mintyfrog

I'm sorry that you expect each unknowing consumer to have the intellectual capacity to understand the geopolitical consequences of each product they by based on the environmental damage and human rights violations during its production.

It's almost like you're the fool for expecting such a flawed system to work. Saying, "well, you paid me to do it!" does not absolve you of guilt.

"It's not our fault, we just produce cheap goods, the pollution is the fault of the people buying the goods"

If your products are cheap because you're polluting, you are the problem. If you weren't polluting, your products wouldn't be as cheap. If your products weren't as cheap, they wouldn't be competitive on the capitalist market. If they weren't competitive, they wouldn't be bought.

I don't think Israel should continue its actions in Palestine. I call for an end to the apartheid. There.

However, saying "death to Israel" doesn't bring us any closer to peace.

Living in a place is not a reason to be killed. Being born in a place is not a reason to be killed.

settlers aren't civilians

Dehumanization, how original.

Both involve the killing of innocent civilians based on their racioethnic group.

Different scale, motivation, morals, etc? Yes. Still, they give both context to saying "death to Israel" because they prove that the statement is being used in a violent way.

Okay so you are saying that:

• "death" in this context is used in a violent way
• "Israel" is referring to the "White Jewish ethnostate" (in your other comment)

Thus, "death to Israel" is calling for violence upon Jews. Antisemitic. Case closed.

I did not compare these two events.