|
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 October 06 2024 04:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2024 03:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:
And as Nevuchad pointed out, I am not defending antisemtism, and not justifying it morally. My point is that the actions of Israel are absolutely detrimental to jews all around the globe and that without that, they would be much safer everywhere. You’re placing the blame for antisemitic attacks against Jews who have absolutely nothing to do with Palestine on people other than the antisemites attacking them. Instead of vilifying the attackers you’re excusing them and saying that Jews are to blame for antisemitic violence. Might as well place the blame on Jews for being Christ killers, it makes just as much sense. There is exactly one group causing antisemitic violence and it’s antisemites. Not Jews.
Eh.. the actions of Israel probably does exacerbate antisemitism. I don't think acknowledging that necessarily means one is blaming the Jews or justifying antisemitism. I think it's close because Biff seemed to be making the argument not to acknowledge this terrible reality but instead to imply that Israel should change course for the sake of preventing hate crimes against Jews, which would be a terrible argument that does border on "Blaming the jews." I'd give him the benefit of the doubt since he says this wasn't his intention.
|
On October 06 2024 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2024 04:19 Billyboy wrote:On October 06 2024 03:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2024 02:04 Billyboy wrote:On October 06 2024 01:39 Nebuchad wrote:On October 06 2024 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On October 06 2024 01:16 Nebuchad wrote:On October 06 2024 01:05 Billyboy wrote:On October 06 2024 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On October 06 2024 00:01 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
Because the crime stats are not the reason, they are the excuse. The same as here.
I mean, that's so obviously not true I'm a little taken aback, I don't really know how to respond. Why do you think the far right makes a huge outcry every time a non-white person kills someone, if not because they think it's going to lead more people to associate crime to race and/or nationality? Conservative ideologies in general are reactionary, and the reason why we use this word is because they're happening in reaction. Things used to be good, and then events happened that made things bad, now we need a reaction. Nobody is like "Okay, I'm a huge racist, so what I'm going to do is pretend to react to the events that happen, that'll be a good excuse for my racism." This is not how humans think, ever. Yes it is, they have horrible thoughts but don't want to be a horrible person so they look for excuses/reasons for why their thought is not horrible but just factual. It is not exclusively a right thing either. This is why Kwark pointed out antisemtism existed long before Israel even existed. And to the Black example racism would not go away if whites were now committing more crime per captita. Racists would just find another stat to cherry pick or excuse. So, you're confusing two different things here, which is racists arguing that they aren't racists and racists believing that their racism is justified. Racists are going to use excuses to say that they aren't racists, and their reasoning will either be genuine ("I'm a good person and racism is bad, so I can't be a racist!!") or dishonest ("I'm trying to achieve something for the cause of racism by pretending I'm not a racist"). Regardless, all of these people who have a racist sentiment (or literally any political sentiment, really) believe that this sentiment is justified, they're not looking for excuses. When people think their ideology is unjustified, what they do is they change their ideology. I'm not confused, I agree with this post. It does not argue against what I'm saying it supports it. You just don't seem to believe that some people hating on Israel are doing out of racism (antisemites). It is also true that some racism and other biases are based on personal experience. So when someone gets mugged by a black person they are more likely to become racist than someone who has never had a negative experience with a black person. I have more empathy for those people. I have some empathy for those who social media feeds are showing them nothing but the worst of a group, but less. Still at the end of the day it is a bias, in this case racial and not fair. Blaming Jews for antisemtism is pretty much classic antisemitism. The same way blaming Muslims for Islamphobia is islamphobia. Perhaps the big difference is you find it easy to find empathy for the Muslims but for some reason can't find empathy for the Jews so to you it appears reasonable for antisemitism but does not for Islamphobia. To me both are the enemy of peace. But you see the issue here is that none of this makes sense based on our conversation, you're just introducing a bunch of new things. Biff said that when Israel kills a bunch of Arabs it fuels antisemitism in the arab population, an obviously true statement. You said no, that's just an excuse. I said obviously not, nobody is like "Damn it I really want to hate the Jews but I don't have a good reason to do it, finally they killed my family I have a good excuse now". You then displayed an incorrect perception of how racists view themselves and the world, which I tried to correct. And now suddenly you've decided that we are talking about the difference between hating Israel and hating Jews, or that we're blaming Jews for antisemitism? No, that is not what we were doing. If you can manage to have empathy for someone who becomes more racist after having been mugged by a black person, then there's no reason why you should disagree with anything that was said. You don't think that your empathy means that you're blaming black people for antiblack racism. Reactionary views happen in reaction to things, this is easy. You don't have to create some kind of weirdo who is troubled by his horrible thoughts and then searches for excuses. That is not what Biff said, you are being dishonest or you just get wildly charitable with "your side" and then act the opposite with people you have decided are "on the other side". He said "oppression of Palestinians is what fuels antisemitism everywhere" and then further explained that antisemtism "wasn't really a thing anymore" after holocaust. These are obviously incorrect statements as there are plenty of antisemites who give less than a shit about Palestinians (like the "Axis of Resistance" and your run of the mill skinhead, I mean really most antisemites not in Palestine. It is concerning that you are defending it and strange that you feel the need to make a bunch of negative presumptions of me for pointing out something that is objectively true. Here is something else that might blow your mind based on this conversation. Most racists don't think they are racists, they think they are right and either the other person is wrong, or just won't admit what they know to be true for fear of being labeled as a racist. You are misrepresenting a bit what I say. I am saying that in countries with large jewish poulation, say, the US, France and so on, there is no systematic antisemitism whatsoever from the institutions, virtually no antisemitism in politics, and very little antisemitism among the native population. What we call modern antisemitism, that led to the Holocaust is really not prevalent anymore. You don’t have political parties running an anti-jewish platform anymore. You don’t see systematic, prevalent violence against jews the way you would have in the past. That role of scapegoat is directed against muslims. If anyone talked about jews the way right wing politicians talk about muslims everywhere in the West, they would be crucified. On that front, jews are safe in ways they really were not in 1880, or in 1920. Now. The overwhelming majority of cases - very real - where jews are facing hostility and even violence in the West is due to the muslim population. That antisemitism is linked to Israel, its wars and its policies. It’s evil, it’s dangerous, it’s to be fought. But it’s not just out of the blue racism just because. And unsurprisingly, antisemtic acts explode whenever Israel gets into another one of their wars. So. That drives my point that no, if Israel stopped oppressing palestinians, there wouldn’t be another holocaust because jews would not be defended, which is the point i was answering to. For context and to be totally clear, I am a descendant of ashkenaze immigrants. And as Nevuchad pointed out, I am not defending antisemtism, and not justifying it morally. My point is that the actions of Israel are absolutely detrimental to jews all around the globe and that without that, they would be much safer everywhere. I appreciate you taking the time to get into more detail. There are some things you wrote that I disagree with much that I agree with. I Mainly disagree that antisemitism is gone, it never went away. The Jewish people are very vigilant about calling it out because of what happened so it is less up front but it is still very much alive and kicking. Most of the time just instead of hearing about the Jews you hear about the "globalists" or even the "capitalists". It is not a coincidence that the big boogie man in the US (maybe everywhere) to the right is was born to a Jewish family, George Soros. It is also not surprising that Trump claimed if he loses it will be because of the Jews. The group that has the most hate crimes reported in North America is the Jews (that doesn't mean they experience the most because they are also more likely to report it than other groups but it does indicate that it is still very prevalent). I do agree with you that antisemitism rises when Israel gets in wars, the same way Islamaphobia does after a big terrorist attack. It also gives more popularity to the groups that vow to destroy "the enemy". It is not surprising that both Netanyahu and Hamas have gained popularity since Oct 7th. I also agree that there would not be a Holocaust, at least in the immediate future if Israel didn't respond at all. Because Israel has the superior military for now, and its allies are much more powerful than Iran's. And I agree that this war, and its coverage are creating a whole new generation of antisemites and Islamaphobes. But it is also true that there is likely a lot more Russians who hate Ukrainians than before for killing so many of their sons, they should logically be mad at Putin, but that is just not how it works especially given how skilled everyone is with propaganda and spin. I completely agree with you there is still old school antisemitism out there. You find it on the right and sonetimes the far left. I know also that it’s prevalent in Eastern Europe and that when you go look a bit in the alt right ideology you find stuff that really reek of the 1930s. That’s a completely different antisemitism from the antisemitism that you find in muslim communities, that finds its sources and it’s fuel in the conflict in Palestine. It very rarely leads to violence. It’s based on different ideas, has a different history. And i really believe it’s pretty marginal overall and certainly not an existential threat to jews. I think conflating the antisemitism of Hitler or neo nazis and the antisemitism of the Hamas only leads to confusion and is pretty absurd. It serves Israel’s rhetoric though.
