Actually it was Dersu Uzala and yes, it's an absolutely great film! I watched it in a movie theatre with my father as a child.

When I discovered that it was inspired in the Russian context and plot, it rang a bell to me... — javi2541997

Well, it did happen in the Siberia of Imperial Russia.

It's actually a movie where there's little political, but a great movie about friendship and about the wilderness. The simple thing is that Russian or even Japanese movies aren't so well known as Hollywood films in the West. Hence you often have a very popular foreign movie then being made "The America" version about it.

On the other hand, although I admit that Nazi Germany and Holocaust films are great - Schindler's List, for instance - it seems that they only focused on Jewish people, while the Holocaust also affected Socialists, homosexuals, gipsies, etc. I never heard of a film about the Holocaust in which these victims are also included. — javi2541997

Some victims get always more attention than others. Here one could quote the infamous comment that mr Hitler himself made about the Armenians and the Armenian genocide.

And have people done a film about the genocide that Circassians suffered? Or from the people that have been killed to extinction, like the Guanches of the Canary Islands (by who other than the Spanish)? Or simply have faded away when they have been assimilated and have lost their original identity. If there's nobody "promoting" or keeping up the memory of someone, then hardly will people find the time or interest to do a film about their plight. The memory of the Guanches are now basically upheld by Spanish who want to look critically at their own history:

That isn't allowed. Either you have to side with the Zionists or the Islamists. There has to be the good guys and the bad guys. As you couldn't condemn both. — ssu

What would the world be like if either group was in charge? One side would create a democracy that respects women and LGBTQ rights, and the other would create an Islamic shithole patrolled by "morality police".

It's not hard to figure out which side are the good guys here.

it seems that they only focused on Jewish people, while the Holocaust also affected Socialists, homosexuals, gipsies, etc. I never heard of a film about the Holocaust in which these victims are also included. — javi2541997

I just watched "Photographer of Mauthausen" and that focuses on Spanish victims. "Come and See" focuses on Slavic/Russian victims (it is also the most horrifying/realistic WWII movie that I am aware of.) There is a lot of Russian material on this topic. I agree with you that the gypsies receive very little attention.

What would the world be like if either group was in charge? One side would create a democracy that respects women and LGBTQ people, and the other would create an Islamic shithole patrolled by "morality police". — RogueAI

First and foremost: Israel exists. It's existence is never or has been ever in doubt since 1967.

Yes, Hamas can obviously make a successful terrorist attack when Bibi was concentrated in the West Bank and Israeli forces had lulled themselves to similar confidence as prior to Yom Kippur war. But that's it. Hamas, as you can see evidently now, cannot defeat the Israeli army.

Hence your whole argument is as crazy as asking what if the Native Americans would have pushed the United States to the sea and reconquered America. What kind of shithole America would be then ruled by Apaches and the bunch? It's simply as ludicrous as thinking that in the 19th Century the Plain Indians or any of the various could have defeated the whole US Army. They had good luck once when they faced such an incompetent commander as Custer. Well, the Palestinians have similar ability to push Israel to the Sea as did the Native Americans in pushing the US to the sea and sending the Europeans back to their own Continent.

Besides, you think all Arab states are shitholes? Is Jordania a shithole?

What kind of shithole America would be then ruled by Apaches and the bunch? It's simply as ludicrous as thinking that in the 19th Century the Plain Indians or any of the various could have defeated the whole US Army. — ssu

It's not just Hamas. There's Hezbollah and Iran and a whoever else opposes Israel. I'm also not fond of the assumption that the Palestinians just are the native inhabitants of the land. IMHO the "indigenous" people of this land are both Jew and Arab. Judaism gets formed in Samaria and Judah in the 1st millennium BC so I would consider Jews indigenous.

Oh my goodness, the guanches! I thought they would never be the subject of comments on TPF because it is a main specific thing about the history of Spain. Now that you mentioned them, I have plenty of friends from Canary Island, and they are very proud of their guanche past, or the brief information we have about them. It is funny because Canarian folks call us 'Visigoths' when we discuss with them. On the other hand, the Canary Islands is a very nationalist region in Spain, as well as Catalonia or Basque. But they are only known for tourism and good weather all the year.

