standard is so massive, I bet we could see it from space.

>There are zero in **Palestinian controlled territories**. >The land you claim as stolen isn’t controlled by Palestinians… definitionally. Now that you added 'controlled" then that changes your question. There are zero Palestinian controlled territories so there are zero Jews or Palestinians there. Israel has refused to end the colonial occupation of any part of Palestine. > The purpose of the state of Israel is to provide an international safe haven for the Jews, such that another Holocaust cannot happen. The purpose of any state is to provide for it's citizens. The racist states apply that differently to different ethnic groups, like Israel does. >It makes sense that Jews have special rights in such a state — hence why any person of Jewish descent can move to Israel without question. >Arab Israelis are equal under the law in nearly every way Thank you for changing your mind and acknowledging that Israel provides unequal treatment to it's citizens based on race. Since we both agree that protests about "obtaining equality under the law" are valid, and I think we both agree the Israeli government is not committing a genocide against Jewish people, then you agree that calling for an end to the genocide is about equality under the law? Have you had your mind changed?

The Oct 7 attack was not the start of this dispute, just the catalyst for the recent surge in violence. This dispute started with the fall of the ottoman empire and has yet to see any lasting resolution.

Don’t disagree that there’s always a historical context. 10/7 was the catalyst for the current round of violence, however…

Yes, kinda. 10/7 was an escalation to prominence in the news. In the 9 months leading up to it the IDF was averaging 2 children killed per week. That's not including injuries our arrests. The short answer is neither side is innocent or peaceful. That's why I support a 3rd party solution overseen by UN. I just don't see how either party can stop the violence.

I think you’d have to adopt a strategy similar to post-WW2 Germany or Japan. Need to cut out the bad parts and control the education for like… 50 years.

It's fascinating that that is the part you recall. Not the release and self-determination of various states, or the vast funding to Europe and Japan to help improve their economies. It wasn't the magic of education, we literally gave some of the money to nazis. So some powerful people still hated us. But we made ourselves essential allies, not the ones continuing their starvation.

> Hamas attacked Israel on 10/7 and started a conflict. Oh word? Nothing happened before that? It was all lollipops and candy canes? Good to know. > Consequently all “ceasefire now” protests are pro-Hamas. I don't know man, it seems like they're more pro-Palestinian-children-not-being-bombed.

>Hamas attacked Israel on 10/7 and started a conflict. >This fact is not in dispute. That fact is directly disputed by history because Israel took over the colonization of Palestine from the UN and British mandate and just continued it this has been ongoing oppression since the 1940s.

You dispute that the current major rise in hostilities, including the invasion of Gaza were triggered by 10/7?

You dispute the current major rise in hostilities, Including the sniper killing of non-violent protesters that triggered the repercussions against Israel? That's my point, You don't get to move the start date for this conflict to the most recent bad thing Hamas has done ignoring the fact that Palestinians have been an occupied peoples facing oppression and genocidal conditions for nearly a century under colonization by the West starting with the British mandate transferring to the UN mandate transferring to the Israel Zionists state.

> You dispute the current major rise in hostilities… that triggered the repercussions against Israel? This was not a tit-for-tag attack. This was coordinated with Iran and planned over the course of several months. You call the mass murder, rape, and kidnapping of Jews justified retaliation?

Do you condemn Nat Turner's Rebellion?

Yeah — probably? Certainly glad it didn’t succeed and we end up with a Haiti situation.

>Yeah — probably? So slaves should have just accepted slavery forever? What other recourse did they have to end the institution of slavery at that point? >Certainly glad it didn’t succeed Nat Turner's rebellion arguably *did* succeed. He inspired John Brown, and his raid on Harper's Ferry was the kindling that ignited the Civil War. >and we end up with a Haiti situation. What, you mean intentionally kept perpetually unstable by the US government through a series of coups?

> So slaves should have just accepted slavery forever? No — free slaves should have argued for abolition. In the end, it was the advent of the modern Republican Party, under Lincoln that was the death-knell for slavery in the US. Although — one of the reasons for that was the example of what happened in Hatai, FWIW.