I would agree with you if where you put Muslim communities you instead put Palestinians and many in Hamas.
The rest of antisemitism in the countries of the middle east is structurally taught (part of the education system, religious teaching and state news) by the various oppressors in the middle east to use the Jews as the scapegoats for the problems they are inflicting. The vast majority of the people there are oppressed, there is no doubt of that, it is just not by Israel. If Israel all the sudden did everything you wanted them to do, but continued to exist, they would still be hate. Before Oct 7 and all the people outside of Israel's borders would still be oppressed, including the Palestinians.
It should be fair game to talk about the terrible acts Israel does. But it should also be fair game to talk about the terrible acts all the other oppressors, mostly of their own people. If you truly want freedom for the Palestinian people Hamas cannot be involved.
And also, how does it even happen? Iraq was an unmitigated disaster, Afghanistan was no better. Libya has been in civil war until recently but the promised democracy has not happened. It has been a long time since a country successfully transitioned from autocracy to democracy.
|
On October 06 2024 01:00 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2024 22:35 PremoBeats wrote:On October 05 2024 22:19 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 05 2024 15:55 PremoBeats wrote:On October 01 2024 00:04 Magic Powers wrote:
Name one person in this thread who doesn't condemn Muslim terrorist attacks. I'll wait. Name one person in this thread who actually engaged meaningfully and in-depth with the civilian casualty rate, impossible data sets published by the Gazan MoH or the humanitarian aid-topic which clearly shows that enough food has entered Gaza. I'll wait (doing so since at least 30 pages). On October 01 2024 13:05 Husyelt wrote:On October 01 2024 04:08 RvB wrote:On September 30 2024 14:45 Husyelt wrote:On September 30 2024 02:47 RvB wrote:On September 29 2024 23:33 Husyelt wrote:On September 29 2024 14:58 RvB wrote:
[quote]
Please provide evidence for that 300-1 kill ratio. Hamas and the Gazan ministry of health don't distinguish between civilian and militant casualties for propaganda reasons. Using confirmed kills is literally Hamas propaganda. https://abcnews.go.com/International/number-children-missing-separated-families-gaza-high-21000/story?id=111365036 sure lets just go with children, and in June Nearly 15,000 children have been killed in the Israel-Hamas war, the UN says.Hamas killed 800 civilians on Oct 7, so even just children to total civilians is 18-1. Is that propaganda or just facts? And whats worse at this point, Israel's propaganda or Hamas? Which one brings more terror on the region and covers up for it? I think its clear the current government Israel and Hamas should be treated like we do Russia and Putin. https://www.npr.org/2024/09/23/nx-s1-5123377/israel-lebanon-hezbollah-fightingIn one day Israel killed 500 Lebanese people. All to kill 1 dude. Israel literally doesnt allow journalists into Gaza to see the total death toll, right now its at 45,000, but the real number is likely 2-3x higher. Your initial claim is that there's a 50-1 civilian to terrorist ratio. You have no evidence to back it up so now you're changing your argument to civilians killed in Israel relative to civilians killed in Gaza. For Lebanon you don't even read your own source. The strikes were not for one person: Analysts have called it the largest campaign of Israeli aerial strikes against Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Lebanese militia, since the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war.
....
The Israeli military spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, said Israeli forces struck 1,300 Hezbollah targets and destroyed cruise missiles, short-range rockets, attack drones and other weaponry.
Strikes damaged several buildings inside populated areas in Lebanon's south as well as farther east in the country's Bekaa Valley, but at least one landed some 80 miles north of the border near the city of Byblos, according to Lebanon's state-run broadcaster.
...
On Friday, an airstrike over the Lebanese capital city, Beirut, killed at least 50 Hezbollah fighters and civilians, including children. Israel's military said that the strike had targeted a senior Hezbollah commander.