They have nationalist - or regional - political parties in the Congress, but they barely get one or two seats at most.

Yeah, they are just two guanches in the Congress.

I just watched "Photographer of Mauthausen" and that focuses on Spanish victims — BitconnectCarlos

Ah, yes that film... It is so bad and full of mediocrity that I forgot its existence.

It's not just Hamas. There's Hezbollah and Iran and a whoever else opposes Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, various non-state actors. But not Egypt. Not Jordania, Iraq, Saudi-Arabia etc.

I'm also not fond of the assumption that the Palestinians just are the native inhabitants of the land. — BitconnectCarlos

And I didn't say that! What I said that Hamas defeating the IDF is as remote as the Plain Indians defeating the US Army in the 19th Century. Jews have live their and Israel has every right to exist.

Prior to the Six Day war it was different. And prior Israel having a nuclear weapon, which the arsenal now is quite powerful.

That's a risk any country takes when going to war, but what would you recommend Israel do? Suppose you were president of Israel. What would your response have been to the attacks? Suppose you were the American president after 9/11. Would you have gone after Al Queda? Also, suppose Israel adopted a pacifist strategy and gave in to Hamas's demands. Would Hamas and all the other Muslim terrorist organizations stop trying to kill Jews? I doubt it. — RogueAI

My response would have been to improve watching the Gaza border. Then, and not as a response Hamas, express some embarrassment for being the beneficiaries of British giving land away that wasn't theirs, but probably stopping short of promising to dismantle the state of Israel. I'd relocate settlers back within Israel's borders. I'd comply with agreements and expedite a two state solution as rapidly as possible. Or something like that. Basically ignore Hamas as much as possible. None of this is giving in to Hamas pressure. It's doing the right thing regardless of Hamas. But I doubt i'd get elected on this manifesto.

What we need is a world government with courts and a police force. Then the Palestinians and colonists can both make their submissions to the court and the matter decided on accordance with law.

A lot of people busying this type of rhetoric now. Making comparisons to WW2, stating that there is no limit to the amount of civilian deaths that should be accepted, etc.

What this implies is that the conflict in Gaza should be fought according to the same principles WW2 was fought: total war.

I'm sure these lowbrow demagogues think that sounds like an awful 'cool' thing to say - at least while they feel like they're in control.

I wonder how they'll react when other actors in the region get involved in this conflict and start operating on the same principles.

I thought they would never be the subject of comments on TPF because it is a main specific thing about the history of Spain. — javi2541997

Ah! Well, the gauches are the perfect example of how critically Westerners (here the Spanish) do look at their past actions. And notice, your friends are proud of their Gauche past. Not that they are proud of their present culture and language separate from Spanish.

So yes, there are those who have gaunche ancestry, but still, the people are quite assimilated to Spain. Obviously there are those who identify being and not Spanish, but for example the Gauche language seems to have disappeared. Which just shows how thorough the genocide and assimilation was. Now obviously Spain has an objective to help this culture etc. And why not.

I wonder how they'll react when other actors in the region get involved in this conflict and start operating on the same principles. — Tzeentch

No offense, but sound bites like these sound like AI generated “paid actors” that are meant to cause disruptions on various social media platforms. Kind of low key threats regarding Western actions and meant to rile up the Leftist protestors waiting for the red meat. Then various articles and videos are posted to surely show how the West is a belligerent force of “evil”, yet minimizes the evil on the other side or retreats to “they’re not as militarily powerful” yet then proceeds to vague threats of their capabilities when aligned, as if they aren’t provoking that action anyways, just innocent buttercups.

I wonder how they'll react when other actors in the region get involved in this conflict and start operating on the same principles. — Tzeentch

I think that the Houthis now attacking Israel shows quite clearly that they indeed are proxies to Iran. Which should have been obvious after they managed to sink a Saudi warship with an anti-shipping missile, which isn't the usual repertoire of a Yemeni faction.

Telling is that this country is one of the poorest in the World and has a genuine humanitarian crisis of it's own from which it is suffering. For example you rarely see the Per Capita of any nation plunge back fifty years. But in Yemen, you can!


So what better thing to do is to fire missiles and drones at Israel. :roll:

If the logic in that sentence sounds threatening to you, then draw your conclusions, I suppose. It's the logic being forwarded by the Israeli government and its supporters.

