Well I've been trying to educate them with as much good faith response as I can muster. I considered just posting PPB, but I guess because I'm medicated, I felt compelled to press on. Anyway, I heavily quoted from this excellent site: DecolonizePalestine & their myth database. I would recommend it to anyone else, especially if you plan to argue with zionists or their dipshit water-carriers like the one in the image.

As I already said, you have no understanding of what settler-colonialism is, and your disgusting (and actually racist) insistence that the Palestinians (who we agree are being genocided right now) will simply genocide everyone living on their stolen land is testament to your ignorance. You know how space_comrade pointing out you were telling on yourself by spouting a Zionist delusional fear, and that it is pure projection? Well it really is both those things: delusional and projection.

Most of what you said I already addressed, and you seemed to have missed it, so it doesn't make me very keen to respond to it again. But this part:

you should be looking for a solution that doesn't involve destroying a nation and its people.

is very revealing. Destroying a STATE is not the same thing as destroying a people and it's very sneaky to pretend that it's the same thing.

The site I already linked has a FAQ, and here is one entry from it:

Does Israel have a right to exist?

People have a right to self-determination, but no state in the world has a right to exist. This ‘right’ simply has no foundation, and Israel is not special in this regard. More here

Since I don't expect people to always read when something is linked, even when they absolutely should do so if they have even a passing interest in actually understanding the situation they are talking about (let alone talking as if they have the solution, lol) I am going to paste another piece from the write-up that I linked and suggested you read in my last comment. It puts the lie to your insistence that a Palestinian state (which is the only way forward that is congruent with both justice and long-term peace) would also necessitate another genocide.

Everything below is from: https://decolonizepalestine.com/myth/the-two-state-solution-is-the-only-way-forward/

These anxieties are not unique to Jewish Israelis, settlers in many different colonies throughout history have echoed these same sentiments. If we were to take a look at the narrative surrounding anti-Apartheid South Africa activism and boycotts, we would find eerily similar projections and arguments.

For example, In an article for the Globe and Mail under the title “The good side of white South Africa” Kenneth Walker argued that ending the Apartheid system and giving everyone an equal vote would be a “a recipe for slaughter in South Africa”. Others, such as Shingler, echoed similar claims, saying that anti-racist activists were actually not interested in ending Apartheid as a policy, but in South Africa as a society. Others came out to claim these activists were actually motivated by “anti-white racism”, fueled by “Black imperialism”. Political comics displayed a giant soviet bear, bearing down on South Africa declaring “We shall drive South Africa into the Sea!”

Sound familiar?

Yet even when it is rarely acknowledged that Palestinian refugees were wronged, and deserve to return home, the refrain is that while it is tragic, it is the only way to keep the Jewish people safe. Once again, this pretense is hardly unique to Jewish Israelis, as a matter of fact, similar arguments were used against the abolition of slavery in the United States. For example, Thomas Jefferson likened slavery to a wolf:

“we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”

How utterly ridiculous this all sounds now.

While the first approach is crude and vile propaganda, designed to instigate fear and panic, it is par for the course for settler societies. Perhaps the second approach stands out a little bit more for its brazen attempt at manipulation. In a final endeavor to center their experiences and erase their victims, settlers frame themselves as the stars of their own tragedy, in the end they were the tragic victims of fate, forced to wield injustice for the sake of self-preservation.

Underlying the logic of both of these approaches are racist assumptions that the colonized are barbaric, bloodthirsty and ruthless. It is a deeply dehumanizing logic, steeped in every colonial and Orientalist trope. The idea that a decolonized, free Palestine would inevitably lead to genocide comes from this same logic. As a matter of fact, for all the claims of the Palestinians wanting to push Israelis into the sea, only the opposite has occurred in reality.

Regardless of your ideological leanings, the reality is that we are already living under a de facto one-state reality. Israeli politicians proudly boast about never allowing a Palestinian state to materialize. Israeli school books already erase the green line. Israel already rules the lives of everyone there. Palestinians calling for the dissolution of this naked colonialism is legitimate and just. The fact that Palestinians are even asked to guarantee the well-being and welfare of their oppressors as they are killed, imprisoned and brutally repressed daily is a testament to their utter dehumanization.

Well, you have to follow Rinox's entire plan. Creating a "well-defined border" will ensure that any animosity between the two ethnostates won't ever become a problem. Also they all have to stop having religions altogether. Easy peasy.