www.npr.org What on earth are you talking about. The current death toll in Gaza is over 50,000. Hamas killed 800 civilians. Thats 50-1. The Israeli military spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, said Israeli forces struck 1,300 Hezbollah targets and destroyed cruise missiles, short-range rockets, attack drones and other weaponry. yeah hes lying to you. spoiler alert, Isreal lies and refuses journalists in, or did you forget about that? have you ever looked at satellite images of Gaza or Lebanon post strikes? Its just obliteration. Its like Mariupolor or Bakhmut. at the end of the day lets say the death counts of civilians and terrorists is split between our numbers. Israel has no post war plan for Gaza. it had none for 2006, and it has none for 2024. the occupation will continue until Hamas lashes out, and Israel will turn the civilian population to rubble until morale improves. Reread your own initial post: Can Israel stop attacking its neighbors for a single day? Do we need a 300-1 kill to death ratio for civilians and terrorist? thought 50-1 was pretty bad already You were clearly talking about a civilian to terrorist death ratio. Especially in the context of the 300-1 number since that was the estimated number of deaths in the Nasrallah strike. Now you're changing it to something else again and it's not even a proper comparison. There are around 41500 fatalities according to Gaza health ministry. That includes Hamas militants yet you only use Israeli civilians. The Israeli military spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, said Israeli forces struck 1,300 Hezbollah targets and destroyed cruise missiles, short-range rockets, attack drones and other weaponry. yeah hes lying to you. spoiler alert, Isreal lies and refuses journalists in, or did you forget about that? have you ever looked at satellite images of Gaza or Lebanon post strikes? Its just obliteration. Its like Mariupolor or Bakhmut. You're selectively quoting. Leaving it out makes no difference to the point I was making. Your own source shows that the airstrikes are in multiple parts of Lebanon with significant casualties for Hezbollah. As I pointed out earlier Israel has eliminated most Hezbollahs senior leadership in a week. It's clearly part of their strategy: The IDF is conducting a decapitation campaign targeting senior Hezbollah leadership as part of its air campaign across Lebanon. This campaign could impact Hezbollah’s ability to effectively organize and direct its forces. The IDF reported that its September 24 airstrike which killed Hezbollah’s Rocket and Missile Unit Commander Ibrahim Muhammad Qabisi also killed Qabisi’s deputy Abbas Sharafeddine and a senior commander from Hezbollah’s missile division, Hussein Ezzeddine.[7] Ezzeddine was reportedly close to the former top Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr, who Israel killed in late July.[8] The IDF has conducted several major airstrikes in recent days targeting senior Hezbollah commanders and their communication networks.[9] CTP-ISW noted that Israel detonating Hezbollah pagers and personal radios disrupted the group’s internal communications and may have prompted the group to begin using less secure methods of communication that Israel could then intercept and exploit.[10] www.understandingwar.orgYou're free to criticize Israel but at least stick to the facts. edit: ofc im free to criticize Israel, thats the point. we criticize our allies when they do wrong. I love France maybe more than any other ally, but what they did in Algiers is an abomination. Israel is doing that on steroids. If you think for a even a second that 41,000 Gazans (terrorist + civilians) killed is about right, I have some settlements to sell you in the West Bank. The real numbers are into the hundred thousand plus if Israel would allow actual journalists in. If Oct the 7th went in a different direction, lets say the IDF was somewhat aware of what was going on, and during the fighting and chaos, dozens of Hamas groups got confused and went into Israel proper with the hostages. Into homes, hospitals, schools, industrial areas etc. Do you think for a millisecond that they would have targeted those terrorists in a different manner than they have in Gaza? They would have sent in special military operations, isolated them, and forced fight or surrender or be killed. But hostages and Hamas go back to Gaza? lol bro we going to drop more bombs than the allies did on Dresden, cause fuck yeah we can. Hamas is even worse than Nazis, their civilian population deserves it. "Remember these are animals, less than humans. Hamas should not be dealt with with special ops, that may lead to more IDF soldier losses. no... no they need 7,000 2000 lb bombs on the entirety of Gaza. Does it matter that Hamas is .5% as powerful and dangerous as the Nazi empire? no. Please dont think about the scale of power here. hoo boy collective punishment sure looks so good on us. Are we 25 times as powerful as Hamas and Hezbollah combined? yes. but please consider how much they hate us. dont look at mathematical numbers and backed by the worlds superpower. Definitely dont do that. Otherwise we may look like we are the Occupiers illegally for 15+ years. Dont do that. You also probably never compared the civilian casualty rate to comparable conflict zones, right? Otherwise, such delusional statements should be impossible to make. On October 04 2024 00:09 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 03 2024 23:53 Billyboy wrote:Guesses on Israel's respond to Iran's missile barrage? Poll: Israel's response to Iran's barageStrike on Iranian Oil refining (5) 50% Strike on military bases (2) 20% Strike on Iranian nuclear facilities (2) 20% Attack on everything, full war. (1) 10% Strike on Iranian air defense (0) 0% 10 total votes Your vote: Israel's response to Iran's barage (Vote): Strike on Iranian air defense
(Vote): Strike on military bases
(Vote): Strike on Iranian Oil refining
(Vote): Strike on Iranian nuclear facilities
(Vote): Attack on everything, full war.
Whatever it is, I'm sure it'll kill more civies than Iran did. So? What's the point of this senseless statement? Iran does not want peace in the region as it will lose valuable proxies. Of course it shits on the repercussions that its actions inflict on civilians (especially the ones that will be killed my Israel). Or what is your solution? That Israel simply takes attacks like 7th of October, hostage takings, firings of rockets for one year straight, etc.? On October 05 2024 06:37 Nebuchad wrote:On October 05 2024 06:25 BlackJack wrote:On October 05 2024 06:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 05 2024 05:23 Elroi wrote:On October 05 2024 01:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 04 2024 06:30 Elroi wrote:
If they get the South Africa treatment you'll soon see a mass murder of Jews on the scale of the holocaust. Yes, just like there were a holocaust of white people when South Africa was forced to change. The biggest threats to jews all around the world is Israel politics. The oppression of palestinians is what fuels antisemitism everywhere. Do you really think it's that simple? Do you think the same applies to homosexuals? If they just treated the Palestinians a little better they wouldn't have to be executed for being gay in Gaza or Yemen? It's a little difficult to believe that you care about gay Palestinians being killed for being gay when those same gay Palestinians are currently being killed for being Palestinians and that's not causing much of a reaction. His post doesn’t even imply that he cares about gay Palestinians. This is a really poor attempt at deflection. Do you want to try again at answering his question? Right now it's not the main focus because of what's currently happening to Palestinians for being Palestinians. If we get a good future (which is unlikely) and suddenly Palestinians are no longer being killed for being Palestinians, then we can go back to the usual framework of politics where people on my side stand for the rights of LGBT people of palestinian descent and people on your side don't care. Palestinians are not killed because they are Palestinians. They are killed as a byproduct of a war that started because Hamas escalated the Middle Eastern conflict on 7th of October in the most brutal and unnecessary fashion with Hezbollah joining the party on October 8th.
Your annoying, falsely portrayed narrative is so blatantly false and you choose to ignore the actual facts that counter your delusional perspective since I entered this thread.1. The civilian casualty rate speaks against deliberate killings of civilians as comparable war zones have much higher ones 2. The demography of Palestine versus the civilian casualty rate speak against deliberate killings of civilians 3. The humanitarian aid provided by Israel speaks against Palestinians being killed for being Palestinians 4. The constant providing of water and maintaining of Israel of pipes damaged by Hamas speaks against Palestinians being killed for being Palestinians This pathetic display of cognitive dissonance of you and the others that share this view has truly reached comical heights. You say you are not interested in discussing the humanitarian aid issue? Of course you don't, as it weakens your position. Contrary, you'd be the first to mention it at every possible occasion, if it would support your view. As it stands... Not one of you is able to address the concerns I raised over and over and over - simply ridiculous. This is such a harmfu narrative. Palestinians were being killed every day. More and more of WB was being grabbed. It is literally impossible to discuss with you guys in good faith. I NEVER said that Palestinians were not killed. I said that they were not killed BECAUSE they are Palestinians. And that their deaths are rather byproducts of a war, that is an escalation of a conflict for which Hamas is responsible. I'm not saying that you did, but to frame this around Oct 7th belies years of problems in the region. I don't need to tell you this, I know you know this.
