NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On December 07 2023 02:24 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think theres an element of redundancy to this. Theres no point in stating over and over that SA sucks or that Hamas sucks, because there is no disagreement there. Israel has plenty defenders and sympathizers, and thus, there's a debate to be had. And hey, this is fair! Israeli treatment of palestinians is overall a much less black and white topic than saudi treatment of women/dissenting journalists. I also see more discussion on the topic of how to get rid of hamas (hard to know what to do, there) than on the issue of settlements (more universally condemned).
There is plenty of disagreement on Hamas, people are just not being direct or logical with their assumptions.
Here’s an example, and you have to imagine it is some one other than me asking this question because of… well you know.
What should be done to Nazi sympathizers?
What should be done to Hamas sympathizers?
You would get two completely different answers.
But if the question was is Hamas Nazi level bad you would have got a lot of yes’s. (Well that and a lot of Hamas and Nazis are not the exact same, but let’s leave out the strawmans for this example.
People are unwilling to discuss what should be done about Hamas. And how do you do it without killing a bunch of civilians? It is a whole interesting and other topic that gets .01% of the attention. And it should because people also do not seem to be willing to confront that if you believe that Hamas is actually this horribly evil group , you wouldn’t want them left in charge of Palestinians. Like if Israel need the occupation, settlements outside of the short term end of the war, are the Palestinians any less oppressed? Especially the women?
Hamas are very evil, but Gaza/West bank is oppressed while Nazi Germany wasn't oppressed. Palestinians are oppressed, Germany wasn't. Palestinians don't have any way out of the oppression, whereas Germans never needed a way out of anything to begin with. There's a clear difference in the level of evil coming out of Nazi Germany and the evil coming out of the Palestine regions. Hamas is a consequence of resistance being impossible against an oppressor, Nazi Germany was a consequence of a quest for total domination over all other nations and races. Furthermore, Nazi Germany was extremely powerful and extremely dangerous. Hamas doesn't even have a tiny fraction of that same power and they're nowhere near as dangerous.
These are the reasons why you get very different answers to the question about what should be done about Hamas/Nazi sympathizers. It matters not only how evil the evil people are, but also what the nature of that evil is.
It's human nature for victims to usually not care if their perpetrator was oppressed or not. There are exceptions of course when victims find it in themselves to forgive their attacker because of their history but it's not very common.
- Palestinians being oppressed and - Israel being the victim of a horrible attack by perpetrators looking for every opportunity to do it again are true at the same time.
It's easy to sit on the sidelines and compare the number of people killed and conclude that it's not justified (I'm on the sidelines to and I agree with that logical conclusion) to do what Israel is currently doing in Gaza.
But at the same point of time I can emphasise with the fact that the attacks were so grotesquely evil that they basically force a reaction. Hamas did this. Israel have the power to destroy them. They decided to destroy them (or get their hostages back and the attackers as an alternative that Hamas of course rejected). Protecting civilians is secondary to that objective.
If someones kid is raped and they killed the paedophile I can logically conclude that it's wrong to kill but I can also understand why they did it.
I would've largely agreed with your comment, up until the last sentence which I think is not a valid logical abstraction of the case. We're not looking at a case of someone taking revenge on a sexual predator. We're looking at someone blowing up the neighborhood of a sexual predator while knowing this will kill his family and other families as well, and justifying it with "eliminating the threat". Meanwhile there are actually several other predators which forces us to blow up even more neighborhoods and repeat the process of killing a bunch of families. And in the process of blowing up all these neighborhoods we're also leveling half the district and displacing hundreds of other families. And the rest of the district has to cower in fear of what's going to happen next.
That's not a "reaction". That's an overreaction.
It's because it's not trying to be a logical abstraction of the case. Of course it's an overreaction that was part of my point. Many legal systems even take strong emotions into account when judging on clear cut cases of overreaction.
But in this thread the perspective of quite a few posters seem to be that Israel is doing this because they want to steal the land and that the terror attacks were just a convenient excuse or equally cynical theories.
I would argue it's pretty easy to understand why Israeli politicians decided on this course of action, why the IDF acts as they do and why at least parts of the civilian society supports it. I can even emphasise with it even if I think it's wrong.
Who’s arguing this? The prevailing opinion from that camp appears to be more ‘Israel was already doing this, after a grievous terror incident there’ll be less resistance and pushback to continuing to do this.’
Which isn’t in a completely different universe, but is different enough to justify a distinction being made.
I stopped commenting but keept reading back when GH postulated that Israel probably didn't want to get the hostages back because they would lose their convinient excuse to ethnic cleansing. Another example is Nebuchads post at the very top of the page. I'm sure there are countless examples inbetween.
This thread is mainly about how bad Israel has been in the past. If you bring up that Hamas is bad it gets handwaved. If you disagree on a negative labeling of Israel or their actions like using genocide or ethnostate theres pages of pushback.
Anyway my response was prompted because of the post stating that there is zero intrest in discussing what Israel should do about Hamas. If it's brought up you get a list of what they shouldn't have done in the past and what they should stop with (settlements etc etc.). Implicitly that it's really their own fault and they should take one for the team and turn the other cheek. Which politically, psychologically and perhaps even morally is impossible right now.
