Debunking Debunker and Debunked Lies Regarding Israel And Palestine

Tristin Hopper is the Canadian version of whatever the lovechild of Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk may grow up to be.

Some may be wowed by his quick takedowns and believe him to be real smart, I just see an articulate dick who’s comfortable in front of a camera while the hip aspect is confusing to conservatives, making them more suggestible than usual as their mind appears to process this as: Here’s a liberal who’s finally being honest and admitting that the conservative way is better, less confusing.

In his latest, titled, “It is not apartheid: A quick debunking of the most obvious lies about the State of Israel”, Hopper stupidly offers the following preface:

“Ever since Russia attempted an all-out conquest of Ukraine last year, Moscow has tried hard to convince the wider world that they’re actually on a selfless crusade to rid Ukraine of its neo-Nazi, drug-addicted tyrannical government. But for the most part, the propaganda has fallen flat.

“It’s an entirely different story when it comes to Israel. For decades, the pro-Palestinian cause has assailed the Jewish state with basically anything that would stick – and a lot of it has. In academic and left-wing corridors across Canada and the West, it is now commonplace for Israel to be cited alongside terms such as ‘colonial violence,’ ‘apartheid’ and even ‘genocide.’

“But just because these terms are ubiquitous at universities, that doesn’t mean they’re true. Below, a quick guide to the most obvious lies about the State of Israel.”

 
First off, anyone that qualifies Russia’s SMO as “an all-out conquest” or “all-out invasion”, usually prefaced by “unprovoked”, is, simply, an absolute moron, and a severely brainwashed one, too.

These people are lacking in the moral department if not in possession of whatever one judges to be the inverse of “good morals”, as only a moderate effort should suffice to disprove such a notion, the biggest barrier there not being access to the required info, but one’s indoctrinated impressions of Russians, especially as concerns Putin, this aspect reinforced by peer pressure and echo chambers.

The propaganda machine that's become the US media isn't easily defined nor is it easy to identify participating members as "foes" or "evil", nor as "liars", as most of them, driven by ideology and the deeply-ingrained biases accepted as facts that help strengthen one's beliefs, actually do believe the lies they push.

There's a self-weeding aspect in that the dominant media tend to hire those with a similar mindset and schooling as them, hence, Ivy-league types from a certain background are those most comfortable with, and favoured by, Ivy-league types with the same background.

Setting that aside and the peer pressure and self-censure that comes with it, past a certain point, surely, these people are well aware that they're lying. 

A good example is Daily Wire's Ben Shapiro, who was clearly referencing beheaded babies, at least 40 of them, and tons of rapes, too, being the "Me Too" movement all by himself as he accused those of cheering for that—meaning, Hamas—of, well, basically the same thing I'm accusing him of: being aware but playing dumb. In this case, as it oftentimes is given the politics and policies behind what it is that Shapiro lies for, it hinges on being morally reprehensible.

Surely, Shapiro knows by now that those are lies that paint a wildly exaggerated savagery to justify one that's actually happening and is very real. That civilians were killed is bad enough in itself, discounting a chunk of reality and falsely presenting each victim as if a snuff actor in a remake of Hostel in order to justify a brutality that will kill at least tenfold whatever was deemed unacceptable, that's genocidally psychotic, in my book.

Nikki Haley is one of those, in my opinion.

Here are Hopper's main points and my say on those:

Israel is not, under any circumstances, an outpost of "settler colonialism"

“Setting aside the fact that most of these academics are non-Indigenous residents of countries that are actual former settler colonies (such as Canada or the United States), the basic accusation doesn’t make sense in the Israeli context.”

It’s hilarious how those who consistently express the least amount of respect for indigenous peoples across North America, and the globe, are those who constantly mention NA indigenous people to invalidate the anti-colonial critiques of Israel.

The difference explained, for morons: One already took place; one is currently on-going.

Go back at least one hundred and fifty years and rail against those who were protesting the settler-colonial mindset that destroyed the indigenous peoples’ way of life in NA, should these be hypocrites and not equally protest the one occurring in Israel. Oh, wait! Israel’s wasn’t happening concurrently, was it?

