An example of what im talking about. In “normal” days this would make some headlines. Now no one cares and the settlers know it
kinda weird any posts challenging yuv get excised.
fwiw they weren’t challenging at all, it was very easy to destroy them. but take that to the mods thread, i didn’t move those.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the basis for zionism is biblical, right? Anything with a basis in the bible will be flawed because the bible/torah is complete bullshit and everyone knows it.
and no i don’t care what you excise because i dont give a shit. this is clearly the place for “what if ethnic cleansing is a good idea ackshually” type of discussions. Can’t say I’m the least bit shocked on a forum that’s cool with the n word etc.
in what way? that Jews lived in modern day Israel is bullshit? Obviously i’m not religious in any way but i don’t understand what you mean here. Zionism movement was almost entirely secular.
And I think ethnic cleansing is a really bad idea. That’s why “from the river to the sea” offends me as does a two state solution in the current geopolitical map (which sucks for me). Ethnic cleansing is wrong even if you really hate the people you’re cleansing.
you said this:
maybe I am misinterpreting what you said or meant. Anyway don’t want to be accused of “harassment” so I am gonna respectfully dip from the convo.
Well, lets say the nazis allowed my grandparents to leave Europe instead of gasing them, it would be preferable.
India and Pakistan did a massive ethnic cleansing when they formed. Muslims went to Pakistan, Hindus to India (simplfying it of course). I am not an expert on the area, but I’m sure there are interesting theories as to whether this caused more harm or saved more lives.
See, talking is nice. People can learn. Opinions and thoughts can be shared.
You have more context to this conversation than I ever could and I do appreciate your posts itt. I pray you and your family can continue to remain safe. It is a difficult situation with no clear answers, that’s for sure. I just am tired of the debate around this in the US being “well if you dont support the wholesale destruction of gaza and its citizens you are supporting hamas.” You didn’t say that, I know, but it oozes throughout the discourse and from posts here (and the other site too).
It shouldn’t. If you feel posts here oozes that, it’s because you are deflecting from other conversations you made had or heard.
Palestinian suffering went unheard or underheard for years, but taking sides like it’s a sports game isn’t helpful to anyone. We need to be able to hold nuanced and complicated views and avoid charlatans even if they are on ‘our’ side.
For example, I think a two state solution is morally inferior. I think a two state solution is impossible to achieve now and even if it was it would have required an immoral ethnic cleansing of the Jews population in WB (a population which I whole heartedly hate more than you guys would ever be able to feel). I also hate my government for letting it get to this stage. I also blame Arafat and the Palestinian leadership for passing on the last chance we had to reach that solution.
Nuances are important. Otherwise you can’t differ between those on your side and those who are using you.
LOL come on
I wanted to circle back to this question. which I wanted to let breathe a bit.
First off, I want to say that most people are unnuanced and don’t think too deeply about why they are Zionist or anti-Zionist. Zionism is not monolithic. The most obvious split is between religious and secular Zionism. anti-Zionism also covers a wide range, from what I’ve seen.
Let’s start with a basic definition of Zionism as support for a Jewish national homeland.
There are certainly those anti-Zionists who use “Zionist” as a synonym for “Jewish” and “anti-Zionist” as a euphemism for “anti-Jewish”.
Then there are those who are generally anti-religious and so oppose any sort of religious state and will be anti-Zionist if they see Zionism as support for Israel as support for an explicitly religious state. Other anti-Zionists instinctively oppose nationalism, so they oppose a state built around Jewish ethnocentrism, but might accept a multi-ethnic one-state solution where Jews can find a home in an Israel which isn’t defined as Jewish. Then, there are those who seem opposed to the idea of states in general as currently defined and see Israel as a product of an international framework (colonialism) they want to tear down.
I could come up with more, but the gist is that there are several strands within anti-Zionism and what happens is that these strands inter-mingle. The first form of anti-Zionism as anti-Jewish is clearly wrong, the others maybe not, but the latter sometimes end up borrowing from the former, sometimes unknowingly. For example, I’m sure there are people who have picked up the chant “from the river to the sea” without knowing the history of those words, probably without knowing what river and what area of land is being described. (And some who say those words knowing full well what they are talking about.)
Fwiw my stance was closer to post-zionist. Meaning, while zionism was necessary at a certain point for jews to survive, Israel borders, military strength and democratic values were strong enough that zionism was no longer a necessity.
Sadly because of the acts of the right wing here, they might have turned Zionism a necessity again. Hopefully this can be changed again in the future.
One thing that bothers me is that people get hung up on 1948 when I think 1922 is important. The original sin is the creation of the Mandate of Palestine after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The morally correct solution at the time should have been something more in line with the Wilsonian principle of self-determination; instead we got some weird attempt at colonialism without calling it colonialism.
But we can’t really go back to what would have happened if we had established a state in the region back in 1922 anymore than we can give back land to Native Americans or undo slavery in the US. (And we can’t get a do-over of 1948 either.)
My instinct is that any solution involves being unfair to some group, but a solution better than the status quo needs to be imposed and some form of reparations given to the group that gets screwed.
Cliffs: The Gazan Health Ministry seems to have never actually said 500 people died in the hospital bombing. As best as this guy can tell it got sourced from an interview where someone said there were 500 victims AND numerous casualties, which would imply they weren’t saying 500 people died, but it got mistranslated by Al Jazeera and everyone else copied them
On October 17, shortly after an explosion at a hospital in Gaza, headlines around the world declared that the Gaza Health Ministry said the blast had killed at least 500 people. This was reported by the New York Times , the Washington Post , the Wall Street Journal , the New York Post , ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, NPR, PBS, the Associated Press, the Guardian , and Al Jazeera.
It was an alarming statistic, and its blanket coverage in the news gave a concrete anchor to the rage expressed by many around the world against Israel.
Except—after an extensive investigation, and a total lack of transparency by many of our most prestigious media outlets—I have found zero evidence that the Health Ministry spokesperson ever said that more than 500 people had died.
My working hypothesis was that someone, perhaps a reporter at the AP or whoever reported this first, had quickly glanced at the Al Jazeera Arabic’s tweet translation and, for whatever reason, wrote it as “killed” rather than “victims.” And then every other news outlet simply copied the wrong wording.
But it’s possible what happened is far worse. A short while after seeing the Al Jazeera Arabic tweet I found a tweet
The Al Jazeera English Twitter account wrote “At least 500 Palestinians killed in an Israeli air strike… says health ministry.” It linked to an Al Jazeera post that said, “The Gaza health ministry said at least 500 people died in the hospital blast.” But, like all the other reports, there was no link to the original statement. (Note: one of the authors of this Al Jazeera post was among the reporters I had contacted.)
It seems most likely that some of the American journalists had been tracking the Al Jazeera English Twitter account—not the Arabic one I had seen and translated—and immediately copied its erroneous reporting. And the rest of them began copying each other from there.
Are the Nazis from the National Justice Party pro-Palestine or pro-Israel? So confused.
I assume that beating down some Nazis would bring the Pro-Palestinian groups some good will.