That you can't see it is not strange. Greta Thunbergs reaction when she publicly took a side with Fridays for future was basically "it's the rigth and natural thing to do I don't understand the criticism". When many simply doesn't want an environmental group to get entangled in other subjects. Feels the same way in this thread honestly from the majority of posts. Israel is always wrong, their intentions are always bad, historical actions are always their fault and zero attempts at trying to see the other sides view.
To come full circle.
The rise of Hamas is the result of historic oppression and conflict = I agree. Israels motivation for their actions is because they want to steal the land = Really? Extremely balanced take that I at least feel is common.
Pushback works in both directions. There have been discussions as to what Israel should do regarding Hamas previously in the thread, but it’s currently swallowed up with other stuff.
Personally I don’t think there’s a current good answer, indeed Mohdoo’s rather bleak assessment may be one of the more accurate out there.
Being from where I am there’s still a level of national/religious sectarianism that bubbles, although it’s gradually less pronounced.
As much as we kind like to (as much as many deny it) take perverse pride on our fractious history, it’s an absolute drop in the bucket compared to this conflict, or something like the breakup of Yugoslavia. While a real phenomenon, persecution on a day-to-day basis of average Norn Irish Catholics is not in the same ballpark. Death and destruction isn’t in the same ballpark. The Irish and the British are very, very closely aligned culturally, and it was a matter of further dismantling a former Empire, rather than two groups fighting over exclusive rights to a land of religious significance.
What has been shown to work here, or elsewhere just doesn’t seem to be remotely applicable to this current environment, in the absence of many good ideas I’m at a loss, and being at a loss I don’t proffer much on this topic.
I just can’t see a scenario where Hamas down tools long enough for Israel to risk the kind of compromises that might be sufficient to give the Palestinians a platform to build towards healing and long-standing peace. Which, in the absence thereof keeps Hamas doing their thing, which justifies Israel’s position to not do the thing that may lead to positive outcomes. And so on and so forth.
I can’t say I blame Israel for this either. Some on the left especially do tend to gloss over that Hamas are the real deal as murderous psychopaths go. Oct 7th should have really rammed that home, not just the body count but the sheer cruelty and brutality exhibited. Realistically I doubt many peoples on the Earth would accept having such an enemy next door, and quite rightly.
I criticise their settlement policy almost exclusively both on humanitarian grounds, but also on practical grounds. It’s just not something that falls under the umbrella of justified security, indeed some may argue there’s a negative impact there.
I have already told you that I don't know what happened at the end of the 6 day war, what else do you want me to say?
So then you think they have always wanted the land and you just don’t why they did not take it?
Ehud Barak's government probably had different intentions than Netanyahu's government does, and that was just 1999. I'm not sure why you went so far in the past (and so close in time to the Nakba, the iconic land grab action).
So it was not until 2000 that Israel wanted ethnically cleanse all the Palestinians and take the land?
There were people and governments who wanted to do it before (as evidenced by the fact that they did it, for example the Nakba and the settlements that predate 2000). It doesn't mean that every Israeli person or government ever has wanted to do it.
Could you highlight a specific argument from one of my posts that you're countering with this line of questioning, cause really I'm not sure why we're doing this.
It’s strange that you think I’m countering your argument. I’m trying to understand the underlying assumptions that are leading to your conclusions. Or your specific conclusion so I can try to understand your assumptions.
If cerebrate is right and Israel would give up all the settlements for a lasting peace, how would this change your opinion or how would it confirm it?
If the Netanyahu government gave up all the West Bank settlements and let Palestine become a state, that would definitely change a ton of my opinions, yes.
Am I to understand that you thought my argument was pretty good and that's why you're not countering it?
No I do not think that ethnostate who runs a apartheid and wants ethnic cleansing and genocide would be stopped by people like me. I believe a state like that, that had the means (power) and opportunity would just do it, see Russia.
It would absolutely be stopped, though. When you analyze the situation of the Middle East, the fact that Israel has full US and western support is quite important, it's not something that they can just ignore. And they know that, btw, that's why so much of their propaganda is in english.
For the record, Russia didn't "just do it" either. There were eight years between Crimea and the current war. My understanding is that one of the reasons why Putin launched it was that he thought it would be very easy and that the clean victory would help with his image within Russia, similarly to how the Chechnya campaign helped his image. I certainly think that there was a calculation there. You shouldn't conclude that because someone is engaged in an irrational far right campaign, it follows that they have no capacity to think tactically.
On December 08 2023 03:40 JimmiC wrote: [quote] So then you think they have always wanted the land and you just don’t why they did not take it?
Ehud Barak's government probably had different intentions than Netanyahu's government does, and that was just 1999. I'm not sure why you went so far in the past (and so close in time to the Nakba, the iconic land grab action).
So it was not until 2000 that Israel wanted ethnically cleanse all the Palestinians and take the land?
There were people and governments who wanted to do it before (as evidenced by the fact that they did it, for example the Nakba and the settlements that predate 2000). It doesn't mean that every Israeli person or government ever has wanted to do it.
Could you highlight a specific argument from one of my posts that you're countering with this line of questioning, cause really I'm not sure why we're doing this.
It’s strange that you think I’m countering your argument. I’m trying to understand the underlying assumptions that are leading to your conclusions. Or your specific conclusion so I can try to understand your assumptions.