I'm merely drawing attention to the fact that such rhetoric can easily be turned around to justify the killing of Israeli civilians.

I'm merely drawing attention to the fact that such rhetoric can easily be turned around to justify the killing of Israeli civilians. — Tzeentch

But that has already happened, many times over, including very recently, and technically ongoing. I was/am characterizing what I see. It's not just your posts, but that one was an example of a characteristic trend in content and style I see and wonder about.

I also notice that for various positions on the defense of Israel, there is usually a large variation of opinions. Even if a percentage majority are for the actions, there is definitely regret that anyone dies "collateral damage" or otherwise. That is to say, there seems to be a wide array of views on that side ranging from "Cease fire now!" to, "The job must continue until finished, no matter the cost!". That can stem from a plethora of things including but not limited to:

1. The Western/Enlightenment tradition of reviewing all sides and being self-critical. One posits things like "rights" and "universal X" and then sees if one is living up to this posited notion.

2. It is arguably true that the Jewish tradition itself is based on self-criticism, and is often this that is used against that group because it makes them open for other-criticism. The whole bible from Moses to the Prophets were all about reproving and reprimanding the populous of Israel for straying from moral obligations or their leaders for doing so. Every national catastrophe in the Bible is spun into "divine punishment", but many times punishment on themselves. Collective self-flaggelation. This tradition carried over into the Englightenment when secular Jews criticize their own policies infinitum. Whether in this current conflict or in conflicts past, you can find a range of Jewish opinions, even if there is an obvious trend for a particular view. What you don't see, is the same thing in the Palestinian circumstance.

3. Self-criticism is less of a cultural feature on the Palestinian side perhaps, it is seen as weakness maybe and not strength. Whatever possible contingent/historic/cultural reasons, the Palestinian side will be much more solidly anti-Israel than Israel is anti-Palestinian. And this solidarity in the Palestinian side seems as if the non-diversity of views, the non-self-criticism, means that that cause must be the right cause. Both sides need a diversity of views, vociferously moderate ones. You can point to Abbas perhaps, and a few of his contingent. Perhaps there is hope there, or a younger even more moderate person if there is one. But I am talking about the media and cultural milieu in general has to self-criticize. One can say that in the middle of a war, this is not going to be obtained by the people who are in mortal danger. I'd probably agree there. However, until there is a vociferous outcry not only of Israel's "get Hamas no matter what the cost" response to Hamas, but of Hamas and their actions itself, then nothing changes. Perhaps starting with using one’s own population’s lives as a pawn by putting caches of weapons and military command centers as a strategy is one place to start.

One American writer's experience and reflections on Israel's 'Jim Crow democracy' ...


https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/847621

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/847687

I think these professors/commentators/academics are much more BALANCED in their approach:

Well, you're entitled to your opinion ...

He posted 22 minutes after your post that contains several links to videos, the main one being 26 minutes long. I'm pretty sure he didn't even watch it.

I watched the first link. I am familiar with Ta-Nehisi Coates. He has a certain POV, as does "Democracy Now" which generally also shares this POV. When it comes to similar subjects, I generally agree with John McWhorter who is critical of Coates (and Coates of McWhorter). Glenn Loury is also very nuanced too and provides interesting perspectives. Coleman Hughes is newer to me, but I've seen some of his previous stuff on specifically Palestine and Israel and I think has less of an agenda and provides thinkers with nuance on his show.

:up:

On the post before my previous one I have linked two other posts containing three videos of other informed commentors further corroborating Ta-Nehisi Coates' observations (as well as my own throughout this long thread going back to 2021). Posting a video of three center-right / conservative Black Americans to 'counter' Mr Coates' interview, schop1, lacks substance and seems to me racially problematic. :brow:

Hey guys, check out this epic exchange between Ben Shapiro and anti-Israel activist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqD-bwXzWV4

I did watch the Ta-Nehisi Coates interview. He mentions several times how the Palestinians should have voting rights, and I was thinking "why, so they can vote in the group that massacred Israelis?" Shouldn't they get free Israeli healthcare too? Wouldn't that be nice? The apartheid comparison seems ill-fitting given the Palestinians are under their own rulership; Hamas in Gaza and the PA in the WB. I would get it if it were about e.g. Israeli citizens under Israeli law. There was a lot more freedom in the WB until the rockets starting firing.

the Holocaust also affected Socialists, homosexuals, gipsies, etc. — javi2541997

This is a great point. I think it is to our peril that we ignore history, and do not condemn atrocities, wherever they are carried out.