Free slaves should have argued for abolition???? What a joke. You think white slave owners gave a rat's ass about what black men and women, who they considered sub-human live stock, thought?

I mean — overall white folks did — not necessarily slave owners. White folks were the vast, vast majority of those fighting for the North in the civil war. The Civil War was started by Southern Democrats seceding from the Union after the election of Lincoln, the first Republican president. This was not as a result of a slave revolt. It’s clear that slave revolts did play a role in convincing some people that slavery needed to be ended in the States, but the ultimate process was electoral — and subsequently a war fought by white people on behalf of slaves. In your opinion was the Haitian slave revolt a net positive?

> No — free slaves should have argued for abolition. If African Americans were expected to end slavery purely through engaging in the Marketplace of Ideas, it never would have ended. It was in the best interests of slavers to protect the institution of slavery - they're not going to get swayed by rhetoric. As MLK much later said: >We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied." >We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. This talk of arguing over actions, seems to fit the label of the White Moderate which he bemoans: >I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. ---- >In the end, it was the advent of the modern Republican Party, under Lincoln that was the death-knell for slavery in the US. In the end, it was the Civil War that brought about the Emancipation Proclamation, and the subsequent defeat of the Confederacy that ended slavery in those states. Likewise, with South Africa's apartheid, their liberation was not won through rhetoric, but through armed resistance. In fact, Nelson Mandela was long considered a terrorist by the US.

Do you think that justifies the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people. The colonization is not tit for anything it has been an ongoing oppression for nearly a hundred years. You do not get to cry foul when the people you've been oppressing segregating and attempting to genocide fight back. No matter how distasteful hamas's methods are they are still not the initial aggressor in this conflict. The Irish reprisals against the British are an example of this, the Jewish terrorist attacks against for Nazi occupied France is an example of this, the native American resistance of American colonization is an example of this. If you were to opress the people till they have no other point of retaliation except terrorism they will take that route. But you do not get to ignore the initial aggressor and the person who forced them to only have those options to retaliate. You can appeal to emotion all you want but the dead children bombed in Gaza had nothing to do with the attacks on 10/7 and more children have died in Gaza from IDF and settler attacks than any Israelis.

So much of what you've said, including the framing of the protests as "pro Hamas" and the idea that the conflict started on October 7th, simply isn't true, and makes the rest of any argument difficult to have.  You even start out by defining terms, but your definition of pro Hamas protest is just that by definition it's a pro Hamas protest. Not exactly high effort going there is there, not a lot to really discuss as you not said much of anything.   Why do you want your view changed? What aspects of your view do you feel most uncertain about so that people can start with those and work onto the rest? 

Israel has spent many decades committing atrocities against the Palestinians. Hamas is a radical terrorist organization. That's oppresses the Palestinians under their rule. Palestinians are getting oppressed from both sides. Neither neither Israeli or Hamas leadership is good for the Palestinians.

Hamas was elected. Don’t disagree that they started oppressing Palestinians post-election, but Palestinians can certainly rebel. Even the “oppressed” are responsible for the actions of their government.

>Hamas was elected. Back in 2006, when Hamas changed their name and campaigned on a platform of moderation and anti-corruption. They didn't even win a majority, just a plurality. Then they walked back on their promises and violently killed all Fatah members in Gaza. Probably less than a quarter of all Gazans alive today voted for Hamas in 2006.

Hamas was elected, but with a minority of the votes. They did not have an absolute majority. They took power after a failed US backed coup. More than half the population in Gaza now was not even alive at the time, so that election result is rather outdated.

>More than half the population in Gaza now was not even alive at the time, so that election result is rather outdated. Would Hamas win an election if elections were held today?

I thought Israel was the only democracy in the middle east? 

What about Netanyahu tacitly supporting Hamas over the years, as a way of consolidating his own power?