Removing the Israeli state "from the river to the sea" as you say, would mean another genocide.

No it fucking wouldn't. Completely dismantling the STATE of Israel, a terroristic settler-colonizer project, would not necessitate a genocide in any way and by pretending it does, you're doing the propaganda work for the actual genocidaires.

I guess at the end of the day, it's always ok to commit a genocide, but only if it's your side committing it, eh?

Stfu with your false equivalency bullshit. Let's use the stolen house analogy that was used elsewhere in this thread because it is apt. If a group of armed assholes comes into your house and starts killing off your family, claiming your house as their own, your doing everything within your power to get them back out of your house is not committing a crime at all, let alone one that is equivalent to the crime they are currently perpetrating against you.

The real solution is to create two states, one for the Jews, one for the Palestinians, create a well-defined border

Consider again the analogy above and ask yourself if the real solution is letting those who came in your house and killed your family have their own kitchenette, bathrooms, and bedrooms in your house, just with new walls. When they've been saying the whole time (as they were killing your family) that that's all they actually wanted to do.

The following is from: https://decolonizepalestine.com/myth/the-two-state-solution-is-the-only-way-forward/ which you should read in full.

Is the two-state solution the only viable solution?

Viable for whom and for what?

The two-state solution is inadequate to right historical wrongs, as it focuses on the pre-1967 borders as a starting point, which are in themselves a product of the colonization of Palestine, and not the root cause of it. It is thus preoccupied with finding solutions to symptoms, rather than dare address the root cause, which is Zionist settler colonialism and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

This automatically means that Palestinians must relinquish any rights or hopes for their millions of refugees, and it also means that Palestinians must relinquish their rights to live in over 80% of the land they were ethnically cleansed from. Consequently, resource distribution, from water to fertile land, will be heavily stacked in Israel’s favor.

Shortly put, the two-state solution is more interested in maintaining Israel’s colonial gains and artificial demographic aspirations, and lending them legitimacy, rather than seeking justice for the Palestinians in any form.

You should really go ahead and read the other myths discussed there too.

stop it with the holy wars, stop it with the persecutions, stop it with the genocides, stop it with the forced resettlement, stop it with terror attacks, stop it with the bombings

Only one "side" is doing all that and is the only one that has the power to immediately stop doing all of that. Instead, it keeps doing all of that. I wonder why it hasn't stopped.

and stop it with religions altogether.

Seriously? You are a clown. And I say that as an atheist myself.

Everyone has the right to live, so just live and let live

Oh, just give peace a chance, right? My god liberals are so fucking vapid. This is not a situation with two sides of equivalent means and committing equivalent atrocities with an equivalent power to stop the violence. It is extremely asymmetric in every sense, including the fact that one side is currently conducting an open genocide against the other which is disproportionately made up of children. I would guarantee that most of the Palestinian people would do just about anything to be able to live and let live but Israel will not have that - they never have and they never will, which is the nature of all settler-colonial projects which you clearly don't understand.

Forgive me for posting the same comment twice, but since I just was talking about 1984 in this thread, I'll say here as well that I don't think you should be ashamed for enjoying multiple reads of it. I harp on how bad the writing was, but honestly it was... passable. But more importantly, I would argue that that book really did capture some important concepts and feelings and fears that were floating around. It's just that it was written by a hardcore liberal at heart who just had to fucking blame communism instead of taking the accurate path and blaming capitalism and imperialism. Anyway... what I just posted in another comment:

It's not even that 1984 was a terrible book. It is rather poorly written by an author who was kinda a shit writer, but the dude did capture a certain important and lasting zeitgeist. He did identify an undercurrent of fear, a very valid fear, that permeated culture. The problem was that he misidentified the direction where the fear was coming from, the systems it was actually bubbling up from were the capitalist systems. But commies were both easy and profitable to make the enemies. The source was the society he actually knew better and mostly lived in, but he had witnessed other systems and wanted to project all the negativity onto the socialist systems that, again, benefited him to badmouth. His book could have been still a poorly written but interestingly prescient warning of capitalism, what it was what it was becoming (and what it is), and some of the extremes trends towards... That's what could have been if he had correctly attributed the dystopian elements as being rooted in capitalism instead of communism. Also, even thought he may not have been a great writer in general, he was good with using phrases that fit well in the milieu at the time and continue to. Like "thought police" and "Doublethink" and "Newspeak" and "memory hole." "Big Brother is watching." "We've always been at war with East Oceania." Bunch of others. There is a reason that shit stuck around, reason that goes beyond just the fact that the capitalists blew it up and made it popular, this otherwise mediocre book they held up for its usefulness in propaganda as some great bulwark against the terrors of communism. Really a tragedy that Orwell was a fucking rat-narc liberal coward.

