Questions PRO-Palestinians Can’t Answer

[Fritz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W9badc-Y9M

more from that guy

facts cause so much trouble.

[Blankity Blank]

It’s problematic for me because, from the very title on, his presentation is made as if he’s mowing down point after incontestable point.

But there is no point/counterpoint going on. Only him crafting his own questions and then ‘answering’ them in an ‘Ah ha! Gotcha!’ fashion. He’s debating phantoms. Citing facts not in evidence. Damning the ubiquitous “they” of unspecified anecdotal origin.

He asks broad, supposedly damning questions and providing his own answers as if they’re the only possible answers.

There are certainly cogent, considered, powerful ways to argue the points he makes, but his approach of right hand asking the questions, left hand providing the answers is far less than that, in my estimation. Closer to preaching to the choir, than an appeal to both hearts and minds.

[Fritz]

disagree. plenty of places to answer his statements below.

[Acer]

He posted another video early on that I appreciated, so I've heard some of this before. It provides a viewpoint that larger media never seems to find time for.

[Janit]

He's crafting the questions out of the discourse that's in the air. It's more of a tutorial on one way to respond to this discourse. I suppose one might call them talking points.


I don't think that point counterpoint is the most productive route to solving this dilemma, although it can be a useful learning tool for people who know nothing about the history.

Nor are the conventional ideologies abstracted from other historical land disputes (colonizer-colonized, capitolist, imperialist, etc) particularly useful.

A better model might be family therapy, where two related parties are fighting over their shared inheritance, burdened by a history of trauma and deep dysfunction, seemingly beyond reconciliation.

I have heard it said that the land belongs to neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians, but rather that they both belong to the land.

[Ted King]

Janit wrote:

A better model might be family therapy, where two related parties are fighting over their shared inheritance, burdened by a history of trauma and deep dysfunction, seemingly beyond reconciliation.

I have heard it said that the land belongs to neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians, but rather that they both belong to the land.

I think that hits at the emotional heart of it. Two peoples with histories with the land that is enough for them to feel a deep personal tie to the land. A lot of the heat is focused on quarrels over those histories and explicitly/implicitly those arguments are meant to undermine the other's historical claims on the land - which leads both to feel that their deep personal ties to the land are being invalidated.

Which is why I really like your "they both belong to the land" framing. It puts the focus on the land being what it is independent of their history and having feelings of ties to it. But, as you say, the feelings are "seemingly beyond reconciliation" and religious validation of those feelings make it so such a framing is highly unlikely to take hold with the people who have conflict over the land. But maybe such a framing can shape smaller discussions - like here.

[Fritz]

I tend to think his vids are aimed at American college students that have no idea of reality. Only it's cool to protest. Palestinians must be the underdog coz hamas says so.


It appears that many have missed the primary statement of hamas way back when and still today. "River to the sea."