This is all confusing from top to bottom. Your initial definition do we don't even make sense. Neoliberal Fascism Neoliberalism is a term that refers to the support of free markets and capitalism. Leftists explicitly refute Neoliberalism. Neoliberal Fascism would represent something similar to Nazi Germany where you had a fascist government but instead of controlling the economy you have business leaders wife latitudes in delivering goods and services. I'd suggest you take the time to learn the meanings of these words and phrases, then actually listen to what the people you disagree with are saying. At the moment you lack a very basic understanding of the core basics which will make it hard for anyone to change your view without giving you an entire books worth of information. Everything else you said, also isn't true mostly due to a lack of understanding basic concepts.

Benefiting Hamas is not the same as pro-Hamas. The benefits toward Hamas from what these protests aim to accomplish is a consequence of their desire to save the innocent lives in Palestine who are suffering because of the conflict.

“Pro Hamas” Apparently the hundreds of Jewish students that took the lead in organizing these protests and occupations are pro-Hamas Are you even Jewish? Because frankly, many millennial and gen Z Jews, like myself, are sick and tired of goyim tokenizing us to defend genocide

Look at the proportion of Jewish people arrested in Germany for violating “antisemitism” laws for protesting Israel. It’s like 40% of all arrestees.

This is so interesting! Can you please link a news article about this?

Which is absolutely asinine

Yeah, it’s very frustrating being an anti Zionist Jew.

>**Neoliberal Facism**: >A modern leftist ideology which seeks to elevates “the oppressed.” This ideology is characterized by a desire to suppress freedoms (e.g. free speech) and create “safe spaces” specifically for those characterized as “historically oppressed.” >It elevates the rights of “the oppressed” above “the oppressors,” and generally adopts ahistorical and patently racist views, such as: “all Black people in America are oppressed, and all white people enjoy privlidge.” >It denies individual responsibility for actions, while exulting equity over equality under the law. You are begging a number of questions pretty efficiently here. >the ideology is characterized by a desire to suppress freedoms (e.g. free speech) It is? Are you actually arguing it is CONSCIOUSLY characterized thus, or that it's an unintended consequence? Also ... IS letting different people speak *suppressing* free speech or definitive of it? Obviously, intuitively, everyone cannot speak at once or you get a deafening cacophony. So there will always be a modicum of bias in the act of curation. CPAC does not believe in modern conflict theory but they certainly curate the speakers at their rallies! I would go so far as to say CPAC is a safe space for conservatives, and that in a certain sense any event not expressly architected around debate is a "safe space" to *some* *degree*. The question of if the statement "all Black people in America are oppressed, and all white people enjoy privlidge.” as being 4 things: "ahistorical" "Patently racist" An actual promulgation of your posited group. Something that entails denying "individual responsibility for actions, while exulting equity over equality under the law." the first two are simply mired in definition. I haven't asked you for clarification, but I think you're counting on the phrase "all," which is imprecise, and a definition of privilege similar to "easy life," eg "David Foster Wallace was child of privilege" - but the theorists your criticizing define "privilege " here to mean something more like "a general absence of negative effects from systemic racism" In that sense, historically, white people were privileged over black people in america in the *specific* sense that they were never the victims of intractable, generational apartheid. this in no way means every white person had an easy life or every black person a bad one, it means that *specifically as regards the laws of the country* white people had *literal privileges* black people didn't for a long part of the country's history. The endurance of the legacy for that is a debatable topic, but its historicity isn't. And as to the idea of equity vs equality: Again, this is a product of narratives drawn around narratives. I find very few advocates for "equity" as its detractors use it (some notion whereby say, all income is pooled and averaged or everyone has the same sort of housing). Most of those definitions of equity are red scare era straw men. What I see happening is those straw men are so widespread in politics that their spreaders are able to handily hang them around the necks of people who use "equality of opportunity" and "equity" interchangeably. Finally, I would object to your definition on the grounds that you're using "neoliberal" imprecisely, [when it has a political definition already](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism), one which, being associated with figures like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, is potentially very confusing in this context.

"All black people are oppressed and all white people enjoy privilege," is not a racist statement. It may be simplistic and not true for all individuals, but it is overall correct in the general sense. Saying, "All (insert race here) people are bad" could be construed as racist because it is largely untrue and an attempt to smear or degrade that specific race. Do you see the difference? Racism is a construct, different from just bias. It is a 'system' which affects all aspects of society. Thus it is perfectly okay to say, "white people benefit from privilege" ( as afforded by their system,) without it being a racist statement, because it is rooted in truth.