Yeah, there's no denying the melanin deficiency here, but I think most of us are able and willing to recognize the privilege we have that comes along with being bleach demons. Speaking for myself at least, and from what I've seen it's true of much of the community around here, we are learning to stfu and listen when a person of color tells us we're wrong, misunderstand something, or are just being dumbass crackers. So feel free to put us in our place when that happens. I'd like to think that most of the community here will appreciate it rather than immediately get defensive and chauvinistic like most other chromatically bland spaces. Anyway, welcome!

I would say that your answer is hidden in the way you phrased the question.

The idea that revenge is bad is indeed liberal idealist bullshit. What matters is, as usual, the material reality of whatever the circumstances are. Will revenge being taken in the specific circumstances you're talking about end up doing more material harm than good? Revenge is not an inherently bad thing and it can be an extremely good motivating force behind very good and necessary actions. It can also be detrimental and end up harming people even in completely unintended ways, including the ones who are trying to enact their vengeance for entirely justifiable reasons.

It all depends on the situation. But I think we can safely say that revenge as an idea being either good or bad is a liberal-style framing or misunderstanding.

Claims to have read books then proceeds to demonstrate in front of everyone that they have never read a book about the very thing they're talking about.

Even fucking wikipedia, that most extreme of pro-Russian & tankie propagandist sites, reveals how fucking unlearned and full of shit you are:

The Soviet government of the Russian Soviet Republic (RSFSR) decriminalised homosexuality in December 1917, following the October Revolution and the discarding of the Legal Code of Tsarist Russia.

The legalisation of homosexuality was confirmed in the RSFSR Penal Code of 1922, and following its redrafting in 1926. According to Dan Healey, archival material that became widely available following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 "demonstrates a principled intent to decriminalize the act between consenting adults, expressed from the earliest efforts to write a socialist criminal code in 1918 to the eventual adoption of legislation in 1922."

Not voting for the candidate currently committing genocide will fuck over the people being genocided way more!! Anyone with ore than 2 brain cells knows this!

My god you are a fucking clown, it's embarrassing to even watch people like you try to make a point.

If self immolation is "doing a liberalism" then I really wish more libs would do liberalism. Fact is, it is absolutely not liberalism. It is in the most literal sense an act of ultimate self sacrifice, even if that sacrifice is almost totally ineffectual in the face of an uncaring, unimpressed enemy and an alienated, thoroughly propagandized society. It is tragic that this person was so extremely alienated from any kind of community that could have channeled their willingness to sacrifice themselves in a way that would have made a vastly bigger, more meaningful impact. But it's hardly surprising when you consider the alienated reality we're living in, and definitely not deserving of derision. Being cold and condescending about this person's desperation and even their courage to do what they did for what we all here would agree is a good and just cause (freeing Palestine and opposing the oppression and genocide by Israel) is disgusting. You are the one being a lib here.

For the record, I also have no sympathy for US troops. Fuck them. Unless they do everything they can, even give up their lives to fight against the system or entity they joined once they realize what it really is. And even though it may have been sadly misguided, this guy did just that.

The first one is definitely a enactment of this:

And the third one is, as others have mentioned, Sarah Connor

Let's pretend they do matter - what are they doing to fix people's perceptions that he's doing squat? Nothing. They're just banking on his "achievements" speaking for themselves instead of doing any EFFECTIVE propaganda to showcase their success.

Fuck Biden and his NON-achievments which can all be shown to be half measures at best or sheer bullshit lies at worst, unlike the many real and genuinely spectacular achievements of the USSR during the space race that they objectively won. The big difference in this rhetorical comparison is that the USSR isn't around anymore to even attempt a restoration or recognition of the epitome of real material human technological accomplishment they made. No one is "banking on their achievements" like they are for Biden's lies and no one except shitposters on a niche leftist site are doing "effective propaganda to showcase" the USSR's success. Only well researched history will do that now.

What a dogshit and misleading comparison.