If cerebrate is right and Israel would give up all the settlements for a lasting peace, how would this change your opinion or how would it confirm it?
If the Netanyahu government gave up all the West Bank settlements and let Palestine become a state, that would definitely change a ton of my opinions, yes.
Am I to understand that you thought my argument was pretty good and that's why you're not countering it?
No I do not think that ethnostate who runs a apartheid and wants ethnic cleansing and genocide would be stopped by people like me. I believe a state like that, that had the means (power) and opportunity would just do it, see Russia.
It would absolutely be stopped, though. When you analyze the situation of the Middle East, the fact that Israel has full US and western support is quite important, it's not something that they can just ignore. And they know that, btw, that's why so much of their propaganda is in english. + Show Spoiler +
For the record, Russia didn't "just do it" either. There were eight years between Crimea and the current war. My understanding is that one of the reasons why Putin launched it was that he thought it would be very easy and that the clean victory would help with his image within Russia, similarly to how the Chechnya campaign helped his image. I certainly think that there was a calculation there. You shouldn't conclude that because someone is engaged in an irrational far right campaign, it follows that they have no capacity to think tactically.
To this point, there was some good investigative journalism that touched on this.
“We are asked to look for high-rise buildings with half a floor that can be attributed to Hamas,” said one source who took part in previous Israeli offensives in Gaza. “Sometimes it is a militant group’s spokesperson’s office, or a point where operatives meet. I understood that the floor is an excuse that allows the army to cause a lot of destruction in Gaza. That is what they told us.
“If they would tell the whole world that the [Islamic Jihad] offices on the 10th floor are not important as a target, but that its existence is a justification to bring down the entire high-rise with the aim of pressuring civilian families who live in it in order to put pressure on terrorist organizations, this would itself be seen as terrorism. So they do not say it,” the source added.
“There will always be a floor in the high-rise [associated with Hamas]. But for the most part, when it comes to power targets, it is clear that the target doesn’t have military value that justifies an attack that would bring down the entire empty building in the middle of a city, with the help of six planes and bombs weighing several tons.”
...
Indeed, according to sources who were involved in the compiling of power targets in previous wars, although the target file usually contains some kind of alleged association with Hamas or other militant groups, striking the target functions primarily as a “means that allows damage to civil society.” The sources understood, some explicitly and some implicitly, that damage to civilians is the real purpose of these attacks.
It's got stuff in there about "Habsora" or "The Gospel" which is what they call the AI they have feeding them targets like a demented Tinder and a bunch of other interesting reporting that makes it worth a read imo.
Ehud Barak's government probably had different intentions than Netanyahu's government does, and that was just 1999. I'm not sure why you went so far in the past (and so close in time to the Nakba, the iconic land grab action).
So it was not until 2000 that Israel wanted ethnically cleanse all the Palestinians and take the land?
There were people and governments who wanted to do it before (as evidenced by the fact that they did it, for example the Nakba and the settlements that predate 2000). It doesn't mean that every Israeli person or government ever has wanted to do it.
Could you highlight a specific argument from one of my posts that you're countering with this line of questioning, cause really I'm not sure why we're doing this.
It’s strange that you think I’m countering your argument. I’m trying to understand the underlying assumptions that are leading to your conclusions. Or your specific conclusion so I can try to understand your assumptions.
If cerebrate is right and Israel would give up all the settlements for a lasting peace, how would this change your opinion or how would it confirm it?
If the Netanyahu government gave up all the West Bank settlements and let Palestine become a state, that would definitely change a ton of my opinions, yes.
Am I to understand that you thought my argument was pretty good and that's why you're not countering it?
No I do not think that ethnostate who runs a apartheid and wants ethnic cleansing and genocide would be stopped by people like me. I believe a state like that, that had the means (power) and opportunity would just do it, see Russia.
It would absolutely be stopped, though. When you analyze the situation of the Middle East, the fact that Israel has full US and western support is quite important, it's not something that they can just ignore. And they know that, btw, that's why so much of their propaganda is in english.
For the record, Russia didn't "just do it" either. There were eight years between Crimea and the current war. My understanding is that one of the reasons why Putin launched it was that he thought it would be very easy and that the clean victory would help with his image within Russia, similarly to how the Chechnya campaign helped his image. I certainly think that there was a calculation there. You shouldn't conclude that because someone is engaged in an irrational far right campaign, it follows that they have no capacity to think tactically.
I do not, I just completely disagree with you tactics. For a long time no one would have cared in the power positions in the west and US if the Israel had just annexed the land they won in the war and displaced the people. That is kinda how it worked for a long time.
Now I do not think it is that different, we can piss and moan all we want about all sorts of things but it does not really change what the decision makers do and at the end of the day Israel is about the only consistent ally the west has in the middle east that is filled with countries full of autocratic leaders who want to destroy the west.
Now if it would be unpopular in Israel, as long as its a democracy, that would matter because he would lose power.
They’re not a particularly useful ally in any practical sense. Israel get a fuckton more mileage out of these alliances, especially with the US than the other way around.
The wider West doesn’t really give much of a fuck if you’re an autocratic regime if you have something else that’s worth bartering.
