I haven’t once argued in bad faith. You, on the other hand have essentially forbidden any criticism of Israel whatsoever, made no arguments except those where you attack me (hint: this is called an ad hominem fallacy) and continuously hand-waved without actually stooping so low as to tell me where I’m wrong; you just claim that I am but you can’t be bothered to say why/how.
Bonus points for your “I know you are but what am I” on the subject of open-mindedness.
If this is you at your coolest, I guess if you were to actually lose your temper we’d just get an incoherent string of characters as repeatedly you smash your keyboard into your face to make a point.

Is this a joke account?

want to live in peace

Genocides their neighbours

Literally a lie.
Amnesty international.
The UN.
Pretty much every government in the world.

All liars.

My only wish is that Israelis would wake the fuck up and realize that trying to kill all of the Palestinians isn’t a winning strategy. Sure, a lot of them don’t harbor that sentiment, but enough of them do. I do not feel bad about the Nazis or Japanese Imperialists that were killed in WW2, and I don’t feel bad for these idiots that won’t give up Zionism to better their lives. All sides have to agree on peace, and as it stands, Zionists don’t want that.

Ftfy

Bloody hell, yes. I missed that!

I’m not advocating for genocide, but…

Predictably goes on to unambiguously advocate for genocide

Friendly reminder that Palestine is an illegally occupied territory and it’s near impossible to “improve your life” without first freeing yourself from oppression.

“This crap” being a rational take. It seems like you’ve made your mind up, and any contrary viewpoint be damned.
Side note: it’s a bad faith argument to attach everyone to some arbitrary group, fail to define that group, and then attack it.

an attempt for me to state more concrete positions

It is exactly this. You attack “the left” and “liberals” as though they are the same thing (they very much are not) without mentioning anything specific, so it’s hard for me (the left; not a liberal) to defend any position. I suspected a bunch of implied strawman fallacies was hidden behind this hand-waving and frankly I think this is a cowardly way to argue your point. So let’s do the bullet points.

• “From the river to the sea” is not a blatant anything. Yes, it has been used by Hamas, but it has also been used by Likud, for basically the opposite meaning. Therefore context must be absolutely appropriate in the understanding of the intent of the words. If a person or group who are in favour of Palestinian sovereignty and/or a single-state solution use the phrase, you can quite fairly assume that they are talking about this issue, rather than calling for the extermination of an ethnic group. It’s dishonest in the extreme to label anyone who calls for Palestinians to be free an antisemite. As for the other phrase you mentioned, it seems like you are saying anyone who mentions an intifada is antisemitic. That seems ridiculous, and possibly you need to give more context.

• Israel is an apartheid regime. It is a settler colonial project. It meets these definitions, and either you’re for settler colonialism or you’re against Israel in its current manifestation.

• The reason you’ve not heard about other states doing other things is because we are talking about Israel, and the ways in which Arabic people are opressed there. The mistreatment of Jewish people in other places at other times does not pardon or imply permission for the mistreatment of Arabs anywhere.

• It’s not about being “progressive coded”. It’s context, again. If a group’s aim is to restore human rights for people, and/or oversee equality then any accusation of racism should be considered with this context. Conversely, an organisation which has historically made horrific racist/homophobic statements should be considered differently in the same scenario. Again, it’s hard to pinpoint exactly which groups and which incidents you are talking about, as you give no examples.

What sort of nuance and objectivity would you like to see from the huge portion of liberals you mentioned?

“The left” blames Hamas for the kidnapping and murder of these innocent Israeli hostages, because they’re the ones who did it.
“The left” blames the Israeli government for the murder of 186,000 innocent Palestinian civilians, because they’re the ones who did it.

Do you get it now?

Has nobody mentioned Barotrauma? Had a few hundred hours of fun with this, my buddy and I. Especially if you don’t mind shit being not very shiny. It is unique, and it keeps on giving.

There are different levels of lying though aren’t there. This woman had a history of stirring trouble, and if the motive AND outcome of this lie were to stir up trouble on as large a scale as possible, then to not oppose this behaviour would be to invite more unrest.
The whole country just rioted based on a complete fabrication; a racist lie, cynically fabricated for the purpose of provocation. That needs to be addressed, and if she is the provocateur then she needs to be punished, because that type of behaviour is evidently destructive to society.

DO IT YOU FUCKING COWARDS

Not in the slightest. I’m aware that a country isn’t a monolith. Unfortunately, the country as a whole celebrates its victories in sporting events. These athletes shouldn’t be punished, true. But the politicians who are committing genocide should. Their ability to celebrate their nation and to receive international acclaim is unfortunately tied up in their athlete’s careers.
Allowing Israel to participate is validating a genocidal apartheid ethnostate. The athletes wear that flag.

It does make a bit of difference. There’s only one side you can be on in a genocide.
Any country committing a genocide should have all of its privileges taken away. One example of this is having its athletes compete in the Olympics.

It’s not a war; it’s a genocide.
And Israel’s crimes don’t stop there.

And my comment points out that it was the wrong decision to allow them here.
The idea that the “only” thing it can achieve is to drive hostility to those who have arrived is an untested assertion. For example, how about the majority of French people who are horrified at Israel’s policies? They are given voice by this statement.
I would argue that allowing Israel to compete as though nothing is wrong is more dangerous, because ten times as many people are murdered in Palestine per week than there are Israeli athletes in Paris, none of whom are likely to die even if this statement whips the entire country into a murderous rage.

Israel is an apartheid state, currently committing genocide. Why do they get to go to the Eurovision and the Olympics when Russia, another state engaging in genocide, don’t? Israel doesn’t deserve to go to the Olympics. It’s really as simple as that.

Sometimes decisions are incorrect.

Who is responsible for the complete mismatch between your description and the events if the video?

Or, here’s another way of looking at it. Man who voluntarily left the ruling party of Israel and remains a part of Israel’s political class quotes Hitler. Not in the way we all quote Hitler to show that a point of view is wrong because Hitler held it, but rather in the way we quote someone like Nelson Mandela or Albert Einstein; to support an argument because we respect the source.
Meaning, Israeli politician respects Hitler.

Israel=Nazis is trending because the Israeli regime is genocidal, just like the Nazi regime that necessitated the creation of Israel, which is tragically ironic. This news piece is just garnish.