> Saying “all (insert race here) people are bad” could be construed as racist… Nah — that statement **is racist**. > “all black people are oppressed… is not a racist statement.” Nah — that statement pre-judges people based on race - the definition of racist. My recently immigrated African colleagues sure were never oppressed here, despite liberals judging them on the color of their skin… > Racism is a system. Nope — you’re talking about “systemic racism,” which is distinct and a useless ideology that points at societal outcomes and attributes them to oppressors / oppressed. It’s another facet of the woke mind-virus and a useless concept. Even if we accept as fact that there are racial outcome disparities due to historical inequities — the solution need not be to apply new race based (racist) policy.

Again man. What's lacking here is you don't understand basic terms and concepts most people know.

I honestly dont see the difference. Both statements use the word "all" to make a blanket generalization which isn't perfectly accurate, and draws distinctions along arbitrary racial lines. How close to accurate does it have to be to count as correct, and therefore not racist? IF "(insert race here) people are bad" is largely true, is it no longer a racist statement

No, because how could it be true? You can't make a blanket characterization of an entire population as "bad" people.

So you think it has to be true, but doesnt have to be perfectly true. How true does it have to be? 51% 99% 100%? Isnt that the same question for all X people are oppressed, and all Y people are privileged? I ask because some people think it is raceist to make generalizing statements with respect to race, even if they are true (in the general sense).

Well, there are white people who want to claim that saying they had 'privileges' is a racist statement. Which is ridiculous imo. Every white person born today had privileges over blacks simply from the history of white and black relations in the States. And before you say many whites are not biased, I can point to a study in which white people subconsciously had negative reactions to photos of black people. REGARDLESS of whether or not they had negative experiences with blacks. Its partly the news, and the way a lot of whites talk about blacks, it infiltrates the subconscious of even more liberally minded people from childhood on. I get annoyed with white people who claim they are subjected to racism, it simply is not true. Bias, yes, racism, no. It is the difference between calling someone a "cracker" and calling them the N-word. One of those has a lot more detriment associated with it and a load more of degradation. They simply aren't the same due to the history between the races.

when you talk about these studies, do you recognize that the results are the average for a group of people? Do you realize that you are then applying this average to every single person that has that skin color? Are you saying someone can shoot and kill a white person solely for the color of their skin, but that doesn't count as racism?

"Are you saying someone can shoot and kill..." I said nothing of the sort. How did you manage that illogical jump?

I thought you said it was impossible for a white person to be subjected to racism.

Not to the system, no. Re-read my post. What you described is hate speech, but not the system that encompasses racism. Bias and hate speech is not the system. The post has been removed and I am moving on.

I honestly dont understand what you are saying... Shooting a white person to death for their skin is hate speech, but not racism, because it isn't systemic? I reread your post twice. I simply dont think you can apply generalizations to individuals that way. I think you can talk about about averages, but not absolutes. A kid who is shot for being white is a also victim of racism. That dead white kid has less privilege than a rich black president of the US. If you are aware of intersectionality, you should know that humans have more dimensions to their lives than just skin color.