These deaths can of course be framed around and even directly attributed to October 7th, as that date marked the most significant escalation of the conflict since Hamas' foundation and in two cases even Israel's foundation- meaning since 1948. It was unprecedented in scale and impact for a number of reasons:
1. Number of rockets (Over 5.000 in a matter of hours) - no bigger attack was ever carried out by any faction against Israel since its foundation.
2. Ground assault: Hamas crossed into southern Israel via air (paragliders) and sea targeting civilians and carried out its biggest ground invasion ever.
3. Hostages: Over 200 people were abducted. It was the largest and most coordinated mass abduction since Israels's foundation.
4. Casualties: The attack led to the highest Israeli civilian casualty toll in a single since the Yom Kippur War in 1973. The nature of the attack - focusing on infiltrating civilian communities by going door to door to kill civilians was unprecedented.
5. Surprise effect: The 2nd Intifada built up over time... the surprise element of October 7th can be compared to the Yom Kippur War when Israel was attacked.
So the level of violence on this day was unseen since decades in the area. If you cannot accept this as a major escalation of the conflict, can you state your reasoning given the facts I listed above?
On October 06 2024 01:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2024 01:05 Nebuchad wrote:On October 06 2024 01:01 KwarK wrote:
The idea that Israel wants to kill Palestinians because of their identity as Palestinians is absurd, it has a very large Israeli Palestinian minority which it shields from harm.
A Hamas ruled Gaza that attacked Israel would require some kind of response regardless of whether the people living there were ethnically Egyptian, Greek, Chinese, whatever.
There are good arguments that can be made about the encroaching settlements the need to redress historical grievances but the idea that Israel secretly wants to exterminate Palestinians is simply contrary to any observable reality. It's frustrating because I don't want to defend Israel but some people in this topic just go off the deep end with hysterical proclamations. Why don't you want to defend Israel, can you speak about that a little bit? I miss the good Kwark. Because it shouldn't exist. The creation of it was a mistake and a crime against the Palestinians. But it does now exist and as a nuclear power it can't be destroyed and we must deal with the world as it is. Given the existence of Israel and the rights of the people now living there any peaceful future must be built on coexistence and compromise and unfortunately that got completely fucked up for a generation on October 7. I think Israel should be held accountable for making efforts to coexist and compromise, but not with Hamas. I think Israel should have done more historically, but we are where we are. If we take the 1,200 dead on October 7 and make it proportionate to a similar attack on the US then we're looking at approximately 34,200 deaths, 10 9/11s. Hamas had no chance of conquering Israel, that was never their intent. They intentionally destroyed any possibility of coexistence with an attack that they knew Israel could not tolerate. I'd say it was a stupid thing to do but they got exactly what they wanted out of it, a shitload of dead Palestinians. It's all so fucked up. + Show Spoiler [math] +(1,200 dead/10,000,000 Israel population) * 285,000,000 (2001 US population)
Completely agree. The whole idea was bollocks to begin with. Make Jews farmers in the Middle East on land that is inhabited by a local population who clearly don't want others to take their land and govern over them? Now if that wasn't a recipe for disaster, I don't know what is.
But the later part is true too. Now it is there. With a population of over 10 times that of the Nakba. Which mostly was not even alive when the injustice of the past happened. Most, who experienced the Nakba are dead or will be in a matter of years.
And even if we wanted to and remove Israel from the map to "make things" right, we simply can't as this nuclear power simply won't bend over and agree to that. But no one here wants to talk about possible solutions... it is mostly only Israel = bad bashing, that will lead nowhere.
|
On October 05 2024 03:26 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2024 07:22 Acrofales wrote:On October 03 2024 06:47 Billyboy wrote:On October 03 2024 05:22 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2024 05:05 BlackJack wrote:On October 02 2024 06:42 Nebuchad wrote:
To other people who recognize themselves in this argument, what is a number of civilians that would be a price above what you are willing to pay? What are you asking here? A whole number of civilian deaths someone would be okay with in Israel's retaliatory attack on Iran? What's your answer? Mine would be zero, I decided that Israel was wrong based on my perception of what they're trying to do, not based on the method they're using to do it. That is perhaps a bit non responsive because there is no way for Israel to achieve the land grab of West Bank and Gaza with zero civilian casualties, so maybe this becomes a little bit circular. But in my opinion most people function like this, similarly I didn't need to check on how Russia was treating ukrainian civilians before I decided to oppose the invasion of Ukraine. Now I'm being faced with the argument that the people I'm against are just okay with some civilian deaths in pursuit of a goal, and I suspect that's not really what's happening. I think they don't care about those civilians at all, and there is no number of them that Israel could kill where they would change their stance. But the civilians on their side, those civilians they care very deeply about, and the death of any number of them immediately justifies any consequence to the enemy population. Another way to say the same thing is that some of those civilians are humans, and the others aren't. Am I misreading you or do you think this war between Israel and Iran is about the land in Gaza and the Westbank? Is it your belief that Iran would stop attacking Israel if the two state solution happened? If a comprehensive peace deal were reached between Israel and Palestine that established a real two-state solution, then Iran would lose 2 very valuable proxy forces, and a lot of geopolitical clout in the area. So obviously Iran will oppose any moves toward lasting peace. That said, it isn't very clear to me Iran would be willing or even able to disrupt the situation if *magically* a two-state solution was agreed upon. The reason I emphasized that it would need to appear magically is because we are a very very long way away from Israel and Palestine agreeing that the sky is blue, let alone a way to live together. And even if they start talking, there is going to be plenty of opportunities to disrupt peace negotiations. There will be plenty of radical Palestinians who hate the very idea of peaceful coexistence, and Iran will no doubt keep using them to ensure that never happens. The same way there are plenty of Israelis who hate the idea and will go to extremes to ensure that never happens. Iran is a disruptive force here, but it's not as if Iran is the one forcing Hamas and Hezbollah to fight: all Iran is doing is ensuring there is a good supply of weapons for the Palestinians to keep fighting with. The US is doing a similar thing for the other side... They'd lose one proxy at best if Hamas agrees to disarm or at least give up control of Gaza. Hezbollah will exist no matter what happens to the Palestinians. They're deeply embedded in the Shiite part of Lebanon, support Assad in various ways, and support militias in Iraq. As will their hatred of Israel. The 2006 war between them had nothing to do with the Palestinians. You also understate Iran's support. Iran doesnt just provide weapons but also training, funds, and advice via the irgc.