On December 08 2023 01:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote: As a show of good faith in a time of military conflict I'd like to see Israel avoid lighting the Hanukkah menorah. Hanukkah is a secondary holiday and related to a successful military action. Contrast this with Yom Kippur which is spiritual in nature.
On the contrary. Chanukah is about celebrating religious freedom from those who would prohibit religious practice for Jews. Considering the recent rise in antisemitism, around the world, I see lighting the menorah as particularly appropriate right now.
There were people and governments who wanted to do it before (as evidenced by the fact that they did it, for example the Nakba and the settlements that predate 2000). It doesn't mean that every Israeli person or government ever has wanted to do it.
Could you highlight a specific argument from one of my posts that you're countering with this line of questioning, cause really I'm not sure why we're doing this.
It’s strange that you think I’m countering your argument. I’m trying to understand the underlying assumptions that are leading to your conclusions. Or your specific conclusion so I can try to understand your assumptions.
If cerebrate is right and Israel would give up all the settlements for a lasting peace, how would this change your opinion or how would it confirm it?
If the Netanyahu government gave up all the West Bank settlements and let Palestine become a state, that would definitely change a ton of my opinions, yes.
Am I to understand that you thought my argument was pretty good and that's why you're not countering it?
No I do not think that ethnostate who runs a apartheid and wants ethnic cleansing and genocide would be stopped by people like me. I believe a state like that, that had the means (power) and opportunity would just do it, see Russia.
It would absolutely be stopped, though. When you analyze the situation of the Middle East, the fact that Israel has full US and western support is quite important, it's not something that they can just ignore. And they know that, btw, that's why so much of their propaganda is in english.
For the record, Russia didn't "just do it" either. There were eight years between Crimea and the current war. My understanding is that one of the reasons why Putin launched it was that he thought it would be very easy and that the clean victory would help with his image within Russia, similarly to how the Chechnya campaign helped his image. I certainly think that there was a calculation there. You shouldn't conclude that because someone is engaged in an irrational far right campaign, it follows that they have no capacity to think tactically.
I do not, I just completely disagree with you tactics. For a long time no one would have cared in the power positions in the west and US if the Israel had just annexed the land they won in the war and displaced the people. That is kinda how it worked for a long time.
Now I do not think it is that different, we can piss and moan all we want about all sorts of things but it does not really change what the decision makers do and at the end of the day Israel is about the only consistent ally the west has in the middle east that is filled with countries full of autocratic leaders who want to destroy the west.
Now if it would be unpopular in Israel, as long as its a democracy, that would matter because he would lose power.
They’re not a particularly useful ally in any practical sense. Israel get a fuckton more mileage out of these alliances, especially with the US than the other way around.
The wider West doesn’t really give much of a fuck if you’re an autocratic regime if you have something else that’s worth bartering.
Are you suggesting that Israel is close to losing its support? I do not see it happening but I would be interested in what signs you’ve seen.
No, I said they’re not a particularly useful ally, as I posted. What does the US get out of it relatively speaking?
It’s an alliance borne of other rationales, nothing wrong with that in essence, not everything has to be transactional. Indeed the US’ role in the peace process in Northern Ireland was sprung from other motivations, to the benefit of folks over here.
But it’s less an alliance, more the US propping Israel up.
On December 08 2023 01:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote: As a show of good faith in a time of military conflict I'd like to see Israel avoid lighting the Hanukkah menorah. Hanukkah is a secondary holiday and related to a successful military action. Contrast this with Yom Kippur which is spiritual in nature.
On the contrary. Chanukah is about celebrating religious freedom from those who would prohibit religious practice for Jews. Considering the recent rise in antisemitism, around the world, I see lighting the menorah as particularly appropriate right now.
100% agreed. Personally I’d just disregard everything Jimmy has said on this topic as it’s mostly l nonsense and he seems to want to indulge in the ‘occasionally pop in to drop a bomb and fuck off again’ style of posting beloved of Nettles rather than any kind of back and forth discourse on anything he pumps out like most of the rest of us at least try to do.
Israel was dangerously close to a long-term war against a unified Arab world as it was in 1967. One of key reasons they abandoned Sinai was the danger of a new Arab coalition forming to kick them out of the region entirely. If they straight up displaced all of the Arabs from the occupied territories and claimed them as their own, there'd likely be no state of Israel today; they had no nukes to protect them back then, and Soviet Union would have good grounds to counter any US intervention in the conflict if Israel were committing atrocities on such scale (not to mention that it'd be a tough sell in the US itself to intervene on Israel's behalf if such were the case).
At any rate, Israel has been annexing Palestinian land in bits and pieces for decades now. Whatever happened 60 years ago, that's the reality today and given their government statements (or you know, the fact that they put 'entirety of Jerusalem belongs to Israel' in their constitution in spite of what the UN thinks of that).
So it was not until 2000 that Israel wanted ethnically cleanse all the Palestinians and take the land?
There were people and governments who wanted to do it before (as evidenced by the fact that they did it, for example the Nakba and the settlements that predate 2000). It doesn't mean that every Israeli person or government ever has wanted to do it.
Could you highlight a specific argument from one of my posts that you're countering with this line of questioning, cause really I'm not sure why we're doing this.
It’s strange that you think I’m countering your argument. I’m trying to understand the underlying assumptions that are leading to your conclusions. Or your specific conclusion so I can try to understand your assumptions.