Found this horrific detail

Nazi Germany and its collaborators killed about 1.5 million Jewish children and tens of thousands of Romani (Gypsy) children, 5,000–7,000 German children with physical and mental disabilities living in institutions, as well as many Polish children and children residing in the German-occupied Soviet Union. Jewish and non-Jewish adolescents (13–18 years old) had a greater chance of survival, as they could be used for forced labor.

The fates of Jewish and non-Jewish children can be categorized in the following ways:

children killed when they arrived in killing centers
children killed immediately after birth or in institutions
children born in ghettos and camps who survived because prisoners hid them
children, usually over age 12, who were used as forced laborers and as subjects of medical experiments
children killed during reprisal operations
children killed in mass shootings conducted by the Einsatzgruppen and other forces in the German-occupied Soviet Union

Good people must stop doing nothing. Do something good.

Any suggestions? Getting a correct view of history is a first step.

The cost of war also includes the cost of refusing it. History shows unequivocally that it is always better to conquer than to be conquered. — Merkwurdichliebe

Do you mean wars of defence or wars of offence that go against the UN Charter. It becomes a matter of opinion.

Tell me, what have wars preserved that was more important than the lives of people? Is there something so valuable to send your children against the children of others to have them kill each other?

I'm ignorant, but where does Sun Tzu speak about the possibility of any universally sustainable peace amongst nations? — Merkwurdichliebe

Oh yes.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. Sun Tzu

Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/sun-tzu-quotes

Now, does this include peaceful, bloodless coups orchestrated by a foreign enemy?

It all descends into a matter of opinions.

Note: edited misquote

Ah! Well, the gauches are the perfect example of how critically Westerners (here the Spanish) do look at their past actions — ssu

We are all the same, we are all different.

Human societies, and nations, are not all homogeneous. The proof of this is the kind of arguments that take place within societies, among friends, among relatives, among brothers, even. It is vitally important to recognize this. I recognize the Lindsey Grahams. There are many. There is the Zionist Jew and the Anti-Zionist Jew. Why is it that only a few people even think of reparations to the indigenous people of an island? I am the few who have ever mentioned it, let alone thought of it. Being educated is one thing, but we as a people of a society have to insist that history is taught - history is common to all, and history is true, and it can be found, because we know it has been found and suppressed.

I feel for the Israelis, I feel for the Palestinians, the young men ( I am not 50+) like I was, eager for battle and glory, without fear.

Highlighting the inhumanity of the common history of the world, and anyone can agree or disagree, is one step. The reaction to killing of children is the litmus test of humanity and all that needs to be preserved in our race.

What we need is a world government with courts and a police force. Then the Palestinians and colonists can both make their submissions to the court and the matter decided on accordance with law. — bert1

What we need is for each human being to properly govern themselves. Atrocities begin in the heart.

Which should have been obvious after they managed to sink a Saudi warship with an anti-shipping missile, which isn't the usual repertoire of a Yemeni faction. — ssu

I did not know that. Thanks.

https://nypost.com/2023/11/01/news/hamas-terrorist-admits-to-killing-women-and-children-in-oct-7-massacre/

Like the previous terrorist interviewed by Israel, Abu Rusha said he was aware Islam forbids the killing of women, children and seniors, but said that Nukhba officers still gave them the order to kill everyone.

The captured terrorist then admitted that his parents were unaware that he’s a member of Hamas.

“If my father sees me, he will shoot me,” he said. “He will kill me … because I did those actions.”

After being shown images and video of Hamas brutality on Oct. 7, the terrorist also said his group was no different from ISIS. — New York Post

In wars atrocities are committed, what is surprising is that people forget that this situation was not unique to Hamas. In Vietnam, for example, but they were not 'only following orders'

Any explanation why if the elimination of Hamas was the goal, this man was not executed?
That would constitute revenge would it not?