Right now, one of the US' highest generals is in Israel, and Biden has said he'll be in direct consultation with Israeli command about the military response to Iran's strike. Blinken seems to be spending more time in Israel than in Washington lately. Do you think the US doesn't give advice? As well as share a LOT of intelligence, of course? As for funds, since the 2000s the US has scaled down its economic support and nowadays only really provides military support, but historically, Israel is one of the largest beneficiaries of US economic support. https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts
The situation is obviously not identical, because Hamas and Hezbollah are both non-governmental organizations. They don't have anywhere near the infrastructure to operate at the level Israel does, which means Iran's involvement is less formal and less known. In Hamas' case I think we can definitely say they operate with some independence from Iranian high command, but Hezbollah may just be an Iranian controlled militia at this point, and it'd be all but impossible for us to tell the difference.
That said, all of this is tangential to my point, which was that any lasting solution, including a two-state solution, is currently very very far away, and if both sides (Palestina and Israel) start taking real, concerted steps toward a peaceful solution then there will be plenty of opportunities for opposing actors to throw a wrench in the works. Iran is one such an opposing actor. The Israeli hard right (including settlers) is another. Hamas hardliners are another. There's plenty of actors who oppose a peaceful solution because they stand to lose something from it.
|
How are Hamas and Hezbollah non-governmental?
|
On October 06 2024 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2024 04:19 Billyboy wrote:On October 06 2024 03:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2024 02:04 Billyboy wrote:On October 06 2024 01:39 Nebuchad wrote:On October 06 2024 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On October 06 2024 01:16 Nebuchad wrote:On October 06 2024 01:05 Billyboy wrote:On October 06 2024 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On October 06 2024 00:01 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
Because the crime stats are not the reason, they are the excuse. The same as here.
I mean, that's so obviously not true I'm a little taken aback, I don't really know how to respond. Why do you think the far right makes a huge outcry every time a non-white person kills someone, if not because they think it's going to lead more people to associate crime to race and/or nationality? Conservative ideologies in general are reactionary, and the reason why we use this word is because they're happening in reaction. Things used to be good, and then events happened that made things bad, now we need a reaction. Nobody is like "Okay, I'm a huge racist, so what I'm going to do is pretend to react to the events that happen, that'll be a good excuse for my racism." This is not how humans think, ever. Yes it is, they have horrible thoughts but don't want to be a horrible person so they look for excuses/reasons for why their thought is not horrible but just factual. It is not exclusively a right thing either. This is why Kwark pointed out antisemtism existed long before Israel even existed. And to the Black example racism would not go away if whites were now committing more crime per captita. Racists would just find another stat to cherry pick or excuse. So, you're confusing two different things here, which is racists arguing that they aren't racists and racists believing that their racism is justified. Racists are going to use excuses to say that they aren't racists, and their reasoning will either be genuine ("I'm a good person and racism is bad, so I can't be a racist!!") or dishonest ("I'm trying to achieve something for the cause of racism by pretending I'm not a racist"). Regardless, all of these people who have a racist sentiment (or literally any political sentiment, really) believe that this sentiment is justified, they're not looking for excuses. When people think their ideology is unjustified, what they do is they change their ideology. I'm not confused, I agree with this post. It does not argue against what I'm saying it supports it. You just don't seem to believe that some people hating on Israel are doing out of racism (antisemites). It is also true that some racism and other biases are based on personal experience. So when someone gets mugged by a black person they are more likely to become racist than someone who has never had a negative experience with a black person. I have more empathy for those people. I have some empathy for those who social media feeds are showing them nothing but the worst of a group, but less. Still at the end of the day it is a bias, in this case racial and not fair. Blaming Jews for antisemtism is pretty much classic antisemitism. The same way blaming Muslims for Islamphobia is islamphobia. Perhaps the big difference is you find it easy to find empathy for the Muslims but for some reason can't find empathy for the Jews so to you it appears reasonable for antisemitism but does not for Islamphobia. To me both are the enemy of peace. But you see the issue here is that none of this makes sense based on our conversation, you're just introducing a bunch of new things. Biff said that when Israel kills a bunch of Arabs it fuels antisemitism in the arab population, an obviously true statement. You said no, that's just an excuse. I said obviously not, nobody is like "Damn it I really want to hate the Jews but I don't have a good reason to do it, finally they killed my family I have a good excuse now". You then displayed an incorrect perception of how racists view themselves and the world, which I tried to correct. And now suddenly you've decided that we are talking about the difference between hating Israel and hating Jews, or that we're blaming Jews for antisemitism? No, that is not what we were doing. If you can manage to have empathy for someone who becomes more racist after having been mugged by a black person, then there's no reason why you should disagree with anything that was said. You don't think that your empathy means that you're blaming black people for antiblack racism. Reactionary views happen in reaction to things, this is easy. You don't have to create some kind of weirdo who is troubled by his horrible thoughts and then searches for excuses. That is not what Biff said, you are being dishonest or you just get wildly charitable with "your side" and then act the opposite with people you have decided are "on the other side". He said "oppression of Palestinians is what fuels antisemitism everywhere" and then further explained that antisemtism "wasn't really a thing anymore" after holocaust. These are obviously incorrect statements as there are plenty of antisemites who give less than a shit about Palestinians (like the "Axis of Resistance" and your run of the mill skinhead, I mean really most antisemites not in Palestine. It is concerning that you are defending it and strange that you feel the need to make a bunch of negative presumptions of me for pointing out something that is objectively true. Here is something else that might blow your mind based on this conversation. Most racists don't think they are racists, they think they are right and either the other person is wrong, or just won't admit what they know to be true for fear of being labeled as a racist. You are misrepresenting a bit what I say. I am saying that in countries with large jewish poulation, say, the US, France and so on, there is no systematic antisemitism whatsoever from the institutions, virtually no antisemitism in politics, and very little antisemitism among the native population. What we call modern antisemitism, that led to the Holocaust is really not prevalent anymore. You don’t have political parties running an anti-jewish platform anymore. You don’t see systematic, prevalent violence against jews the way you would have in the past. That role of scapegoat is directed against muslims. If anyone talked about jews the way right wing politicians talk about muslims everywhere in the West, they would be crucified. On that front, jews are safe in ways they really were not in 1880, or in 1920. Now. The overwhelming majority of cases - very real - where jews are facing hostility and even violence in the West is due to the muslim population. That antisemitism is linked to Israel, its wars and its policies. It’s evil, it’s dangerous, it’s to be fought. But it’s not just out of the blue racism just because. And unsurprisingly, antisemtic acts explode whenever Israel gets into another one of their wars. So. That drives my point that no, if Israel stopped oppressing palestinians, there wouldn’t be another holocaust because jews would not be defended, which is the point i was answering to. For context and to be totally clear, I am a descendant of ashkenaze immigrants. And as Nevuchad pointed out, I am not defending antisemtism, and not justifying it morally. My point is that the actions of Israel are absolutely detrimental to jews all around the globe and that without that, they would be much safer everywhere. I appreciate you taking the time to get into more detail. There are some things you wrote that I disagree with much that I agree with. I Mainly disagree that antisemitism is gone, it never went away. The Jewish people are very vigilant about calling it out because of what happened so it is less up front but it is still very much alive and kicking. Most of the time just instead of hearing about the Jews you hear about the "globalists" or even the "capitalists". It is not a coincidence that the big boogie man in the US (maybe everywhere) to the right is was born to a Jewish family, George Soros. It is also not surprising that Trump claimed if he loses it will be because of the Jews. The group that has the most hate crimes reported in North America is the Jews (that doesn't mean they experience the most because they are also more likely to report it than other groups but it does indicate that it is still very prevalent). I do agree with you that antisemitism rises when Israel gets in wars, the same way Islamaphobia does after a big terrorist attack. It also gives more popularity to the groups that vow to destroy "the enemy". It is not surprising that both Netanyahu and Hamas have gained popularity since Oct 7th. I also agree that there would not be a Holocaust, at least in the immediate future if Israel didn't respond at all. Because Israel has the superior military for now, and its allies are much more powerful than Iran's. And I agree that this war, and its coverage are creating a whole new generation of antisemites and Islamaphobes. But it is also true that there is likely a lot more Russians who hate Ukrainians than before for killing so many of their sons, they should logically be mad at Putin, but that is just not how it works especially given how skilled everyone is with propaganda and spin. I completely agree with you there is still old school antisemitism out there. You find it on the right and sonetimes the far left. I know also that it’s prevalent in Eastern Europe and that when you go look a bit in the alt right ideology you find stuff that really reek of the 1930s. That’s a completely different antisemitism from the antisemitism that you find in muslim communities, that finds its sources and it’s fuel in the conflict in Palestine. It very rarely leads to violence. It’s based on different ideas, has a different history. And i really believe it’s pretty marginal overall and certainly not an existential threat to jews. I think conflating the antisemitism of Hitler or neo nazis and the antisemitism of the Hamas only leads to confusion and is pretty absurd. It serves Israel’s rhetoric though.