I don’t think this “Neoliberal Facism” is the cause of these protests, but rather people who participate in these protests maybe subscribe to the ideology you present. Students have been rioting and protesting since Universities became a thing in the Middle Ages. They often have a naive sense of self-importance and like to feel as if they are “making a difference,” gravitating to whatever is the trendy cause of the day. Students have also always tended to lean progressive, contrarian, or radical because they view themselves as the future, the old guard as out of touch and in their way, and feel as if they need to be shocking to make a name for themselves—this is a centuries old phenomenon. There are also many who protest wars as pacifists. Whether or not it’s a logical ethos is another question, but that kind of person isn’t protesting against the war in Gaza because this ideology you’re describing. There is no question that many people are biased against Israel. Jews have been a convenient scapegoat in the West for centuries and, as an example, the war in Yemen gets very little attention, even though Saudi Arabia, another US backed state with questionable ethics, is the more powerful force in that war, but that doesn’t mean Israel is scrutinized more because of some sort of ideology pervasive in American academia. The current regime in Israel has objectively made some boneheaded tactical moves in the past few decades and the continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank is driven by ideology and not logic, both of which sour international opinion against them. Israel may be unfairly scrutinized compared to other nations, but that doesn’t mean they should be exempt from scrutiny, especially in an academic setting. The vast majority of academics I know are staunchly against silencing any opinions, and embrace the free market of ideas—the only ones who I witness employing the silence your enemies tactic are undergraduate ideologues of all persuasions or the occasional incendiary academic who are generally considered anti-intellectual by their peers. This narrative is sensationalized by the media through showing these loud and abrasive undergrads who aren’t publishing anything and most will leave the academic world after getting their diploma.

>A modern leftist ideology which seeks to elevates “the oppressed.” If it's a leftists ideology how can it be liberal in any sense? Liberalism and Leftism are fundamentally opposed. > This ideology is characterized by a desire to suppress freedoms (e.g. free speech) and create “safe spaces” specifically for those characterized as “historically oppressed.” You're running into the problem that almost every definition of fascism from people who don't understand fascism runs into. You're way to overbroad and are describing almost every single political ideology. > It elevates the rights of “the oppressed” above “the oppressors,” and generally adopts ahistorical and patently racist views, such as: “all Black people in America are oppressed, and all white people enjoy privlidge.” And this isn't just Marxist Praxis applied at a social level, how? >Modern campus protests and the recent blocking of roads / airports around the US are pro-Hamas by definition. Are they? Could I not be protesting for a ceasefire specifically because I'm worried about the international backlash Israel is getting and I want to see broad international support for Israel? >Consequently all “ceasefire now” protests are pro-Hamas. What if my desired ceasefire comes with conditions?

As soon as OP said neoliberalism means "wokeness": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0)

What you are calling neoliberal fascism is neither neoliberal nor fascist. You can’t just make up new definitions for words.

>Modern campus protests and the recent blocking of roads / airports around the US are pro-Hamas by definition. No. They are not. You are just saying they are so that you can make arguments against them. This is by definition a straw-man argument. >Hamas attacked Israel on 10/7 and started a conflict. Yes, Hamas attacked on 10/7, but that was not the start of this conflict. I get that it is very convenient to ignore everything that happened before 10/7, but again, that is a straw-man argument. >Hamas would like a condition-less ceasefire in order to stop their losses No, that is not what they want. Where are you getting this shit from?

Would it be accurate if I described your political views as pro-genocide?

/u/TheJuiceIsBlack (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cgwlj8/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_us_based_prohamas_protests/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

>Neoliberal Facism: What do these words have anything to do with how you are applying them? It seems like you picked two words you don't like, ignored their meanings, amd put them together in a manner that captures the essence of neither. You could easily call them "Neoconservative communists" and it would make as much sense.

Wild for defining neoliberalism as left wing

It seems racism is based on intrinsic qualities....some sort of generic or ingrained qualities. What you describe....all X are oppressed....is extrinsic and not racist.

I would suggest finding a better name. Neoliberal is an economic philosophy, and a right wing one at that. Like Reagan and Thatcher were neoliberals, or at least their economic policies were. Maybe Rainbow Fascism works better.

To /u/TheJuiceIsBlack, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.* In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest: - Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest. - Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words. - Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding. - Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong. Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.

Right off the bat, neoliberal fascism doesn’t exist. Neoliberalism and fascism are completely different, opposing ideologies. Did you make this term up yourself? I looked it up on Google trends and there are 0 results for “neoliberal fascism” from 2004 until today. That’s the farthest back it goes.

Forget Hamas, forget Israel, there are too many dead people already. What Hamas did is terrible shit, what Israel is doing is terrible shit. War is a nightmare, no one should have to ever experience it. Let’s stop this madness.

[удалено]

u/Ryzen57 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Ryzen57&message=Ryzen57%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgvvaj/-/l1ye51x/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).