If cerebrate is right and Israel would give up all the settlements for a lasting peace, how would this change your opinion or how would it confirm it?
If the Netanyahu government gave up all the West Bank settlements and let Palestine become a state, that would definitely change a ton of my opinions, yes.
Am I to understand that you thought my argument was pretty good and that's why you're not countering it?
No I do not think that ethnostate who runs a apartheid and wants ethnic cleansing and genocide would be stopped by people like me. I believe a state like that, that had the means (power) and opportunity would just do it, see Russia.
It would absolutely be stopped, though. When you analyze the situation of the Middle East, the fact that Israel has full US and western support is quite important, it's not something that they can just ignore. And they know that, btw, that's why so much of their propaganda is in english.
For the record, Russia didn't "just do it" either. There were eight years between Crimea and the current war. My understanding is that one of the reasons why Putin launched it was that he thought it would be very easy and that the clean victory would help with his image within Russia, similarly to how the Chechnya campaign helped his image. I certainly think that there was a calculation there. You shouldn't conclude that because someone is engaged in an irrational far right campaign, it follows that they have no capacity to think tactically.
I do not, I just completely disagree with you tactics. For a long time no one would have cared in the power positions in the west and US if the Israel had just annexed the land they won in the war and displaced the people. That is kinda how it worked for a long time.
Now I do not think it is that different, we can piss and moan all we want about all sorts of things but it does not really change what the decision makers do and at the end of the day Israel is about the only consistent ally the west has in the middle east that is filled with countries full of autocratic leaders who want to destroy the west.
Now if it would be unpopular in Israel, as long as its a democracy, that would matter because he would lose power.
They’re not a particularly useful ally in any practical sense. Israel get a fuckton more mileage out of these alliances, especially with the US than the other way around.
The wider West doesn’t really give much of a fuck if you’re an autocratic regime if you have something else that’s worth bartering.
America gets a lot of value from Israel as an ally.
1. They are the most real ally they will ever have in that neighborhood. Israel has a lot of cultural and political similarities to the West. Other nearby "allies" are fair weather friends who would swap allegiance with China or the like if the wind changed.
2. Israel provides a lot of civilian tech similar to Taiwan (just more diverse). Tons of startups and innovation in Israel. They make all kinds of apps and things and lots of US tech companies have R&D centers (if not secondary HQs) in Israel. Intel microchips, PayPal, WhatsApp, cell phones, etc. Israel helps maintain the all too critical tech edge, and it preferentially partners with US companies very frequently.
3. Military intelligence. Israel happens to have some egg on their face right now w Oct 7, but Israel still has, bar none, the best intelligence over the Middle East of anyone. If the US wants to attack ISIS, prevent Asad from using chemical weapons, check in on Iran's next move, etc, you better bet they are consulting with Israel and hearing from some guy on the ground that can give a better inside scoop than a spy satellite.
4. Military tech. No one gets more practical tests of (or spends as much of GDP on R&D of) missile defenses than Israel. Considering the biggest actual threat left to Americans defensively is nuclear missiles, it's pretty nice to have Israel on your team when Russia subtly threatens nukes every other month. So too with other anti-terrorist technologies, since the US tends to face similar opponents. Not to mention all the other cool cutting edge stuff that comes out of Israel like cyberweapons, unmanned vehicles, and that Trophy system, which is why Israels tanks keep surviving antitank rockets that leveled Russias cavalry. A lot of those are developed in partnership with the US, so they never lose their edge.
5. Israel carries it's own weight. South Korea requires tons of US boots on the ground. Many NATO nations are complacent and slack on their own militaries. Other nations that allow US bases, require the US to station troops and supply them. Israel maintains it's own high grade military with lots of safe runway for the US to use if it wants, but also Israel will probably bomb the baddies themselves anyways. Even US financial aid largely goes straight back to US arms manufacturers, providing safe American jobs back home.
There is not a long list of allies that are as strategically located and valuable for US geopolitical interests as Israel.
On December 08 2023 01:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote: As a show of good faith in a time of military conflict I'd like to see Israel avoid lighting the Hanukkah menorah. Hanukkah is a secondary holiday and related to a successful military action. Contrast this with Yom Kippur which is spiritual in nature.
On the contrary. Chanukah is about celebrating religious freedom from those who would prohibit religious practice for Jews. Considering the recent rise in antisemitism, around the world, I see lighting the menorah as particularly appropriate right now.
100% agreed. Personally I’d just disregard everything Jimmy has said on this topic as it’s mostly l nonsense and he seems to want to indulge in the ‘occasionally pop in to drop a bomb and fuck off again’ style of posting beloved of Nettles rather than any kind of back and forth discourse on anything he pumps out like most of the rest of us at least try to do.
i disagree. please see links below. My posts are well thought out. i explained my exact reasoning. if you disagree with the content of the reasoning ... please do so. My last sequence of posts about disputes between Christians and Jews ... I responded to every rebuttal. it is a pretty serious topic.
On December 08 2023 01:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote: As a show of good faith in a time of military conflict I'd like to see Israel avoid lighting the Hanukkah menorah. Hanukkah is a secondary holiday and related to a successful military action. Contrast this with Yom Kippur which is spiritual in nature.