Posting a video of three center-right / conservative Black Americans to 'counter' Mr Coates' interview, schop1, lacks substance and seems to me racially problematic. :brow: — 180 Proof

Not so, but I can see where you think that. I just saw that post about comparing it to Jim Crow, which indeed does make a racial overtone to the subject, trying to connect two distinct convergent (as in convergent evolutionary) phenomena. And I do believe Coates (and Democracy Now which produced the video) has a major bias. I’m familiar with Coates through his own videos and articles but also with commentary criticizing his point of view from McWhorter. I wanted to present counter theories that dispute such overreaches, and who generally have dismantled and showcased his (and similar extreme left wing academics) already biased viewpoint. That video was not so much on Coates (there are plenty of those in their past videos) but being that the topic is on Israel and how the issue is framed by this, and that their stance is opposed to and critical of that type of framing typical of a certain far left-leaning academic contingency, I think it is legitimate to showcase.

I also want to reiterate that anyone can post outrage videos on their side that makes various points that will make their case. It's the kind of thing I was observing on another post. It is like a drive by Buzzfeed.. "Let me give you this video to instill the outrage. DON'T YOU SEE THE OUTRAGE!". But that can be done on BOTH sides. That isn't useful in argumentation. It is just red meat for one's side, and not a nuanced debate. At least the videos below hosted by Coleman Hughes go deep, are nuanced, and provoke further understanding about the topic. He has a view, sure, but if he doesn't know he asks, and if he has a point of contention he will develop the thought and then hear out the guest/interlocutor.

Also, they are not all "center-right / conservative". Glenn is generally center right / conservative. McWhorter is more “old school” liberal (not leftist), generally voting Democratic. I'm sure Coleman tends to have moderate views (I think he does vote Democrat) and has a very informative video on Israel/Palestine (actually several now):

I think these professors/commentators/academics are much more BALANCED in their approach: — schopenhauer1

Glen Loury & John McWhorter are in my view the beacons of sanity, especially when it comes to race issues and academia in America. I always enjoyed listening to them. It just reminds me that American academia still can be totally sane, reasonable and objective. And speak the truth. Unlike we hear from all the "wokeness" going around.

Have to listen what the two professors say about this. What Coates tells us on the other hand is his personal experience, how he did feel when being in the occupied territories etc.

What makes Israeli policy in Israel's borders similar to Apartheid? I always thought the comparison was apt, but for the Occupied Territories.

Israeli policy in Gaza is hard to compare even with Nazi policy towards the French, let alone the policies they are best known for. There is a difference between callous ROE and lack of concern for collateral damage and attempts to exterminate the population. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Good question. I was drafting an extensive list but then realised B'Tselem wrote about it. Please check this out: https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid It writes about both the Occupied Territories and Israel proper but if you read carefully you can find the dinstinguishing features.

Here's an overview of laws passed in Israel that discriminate between Jewish and non-Jewish: https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index

The Nation State basic law, enacted in 2018, enshrines the Jewish people’s right to self-determination to the exclusion of all others. It establishes that distinguishing Jews in Israel (and throughout the world) from non-Jews is fundamental and legitimate. Based on this distinction, the law permits institutionalized discrimination in favor of Jews in settlement, housing, land development, citizenship, language and culture. It is true that the Israeli regime largely followed these principles before. Yet Jewish supremacy has now been enshrined in basic law, making it a binding constitutional principle – unlike ordinary law or practices by authorities, which can be challenged. This signals to all state institutions that they not only can, but must, promote Jewish supremacy in the entire area under Israeli control. — B'Tselem

And I know there were also operational things like issuing Jewish driver licenses and passports on other days than those for non-Jewish, so with a simple glance your "loyalty" was established but I cannot find whether this is still the case or not.

So the concept of nations doesn't arise at least 2,000 years after Judaïsm was made up but they are a "nation-race". Of course, I totally get that people who read a right to land based on some scribbles from people that probably got high on shrooms and think it was the revelation of God then can read "nation" into their favourite piece of insane ramblings but nobody who doesn't have a horse in this race is fooled by that. Even a century after nations arose nobody spoke about Jews in that way. So yes, it's a totally politically expedient invention. Obviously. But carry one.