There is no old anti semitism of the Nazis and new anti semitism of Hamas. There were already progroms in the middle east before ww2 like the Nabi Musa progrom and the Hebron massacre. This continued throughout ww2 (for example the Farhud in Iraq) culminating with the expulsion of Jews all over the middle east and the invasion by the Arabs after the founding of Israel. The anti semitism of Hamas is a direct result of the collaboration between the Nazis and Arab nationalists.
|
|
|
" “I think today, the priority is that we return to a political solution, that we stop delivering arms for fighting in Gaza,” Macron said. He said France is not delivering any."
"Following successive Israeli attacks in Lebanon, he said the Lebanese people should not be “sacrificed” and Lebanon should not become “a new Gaza.” "
Iran also offers a cease-fire under the condition that Israel stops fighting in Gaza. Friendly reminder that Hezbollah has said the same thing.
https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-israel-gaza-halt-weapons-delivery
|
On October 06 2024 20:27 Magic Powers wrote:" “I think today, the priority is that we return to a political solution, that we stop delivering arms for fighting in Gaza,” Macron said. He said France is not delivering any." "Following successive Israeli attacks in Lebanon, he said the Lebanese people should not be “sacrificed” and Lebanon should not become “a new Gaza.” " Iran also offers a cease-fire under the condition that Israel stops fighting in Gaza. Friendly reminder that Hezbollah has said the same thing. https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-israel-gaza-halt-weapons-delivery
And then a half hour later the Elysee said they were still going to supply Israel.
|
On October 06 2024 20:27 Magic Powers wrote:" “I think today, the priority is that we return to a political solution, that we stop delivering arms for fighting in Gaza,” Macron said. He said France is not delivering any." "Following successive Israeli attacks in Lebanon, he said the Lebanese people should not be “sacrificed” and Lebanon should not become “a new Gaza.” " Iran also offers a cease-fire under the condition that Israel stops fighting in Gaza. Friendly reminder that Hezbollah has said the same thing. https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-israel-gaza-halt-weapons-delivery
Easy to say for Macron, as his country wasn't the target of an unprecedented attack.
And wouldn't it be nice to be in Hezbollah's shoes? Attack a sovereign nation with their Hamas buddies and once it fights back, call for a cease-fire.
Also a friendly reminder: Israel offers a cease-fire too once their demands are met. Hooray.
|
This is a friendly reminder that Hezbollah was regularly launching rockets into Israel before the war in Gaza started.
|
For anyone interested RUSI wrote a paper on Israels military operations in Gaza at the start of the war. Much of their information comes from the IDF so in that sense it's limited:
The authors spent time with the lessons learned officers and saw samples of their data. Of the 44 core interviews with IDF personnel, most interviewees ranked between OF4 and OF7. The authors directly observed some of the processes described. The authors also engaged with IDF personnel prior to the conflict and observed IDF training, including for urban operations. In addition to this primary evidence collection, the authors have collated and analysed a significant body of combat
footage and reports on the conflict written by both journalists and academics and have maintained contact with some humanitarian personnel working on and in Gaza.
It covers a range of topics from the fighting in the tunnels to the difficulties in distributing humanitarian aid.
|
On October 06 2024 21:07 Elroi wrote:This is a friendly reminder that Hezbollah was regularly launching rockets into Israel before the war in Gaza started.
Friendly reminder that Israel has committed war crimes in the West bank and oppressed Gaza before October 7.
|
On October 06 2024 21:16 RvB wrote:For anyone interested RUSI wrote a paper on Israels military operations in Gaza at the start of the war. Much of their information comes from the IDF so in that sense it's limited: Show nested quote +The authors spent time with the lessons learned officers and saw samples of their data. Of the 44 core interviews with IDF personnel, most interviewees ranked between OF4 and OF7. The authors directly observed some of the processes described. The authors also engaged with IDF personnel prior to the conflict and observed IDF training, including for urban operations. In addition to this primary evidence collection, the authors have collated and analysed a significant body of combat
footage and reports on the conflict written by both journalists and academics and have maintained contact with some humanitarian personnel working on and in Gaza. It covers a range of topics from the fighting in the tunnels to the difficulties in distributing humanitarian aid.
Interesting read.
The last part about the distribution is pretty telling in regards to the humanitarian crisis and how Hamas' lootings play probably the biggest part in it (given that war was unavoidable after October 7th).
"On the one hand Hamas has sought to gain control over aid distribution to re-establish control of the territory. This is antithetical to Israel’s war aims. Yet the IDF closely supervising distribution is a recipe for clashes at aid points. The IDF has not found a system that assures adequate supply and distribution of aid while also preventing Hamas from exerting control along the process."
On October 06 2024 22:13 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2024 21:07 Elroi wrote:This is a friendly reminder that Hezbollah was regularly launching rockets into Israel before the war in Gaza started. Friendly reminder that Israel has committed war crimes in the West bank and oppressed Gaza before October 7.