On the contrary. Chanukah is about celebrating religious freedom from those who would prohibit religious practice for Jews. Considering the recent rise in antisemitism, around the world, I see lighting the menorah as particularly appropriate right now.
it includes the celebration of a military victory. so it is not a purely spiritual thing.
A few cities are moving in the direction I suggest. None of them got the cojones to provide the reasoning behind it that i do though.
EDIT CORRECTION: actually the Calgary mayor sorta agrees with me but does not say the nature of the hanukkah has always included a non-spiritual component. as a non-jew it'd be pretty tough for a politician to step into the topic. so there is that.
On December 08 2023 01:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote: As a show of good faith in a time of military conflict I'd like to see Israel avoid lighting the Hanukkah menorah. Hanukkah is a secondary holiday and related to a successful military action. Contrast this with Yom Kippur which is spiritual in nature.
On the contrary. Chanukah is about celebrating religious freedom from those who would prohibit religious practice for Jews. Considering the recent rise in antisemitism, around the world, I see lighting the menorah as particularly appropriate right now.
it includes the celebration of a military victory. so it is not a purely spiritual thing.
A few cities are moving in the direction I suggest. None of them got the cojones to provide the reasoning behind it that i do though.
Your rationale is ridiculous, so it’s hardly unexpected when nobody had the ‘cojones’ to present a similar rationale.
Your ‘solution’ to anti-Semitism is for Jews to disavow their heritage for the sake of current political whims.
It’s ridiculous, and I don’t think anyone in this thread, even the most avowed opponent of Israel thinks your suggestions are realistic, or indeed even hypothetically useful.
Stick to sucking Bobby Kotick off, you’re at least good at that
On December 08 2023 01:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote: As a show of good faith in a time of military conflict I'd like to see Israel avoid lighting the Hanukkah menorah. Hanukkah is a secondary holiday and related to a successful military action. Contrast this with Yom Kippur which is spiritual in nature.
On the contrary. Chanukah is about celebrating religious freedom from those who would prohibit religious practice for Jews. Considering the recent rise in antisemitism, around the world, I see lighting the menorah as particularly appropriate right now.
it includes the celebration of a military victory. so it is not a purely spiritual thing.
A few cities are moving in the direction I suggest. None of them got the cojones to provide the reasoning behind it that i do though.
Your rationale is ridiculous, so it’s hardly unexpected when nobody had the ‘cojones’ to present a similar rationale.
Your ‘solution’ to anti-Semitism is for Jews to disavow their heritage for the sake of current political whims.
It’s ridiculous, and I don’t think anyone in this thread, even the most avowed opponent of Israel thinks your suggestions are realistic, or indeed even hypothetically useful.
Stick to sucking Bobby Kotick off, you’re at least good at that
i have not presented a solution to anti-semitism. Furthermore, please read exactly what i posted. I do not suggest any one in my family or my colleagues to disavow their heritage.
On December 08 2023 01:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote: As a show of good faith in a time of military conflict I'd like to see Israel avoid lighting the Hanukkah menorah. Hanukkah is a secondary holiday and related to a successful military action. Contrast this with Yom Kippur which is spiritual in nature.
On the contrary. Chanukah is about celebrating religious freedom from those who would prohibit religious practice for Jews. Considering the recent rise in antisemitism, around the world, I see lighting the menorah as particularly appropriate right now.
100% agreed. Personally I’d just disregard everything Jimmy has said on this topic as it’s mostly l nonsense and he seems to want to indulge in the ‘occasionally pop in to drop a bomb and fuck off again’ style of posting beloved of Nettles rather than any kind of back and forth discourse on anything he pumps out like most of the rest of us at least try to do.
i disagree. please see links below. My posts are well thought out. i explained my exact reasoning. if you disagree with the content of the reasoning ... please do so. My last sequence of posts about disputes between Christians and Jews ... I responded to every rebuttal. it is a pretty serious topic.
On December 08 2023 01:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote: As a show of good faith in a time of military conflict I'd like to see Israel avoid lighting the Hanukkah menorah. Hanukkah is a secondary holiday and related to a successful military action. Contrast this with Yom Kippur which is spiritual in nature.
On the contrary. Chanukah is about celebrating religious freedom from those who would prohibit religious practice for Jews. Considering the recent rise in antisemitism, around the world, I see lighting the menorah as particularly appropriate right now.
it includes the celebration of a military victory. so it is not a purely spiritual thing.
A few cities are moving in the direction I suggest. None of them got the cojones to provide the reasoning behind it that i do though.
EDIT CORRECTION: actually the Calgary mayor sorta agrees with me but does not say the nature of the hanukkah has always included a non-spiritual component. as a non-jew it'd be pretty tough for a politician to step into the topic. so there is that.
The holiday revolves around the miracle of the oil of the Temple's Menorah lasting for 8 days instead of 1. The Menorah was always a religious device that represents Torah since before the time of the Macabes even. The word "Chanukah" means dedication, because that's when they re-dedicated the Temple to Jewish values and removed the Greek idols. The dreidel represents God's invisible hand controlling events down below. People celebrate by eating latkes and jelly filled donuts that represent fixing the Temple and the miracle of the oil.