Yet, the same people at pro-Palestine rallies are those most likely to fight for restorative/reparative measures for indigenous peoples, so where is the inconsistency except in the thinking of those who offer such an argument—rightwingers, usually—although it presents one aspect on which they are very consistent: hatred?

The trouble with the view that sees validity with that line of argument is its very moronic nature, which betrays the ingrained bigotry of those who espouse it. Palestine already existed, and “Palestinian” referred to all those who resided there, of which a minority was Jewish, the majority being Arab. Using “Palestinian” to refer only to Arabs, while inferring “terrorist, usually, is an interpretation that the Zionists have managed to forge over time, also convincing gullible and mentally-limited people that Jews and Arabs have always existed separately, like oil and water.

That’s absurd, yet their whole line of argument rests on that asinine belief.

Just imagine: France decides to take over Canada, forcing everyone east and west of Quebec into subjugation, imposing harsh blockades that force daily suffering on all but the Quebecois, who constantly raid Anglo-Canada under the pretext of searching for terrorists, always managing to destroy a few buildings and to kill a few civilians in the process, this going on now for 75 years, all whilst France promotes and funds French courses to anyone who wants to convert to Frenchism, and it helps anyone identifying as French to relocate to Québiscael, once known as Canada. Meanwhile, Canadians, now mostly known as “terrorists” in thanks to repeated propaganda efforts, are constantly encouraged to move to the US with constant reduction in their quality of life, this facilitated through bombing campaigns that rely on that “terrorist” propaganda to justify the destruction of a people whenever Canadians attempt to lash back.

Would anyone actually be stupid enough to claim that the French were justified to have an entirely French land because, technically, the French were here before the English, and what followed doesn’t matter? Would anyone be stupid enough to fail to see the clear colonial aspects that underline all of that?

The French already have their land, you say?

OK, just imagine they didn’t, is what’s relevant to my argument. But, nonetheless, what’s Israel’s “land”?

Zionists like Hopper dig up old scriptures and archeological finds dating from thousands of years ago to claim that Israel is merely, finally, the Jews regaining their home, but the only thing that all of that establishes is that Jews were present in the area, but Romans and others changed any claims of Jewish kingdom long, long ago.

He states: “So if Israel is a settler colony, it’s notable as the only one where the settlers just happen to be colonizing an area where their direct ancestors built and maintained sprawling places of worship more than 2,000 years prior — which were then destroyed and built upon by the region’s supposed indigenous people.”

How far back to we have to go? If we accept the logic stupidly put forth by the likes of Hopper, then it goes without saying that the world belongs to Africans. However, if the Zoroastrians regain any kind of momentum, we may see millions being displaced out of North Africa through to India.

The logical course is the one that accounts for the area’s status pre-British invasion and at the time of independence, at which point Palestine was like Canada, in that many ethnic groups co-habited and all were referred to as Palestinians. Dividing them into Jews and non-Jews was a Zionist ploy that’s as meaningful as dividing Canadians into Canadians and Québiscaelians and calling all of Canada Québiscael.

I’m not sure how the Nakba was turned into anything that paints the Zionist Jews as the victims, their occupation thus being justified by some genocidal treatment they received in 1948, but Hopper lives in some reality that would justify the following, it seems:

“And most Israelis are not descended from European Jews; they are primarily descended from North African and Middle Eastern Jewish communities that were forcibly expelled in the wake of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.”

Zionists see it normal to divide a country along ethno-religious lines. But, since Israeli citizenship is offered to all who are willing to convert to Judaism, are we, then, to believe that all is dependent on a religious line?

I’m tempted to start a charity that converts the poorest Blacks in Africa into Jews and help them settle in Tel-Aviv. I expect much pushback and red tape. 