As you never answered this:
Do you think Israel's actions allow for the deliberate killings and abductions of international and Israeli citizens?
|
On October 06 2024 21:03 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2024 20:27 Magic Powers wrote:" “I think today, the priority is that we return to a political solution, that we stop delivering arms for fighting in Gaza,” Macron said. He said France is not delivering any." "Following successive Israeli attacks in Lebanon, he said the Lebanese people should not be “sacrificed” and Lebanon should not become “a new Gaza.” " Iran also offers a cease-fire under the condition that Israel stops fighting in Gaza. Friendly reminder that Hezbollah has said the same thing. https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-israel-gaza-halt-weapons-delivery Easy to say for Macron, as his country wasn't the target of an unprecedented attack. And wouldn't it be nice to be in Hezbollah's shoes? Attack a sovereign nation with their Hamas buddies and once it fights back, call for a cease-fire. Also a friendly reminder: Israel offers a cease-fire too once their demands are met. Hooray.
So has Russia.
|
On October 06 2024 17:14 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2024 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2024 04:19 Billyboy wrote:On October 06 2024 03:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2024 02:04 Billyboy wrote:On October 06 2024 01:39 Nebuchad wrote:On October 06 2024 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On October 06 2024 01:16 Nebuchad wrote:On October 06 2024 01:05 Billyboy wrote:On October 06 2024 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I mean, that's so obviously not true I'm a little taken aback, I don't really know how to respond. Why do you think the far right makes a huge outcry every time a non-white person kills someone, if not because they think it's going to lead more people to associate crime to race and/or nationality?
Conservative ideologies in general are reactionary, and the reason why we use this word is because they're happening in reaction. Things used to be good, and then events happened that made things bad, now we need a reaction. Nobody is like "Okay, I'm a huge racist, so what I'm going to do is pretend to react to the events that happen, that'll be a good excuse for my racism." This is not how humans think, ever. Yes it is, they have horrible thoughts but don't want to be a horrible person so they look for excuses/reasons for why their thought is not horrible but just factual. It is not exclusively a right thing either. This is why Kwark pointed out antisemtism existed long before Israel even existed. And to the Black example racism would not go away if whites were now committing more crime per captita. Racists would just find another stat to cherry pick or excuse. So, you're confusing two different things here, which is racists arguing that they aren't racists and racists believing that their racism is justified. Racists are going to use excuses to say that they aren't racists, and their reasoning will either be genuine ("I'm a good person and racism is bad, so I can't be a racist!!") or dishonest ("I'm trying to achieve something for the cause of racism by pretending I'm not a racist"). Regardless, all of these people who have a racist sentiment (or literally any political sentiment, really) believe that this sentiment is justified, they're not looking for excuses. When people think their ideology is unjustified, what they do is they change their ideology. I'm not confused, I agree with this post. It does not argue against what I'm saying it supports it. You just don't seem to believe that some people hating on Israel are doing out of racism (antisemites). It is also true that some racism and other biases are based on personal experience. So when someone gets mugged by a black person they are more likely to become racist than someone who has never had a negative experience with a black person. I have more empathy for those people. I have some empathy for those who social media feeds are showing them nothing but the worst of a group, but less. Still at the end of the day it is a bias, in this case racial and not fair. Blaming Jews for antisemtism is pretty much classic antisemitism. The same way blaming Muslims for Islamphobia is islamphobia. Perhaps the big difference is you find it easy to find empathy for the Muslims but for some reason can't find empathy for the Jews so to you it appears reasonable for antisemitism but does not for Islamphobia. To me both are the enemy of peace. But you see the issue here is that none of this makes sense based on our conversation, you're just introducing a bunch of new things. Biff said that when Israel kills a bunch of Arabs it fuels antisemitism in the arab population, an obviously true statement. You said no, that's just an excuse. I said obviously not, nobody is like "Damn it I really want to hate the Jews but I don't have a good reason to do it, finally they killed my family I have a good excuse now". You then displayed an incorrect perception of how racists view themselves and the world, which I tried to correct. And now suddenly you've decided that we are talking about the difference between hating Israel and hating Jews, or that we're blaming Jews for antisemitism? No, that is not what we were doing. If you can manage to have empathy for someone who becomes more racist after having been mugged by a black person, then there's no reason why you should disagree with anything that was said. You don't think that your empathy means that you're blaming black people for antiblack racism. Reactionary views happen in reaction to things, this is easy. You don't have to create some kind of weirdo who is troubled by his horrible thoughts and then searches for excuses. That is not what Biff said, you are being dishonest or you just get wildly charitable with "your side" and then act the opposite with people you have decided are "on the other side". He said "oppression of Palestinians is what fuels antisemitism everywhere" and then further explained that antisemtism "wasn't really a thing anymore" after holocaust. These are obviously incorrect statements as there are plenty of antisemites who give less than a shit about Palestinians (like the "Axis of Resistance" and your run of the mill skinhead, I mean really most antisemites not in Palestine. It is concerning that you are defending it and strange that you feel the need to make a bunch of negative presumptions of me for pointing out something that is objectively true. Here is something else that might blow your mind based on this conversation. Most racists don't think they are racists, they think they are right and either the other person is wrong, or just won't admit what they know to be true for fear of being labeled as a racist. You are misrepresenting a bit what I say. I am saying that in countries with large jewish poulation, say, the US, France and so on, there is no systematic antisemitism whatsoever from the institutions, virtually no antisemitism in politics, and very little antisemitism among the native population. What we call modern antisemitism, that led to the Holocaust is really not prevalent anymore. You don’t have political parties running an anti-jewish platform anymore. You don’t see systematic, prevalent violence against jews the way you would have in the past. That role of scapegoat is directed against muslims. If anyone talked about jews the way right wing politicians talk about muslims everywhere in the West, they would be crucified. On that front, jews are safe in ways they really were not in 1880, or in 1920. Now. The overwhelming majority of cases - very real - where jews are facing hostility and even violence in the West is due to the muslim population. That antisemitism is linked to Israel, its wars and its policies. It’s evil, it’s dangerous, it’s to be fought. But it’s not just out of the blue racism just because. And unsurprisingly, antisemtic acts explode whenever Israel gets into another one of their wars. So. That drives my point that no, if Israel stopped oppressing palestinians, there wouldn’t be another holocaust because jews would not be defended, which is the point i was answering to. For context and to be totally clear, I am a descendant of ashkenaze immigrants. And as Nevuchad pointed out, I am not defending antisemtism, and not justifying it morally. My point is that the actions of Israel are absolutely detrimental to jews all around the globe and that without that, they would be much safer everywhere. I appreciate you taking the time to get into more detail. There are some things you wrote that I disagree with much that I agree with. I Mainly disagree that antisemitism is gone, it never went away. The Jewish people are very vigilant about calling it out because of what happened so it is less up front but