Historically, there was a war that was involved, but the Jewish Sages intentionally downplayed the military side of things when they made it into a holiday. There are no Jewish customs to swing swords or the like on Chanukah, only peaceful spiritually related things.
Regarding Canadian politicians avoiding the event this year: I think they believe (and with good reason), that they can only lose politically if they are seen as taking either side in this conflict. I think the Moncton people are going too far by removing all Jewish stuff lest people think that means supporting Israel, but if the Calgary event was explicitly turned into a political statement, I understand the mayor backing out.
On December 08 2023 10:28 WombaT wrote: Stick to sucking Bobby Kotick off, you’re at least good at that
check my comments below please. keep in mind that Brian G. Kelly runs ATVI, not Bobby Kotick and there is no relation between David Kelly and Brian G. Kelly as far as I know.
On December 08 2023 10:56 Cerebrate1 wrote: ..means supporting Israel, but if the Calgary event was explicitly turned into a political statement, I understand the mayor backing out.
ah ok. thanks for your insight.
If there is a narrative here that I am anti jewish you can PM me and i am 100% confident i can dispel that notion. Before PM-ing me Check out my thoughts on Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, Andrew Friedman, Alan Greenspan, Mel Lastman, my 3rd year combinatorics professor, Andy Kaufman, Nathan Fielder, Jerry Seinfeld, Milton Friedman, the Austrian School of Economics, Objectivism, David Kelly , Barry Scheck that I've posted on here the past 10 years.
On December 08 2023 10:28 WombaT wrote: Stick to sucking Bobby Kotick off, you’re at least good at that
check my comments below please. keep in mind that Brian G. Kelly runs ATVI, not Bobby Kotick and there is no relation between David Kelly and Brian G. Kelly as far as I know.
On December 08 2023 10:56 Cerebrate1 wrote: ..means supporting Israel, but if the Calgary event was explicitly turned into a political statement, I understand the mayor backing out.
ah ok. thanks for your insight.
If there is a narrative here that I am anti jewish you can PM me and i am 100% confident i can dispel that notion. Before PM-ing me Check out my thoughts on Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, Andrew Friedman, Alan Greenspan, Mel Lastman, my 3rd year combinatorics professor, Andy Kaufman, Nathan Fielder, Jerry Seinfeld, Milton Friedman, the Austrian School of Economics, Objectivism, David Kelly , Barry Scheck that I've posted on here the past 10 years.
EDIT: Warren Buffet.
You have no such reputation, you have a reputation for making ridiculous, borderline irrelevant utterances on subjects that almost nobody agrees with and not engaging with pushback properly.
Be it ‘actually Bobby Kotick is a genius and also NHL 1994’ in the Activision thread, or ‘the Stormgate Kickstarter is a sham and they’ve run out of money’ in that thread or ‘there’d be less anti-Semtiism if Jews were less Jewish’ in here
Like great make those assertions, but don’t sidestep criticism of those assertions. You regularly feel fit to make them and just completely ignore any pushback on said posts until your next self-contained ‘zinger’ is ready.
There were people and governments who wanted to do it before (as evidenced by the fact that they did it, for example the Nakba and the settlements that predate 2000). It doesn't mean that every Israeli person or government ever has wanted to do it.
Could you highlight a specific argument from one of my posts that you're countering with this line of questioning, cause really I'm not sure why we're doing this.
It’s strange that you think I’m countering your argument. I’m trying to understand the underlying assumptions that are leading to your conclusions. Or your specific conclusion so I can try to understand your assumptions.
If cerebrate is right and Israel would give up all the settlements for a lasting peace, how would this change your opinion or how would it confirm it?
If the Netanyahu government gave up all the West Bank settlements and let Palestine become a state, that would definitely change a ton of my opinions, yes.
Am I to understand that you thought my argument was pretty good and that's why you're not countering it?
No I do not think that ethnostate who runs a apartheid and wants ethnic cleansing and genocide would be stopped by people like me. I believe a state like that, that had the means (power) and opportunity would just do it, see Russia.
It would absolutely be stopped, though. When you analyze the situation of the Middle East, the fact that Israel has full US and western support is quite important, it's not something that they can just ignore. And they know that, btw, that's why so much of their propaganda is in english.
For the record, Russia didn't "just do it" either. There were eight years between Crimea and the current war. My understanding is that one of the reasons why Putin launched it was that he thought it would be very easy and that the clean victory would help with his image within Russia, similarly to how the Chechnya campaign helped his image. I certainly think that there was a calculation there. You shouldn't conclude that because someone is engaged in an irrational far right campaign, it follows that they have no capacity to think tactically.
I do not, I just completely disagree with you tactics. For a long time no one would have cared in the power positions in the west and US if the Israel had just annexed the land they won in the war and displaced the people. That is kinda how it worked for a long time.
Now I do not think it is that different, we can piss and moan all we want about all sorts of things but it does not really change what the decision makers do and at the end of the day Israel is about the only consistent ally the west has in the middle east that is filled with countries full of autocratic leaders who want to destroy the west.
Now if it would be unpopular in Israel, as long as its a democracy, that would matter because he would lose power.
They’re not a particularly useful ally in any practical sense. Israel get a fuckton more mileage out of these alliances, especially with the US than the other way around.