Want a two-state solution? Maybe ask the Palestinians why they keep rejecting one

Hopper stupidly claims that the two-state solution never came about despite Israeli attempts to push it through. He stupidly says:

“The first was at Israel’s inception in 1948, when the United Nations partitioned the British Mandate of Palestine into a Jewish side and an Arab side. The region’s Jews took the deal, and the Arabs didn’t — prompting an all-out attempt by the Arab World to violently evict the new Jewish state.”

Of course the “Jews took the deal”, you nitwit. And it’s the Palestinians who refused it—not all of them being Arab—as they didn’t see borders being related to Jews or Arabs.

The Jews were offered a chance to go from citizen of Palestine to owning half the place overnight, so whether or not they accepted is moot, and a stupid argument.

But the stupid doesn’t stop there, as Hopper stupidly adds:

“The most recent was in 2000, when U.S. President Bill Clinton secured Israel’s approval for a demilitarized Palestinian state occupying the Gaza Strip, 92 per cent of the West Bank and even parts of Jerusalem. Yasser Arafat, president of the Palestinian National Authority, said “no” — and then launched four years of suicide bombings.”

Is Hopper unable to see just how despicable and insulting a deal that is, and one that isn’t even remotely close to being a two-state solution? Boy, talk about stupid.  

Want Israel to “deoccupy” Palestinian land? They did … in Gaza

Too much stupid from Hopper in four short paragraphs, as he’s obviously too stupid to see why the blockade he calls “deoccupying” needlessly increased the suffering and deaths in Gaza, and merely made it easy for Israel to bomb Palestinians and illegally seize their land, little by little, bulldozing Palestinian neighbourhoods to make way for new Israeli “settlers” in “contested areas”, their words, not mine.

If Israel is trying to commit genocide, it’s very, very bad at it, and, They’re also terrible at apartheid

The last two points stupidly raised by Hopper are addressed with:

Regarding the first, Hopper stupidly says:

“For one thing, the Palestinian population is growing dramatically. In the immediate wake of the Six Day War in 1967, there was about 1 million Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank. According to the most recent count by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, that number is now up to 5.5 million .”

Stupid, indeed. The graphic below should help explain why density matters, no matter how much of a moron one is.

Regarding the second:

In a piece on Human Rights Watch's 2021 report (below) that accused Israel of being an apartheid state, The Seattle Times stated:

“Human Rights Watch focused its report on the definitions of apartheid and persecution used by the International Criminal Court, which launched a probe into possible Israeli war crimes last month. Israel rejects the court as biased.

“Citing public statements by Israeli leaders and official policies, HRW argued that Israel has ‘demonstrated an intent to maintain the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians’ in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, coupled with ‘systematic oppression’ and ‘inhumane acts.’

‘When these three elements occur together, they amount to the crime of apartheid,’ it said.”

Conversely, Hopper stupidly explains why it’s falsely labeled an apartheid state with:

“For obvious reasons it’s always been a little difficult to equate Israel with Nazi Germany, everyone’s usual first choice for ‘most evil country.’ So Israel instead found itself being shoehorned into comparisons with Apartheid South Africa.”

“And Apartheid South Africa’s whole deal was to deny basic rights to most of its citizenry in order to empower a white minority to rule over a non-white majority. Jews are the majority in Israel, but one-fifth of the population is Arab and enjoys full citizenship.”

Hard to say if he’s considerable degrees of stupid stupider than the average stupid person or if he’s just real devious as well as average stupid, but he’s counting on readers being stupider than him?

But, boy, howdy! is that ever a stupid thing to say. If one considers the all that is Israel and the pockets of Palestine left within it, than Arabs form about half the population and are herded and caged into a tiny part of the land they once enjoyed equally.

What I want Hopper to do, should he wish to prove that he’s saying valid stuff and he isn’t just an asshat for the ardent Zionists and sundry rich white Euro-centric types and their racist ideals, is to be a ‘man’ about it, and to invalidate all the points in the Human Rights Watch report, below, while also accounting for the above graphic.

And if he’s to simply brush all that off by discrediting Human Rights Watch, then he should explain, with proof, why their report is entirely meritless.

.

HRW - A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution

Link in case iframe broken: A Threshold Crossed

.