it is still very much alive and kicking. Most of the time just instead of hearing about the Jews you hear about the "globalists" or even the "capitalists". It is not a coincidence that the big boogie man in the US (maybe everywhere) to the right is was born to a Jewish family, George Soros. It is also not surprising that Trump claimed if he loses it will be because of the Jews. The group that has the most hate crimes reported in North America is the Jews (that doesn't mean they experience the most because they are also more likely to report it than other groups but it does indicate that it is still very prevalent). I do agree with you that antisemitism rises when Israel gets in wars, the same way Islamaphobia does after a big terrorist attack. It also gives more popularity to the groups that vow to destroy "the enemy". It is not surprising that both Netanyahu and Hamas have gained popularity since Oct 7th. I also agree that there would not be a Holocaust, at least in the immediate future if Israel didn't respond at all. Because Israel has the superior military for now, and its allies are much more powerful than Iran's. And I agree that this war, and its coverage are creating a whole new generation of antisemites and Islamaphobes. But it is also true that there is likely a lot more Russians who hate Ukrainians than before for killing so many of their sons, they should logically be mad at Putin, but that is just not how it works especially given how skilled everyone is with propaganda and spin. I completely agree with you there is still old school antisemitism out there. You find it on the right and sonetimes the far left. I know also that it’s prevalent in Eastern Europe and that when you go look a bit in the alt right ideology you find stuff that really reek of the 1930s. That’s a completely different antisemitism from the antisemitism that you find in muslim communities, that finds its sources and it’s fuel in the conflict in Palestine. It very rarely leads to violence. It’s based on different ideas, has a different history. And i really believe it’s pretty marginal overall and certainly not an existential threat to jews. I think conflating the antisemitism of Hitler or neo nazis and the antisemitism of the Hamas only leads to confusion and is pretty absurd. It serves Israel’s rhetoric though. There is no old anti semitism of the Nazis and new anti semitism of Hamas. There were already progroms in the middle east before ww2 like the Nabi Musa progrom and the Hebron massacre. This continued throughout ww2 (for example the Farhud in Iraq) culminating with the expulsion of Jews all over the middle east and the invasion by the Arabs after the founding of Israel. The anti semitism of Hamas is a direct result of the collaboration between the Nazis and Arab nationalists.
I disagree. There very much is. And there is also a judeophobia from before modern antisemitism that has really little to do with XIXth century antisemitism. Henry Laurens explains that very, very well in his seminal book, the Question of Palestine. It’s a fascinating read.
So. Those are very different form of racism, driven by different themes, different groups, in different positions.
The antisemitism we know best, modern antisemitism is a reaction to the tidal waves of very poor ashkenaze population that flooded central Europe in the mid XIXth century. For reference Vienna’s jewish population went from 3000 to 200k in about two decades.
It’s quite fascinating to read what people thought and said at the time. That they were ignorant, dirty, they didn’t speak the language, they drove crime up, all those things. Lueger, from the anti semitic CS party won the Vienna mayoral election in 1898. Whats even more fascinating is that jews that has been there for centuries and were actually pretty well integrated, shared the same disdain from those immigrants.
In that respect, it looks a loooot like what we see with muslims today. A hatred for poor people, badly integrated, arriving too quickly.
Antisemitism is the muslim world is absolutely not born from those circumstances and shares very little themes with it. It’s born from a conflict. Does it borrow to old tropes? Surely. It’s still a completely different animal. You mix them up you stop having any chance to understand anything.
The problem is that pretending this is a conflict about racism is just dishonest. It’s a war, and a colonial conflict about very concrete things. If you frame it as “oh they are racist, they hate jews, that’s it”, then there is no hope to get to any compromise or reflect on what exactly Israel is doing.
And yes, that conflict has lasted 80 years and now there is lots of hatred and racism on both sides. But please. When you have been chased from your land, humiliated, bombed, have had your resources and your future stolen, and you decide to take arms, it’s not racism. French resistant really, really hated the germans during the war. Like, proper racism level. I hope you would agree that framing their fight as driven by racism would be a bit rich. And yea, germans absolutely did call them terrorists.
About the collaboration between Husseini and the nazis, you realize they were already in the conflict in Palestine. And if you want to talk about that, i suggest you google the Haavara agreement or just look into Ben Gurion’s unsavoury dealings with the nazis: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2013-10-31/ty-article/.premium/even-ben-gurion-exploited-the-holocaust/0000017f-edc7-d3be-ad7f-ffef7d060000
|
On October 06 2024 22:13 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2024 21:07 Elroi wrote:This is a friendly reminder that Hezbollah was regularly launching rockets into Israel before the war in Gaza started. Friendly reminder that Israel has committed war crimes in the West bank and oppressed Gaza before October 7.
Sure; maybe. I was just reacting to your post about hezbollah saying they would stop fighting if Israel withdrew from Gaza, which is obviously nonsensical. Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel literally a month before the current conflict started and they have repeatedly promised to wipe Israel off the map.
|
On October 06 2024 22:46 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2024 22:13 Magic Powers wrote:On October 06 2024 21:07 Elroi wrote:This is a friendly reminder that Hezbollah was regularly launching rockets into Israel before the war in Gaza started. Friendly reminder that Israel has committed war crimes in the West bank and oppressed Gaza before October 7. Sure; maybe. I was just reacting to your post about hezbollah saying they would stop fighting if Israel withdrew from Gaza, which is obviously nonsensical. Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel literally a month before the current conflict started and they have repeatedly promised to wipe Israel off the map.
Hezbollah has fired rockets before, but not at the same scale. They strongly ramped it up since October 7.
Israel on the other hand has always killed roughly ten times as many people as Muslim terrorist groups have killed Israelis.
|
On October 06 2024 17:07 maybenexttime wrote:
How are Hamas and Hezbollah non-governmental?
Of what countries are those organisations governing bodies?
|
On October 06 2024 20:47 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2024 20:27 Magic Powers wrote:" “I think today, the priority is that we return to a political solution, that we stop delivering arms for fighting in Gaza,” Macron said. He said France is not delivering any." "Following successive Israeli attacks in Lebanon, he said the Lebanese people should not be “sacrificed” and Lebanon should not become “a new Gaza.” " Iran also offers a cease-fire under the condition that Israel stops fighting in Gaza. Friendly reminder that Hezbollah has said the same thing. https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-israel-gaza-halt-weapons-delivery And then a half hour later the Elysee said they were still going to supply Israel.
What France does is it claims to be only selling defensive components, that way you can't hold them accountable for their role in Israel's attacks on civilian populations. But once the weapons are sent there is no way to control how Israel is going to use them, and France isn't providing any reasoning why they believe Israel will only use them defensively, you just have to trust them. In my opinion it's a transparent way of playing both sides, you continue to arm Israel so if the situation doesn't change you can say you're friendly, but also if justice prevails and Netanyahu is sent to The Hague where he belongs you can make a surprised face and go "Woooo I only thought I was selling defensive weapons I can't be accountable blblbl" (presumably with a heavier than usual french accent so that you can sell being the dumbest person in Europe)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