The wider West doesn’t really give much of a fuck if you’re an autocratic regime if you have something else that’s worth bartering.
America gets a lot of value from Israel as an ally.
1. They are the most real ally they will ever have in that neighborhood. Israel has a lot of cultural and political similarities to the West. Other nearby "allies" are fair weather friends who would swap allegiance with China or the like if the wind changed.
2. Israel provides a lot of civilian tech similar to Taiwan (just more diverse). Tons of startups and innovation in Israel. They make all kinds of apps and things and lots of US tech companies have R&D centers (if not secondary HQs) in Israel. Intel microchips, PayPal, WhatsApp, cell phones, etc. Israel helps maintain the all too critical tech edge, and it preferentially partners with US companies very frequently.
3. Military intelligence. Israel happens to have some egg on their face right now w Oct 7, but Israel still has, bar none, the best intelligence over the Middle East of anyone. If the US wants to attack ISIS, prevent Asad from using chemical weapons, check in on Iran's next move, etc, you better bet they are consulting with Israel and hearing from some guy on the ground that can give a better inside scoop than a spy satellite.
4. Military tech. No one gets more practical tests of (or spends as much of GDP on R&D of) missile defenses than Israel. Considering the biggest actual threat left to Americans defensively is nuclear missiles, it's pretty nice to have Israel on your team when Russia subtly threatens nukes every other month. So too with other anti-terrorist technologies, since the US tends to face similar opponents. Not to mention all the other cool cutting edge stuff that comes out of Israel like cyberweapons, unmanned vehicles, and that Trophy system, which is why Israels tanks keep surviving antitank rockets that leveled Russias cavalry. A lot of those are developed in partnership with the US, so they never lose their edge.
5. Israel carries it's own weight. South Korea requires tons of US boots on the ground. Many NATO nations are complacent and slack on their own militaries. Other nations that allow US bases, require the US to station troops and supply them. Israel maintains it's own high grade military with lots of safe runway for the US to use if it wants, but also Israel will probably bomb the baddies themselves anyways. Even US financial aid largely goes straight back to US arms manufacturers, providing safe American jobs back home.
There is not a long list of allies that are as strategically located and valuable for US geopolitical interests as Israel.
If most of the benefits of alliance come from military advancement that you’re also happening to be funding to the tune of billions of dollars a year as an aside is that particularly advantageous to you?
Which of the various (ill-advised) forays from the West into the Middle East did Israel help out with?
The US is literally allies with other countries in the region who barely shelve their anti-Israel sentiment for political expediency
On December 08 2023 11:19 WombaT wrote: You have no such reputation, you have a reputation for making ridiculous, borderline irrelevant utterances on subjects that almost nobody agrees with and not engaging with pushback properly.
Be it ‘actually Bobby Kotick is a genius and also NHL 1994’ in the Activision thread, or ‘the Stormgate Kickstarter is a sham and they’ve run out of money’ in that thread or ‘there’d be less anti-Semtiism if Jews were less Jewish’ in here
Like great make those assertions, but don’t sidestep criticism of those assertions. You regularly feel fit to make them and just completely ignore any pushback on said posts until your next self-contained ‘zinger’ is ready.
It’s a fucking nonsense way to post
you don't read the details of what i post. I never said Kickstarter was a scam. Frost Giant has acknowledged many times they are a small studio on a limited budget. I suspect they are running out of money; it is well know Kakao is in big trouble.
if Jews would ease up on taking hard shots at Christians there would be less anti semitism. again, IMO Jesus Christ probably did not exist. That said, I would not engage in this really poor conduct that is in very bad taste. Below is a nice look at things.
Religious Bigotry begets more religious bigotry. Religious tolerance... begets more religious tolerance. It is a case of reciprocal causation.
Regarding my idea of not lighting a ceremonial Menorah in public places ... hanukkah is about staying at home with friends and family... it is not about large ostentatious celebrations. hanukkah is not commercial Christmas.
On December 08 2023 11:19 WombaT wrote: you have a reputation for making ridiculous, borderline irrelevant utterances on subjects that almost nobody agrees with and not engaging with pushback properly.
I provide facts people are not comfortable accepting. Very few want to accept that Bobby Kotick and Brian G. Kelly started with almost nothing along with a dead brand bought for almost nothing ... and built Activision into one of the biggest and best game makers on the planet. People are ignoring the facts.. that's not my problem.
On December 08 2023 10:56 Cerebrate1 wrote: Regarding Canadian politicians avoiding the event this year: I think they believe (and with good reason), that they can only lose politically if they are seen as taking either side in this conflict. I think the Moncton people are going too far by removing all Jewish stuff lest people think that means supporting Israel, but if the Calgary event was explicitly turned into a political statement, I understand the mayor backing out.
Regarding my idea of not lighting a ceremonial Menorah in public places ... hanukkah is about staying at home with friends and family... it is not about large ostentatious celebrations. hanukkah is not commercial Christmas.
Also, hanukkah is a relatively minor holiday. I guess people think its big because it is close the Christmas.
My family usually meets on the last day of Hanukkah. Sometimes we skip it.
Josh Slotnick, a county commissioner, plugged in a menorah at the Missoula County Courthouse in Montana on Thursday. He and other officials opted against a large outdoor display.Credit...
EPT
