Yeah, another shocker: just ignore whatever you disagree with. In line with the rest of your juvenile ramblings. — Mikie
Obviously the vast majority of Hamas have basically been born and lived all their lives in Gaza without ever being anywhere else.They can exit the region to their mansions and hotel rooms in Qatar or whatnot, and try to hide wherever, but vacate the place. — schopenhauer1
OK, I was talking about the Jews resisting British control and fighting the British. The Irgun fought the British, you know. You cannot simply start the conflict when the British have already left.So this is where there are false equivalencies in terms of means and ends- in this case more ends. Israel wanted a nation but they were willing to live peacefully with an Arab neighbor, something where they could have some political autonomy but yet coexist with an Arab autonomous state as well. — schopenhauer1
I think this has been seen by all commentators here. As I restarted this thread three months ago (Page 83, btw.) I did state quite early in this conflict the following like:This seems very cynical to not see that Hamas has been trying to screw up a peace deal from day 1. — schopenhauer1
Of course I would say that the leadership of Hamas thinks far more like Bibi Netanyahu. That with talk you won't achieve peace. Appeasement is failure. Hence the stand of Hamas that Israel shouldn't exist. — ssu
Yes, I think there is an agreement that one motivation for Hamas to do this was the warming or Saudi-Israeli ties. If Saudi-Arabia would recognize Israel, there wouldn't be any major players vouching for the Palestinians. — ssu
I don't think that people question the existence or the right for the existence of Israel. Hence I agree with @Benkei: a bit of a strawman. But if the Jewish had backing for an Israeli state from the Balfour declaration to the Holocaust and the successful Zionist movement, you do have also a lot to backing to the Palestinian aspirations here.So, this does make me question the motives of the posters here, to be fair. So the Jews experienced a Holocaust in Europe with many displaced persons, many times the Jews going back were faced with continued hostilities from populations, etc. But don't worry, if they try to make a state of it in Israel, the same Europeans will call foul and say, "You better not do that either, or we will root for the Palestinians to push you into the sea there as well!". — schopenhauer1
I don't think that people question the existence or the right for the existence of Israel. Hence I agree with Benkei: a bit of a strawman. But if the Jewish had backing for an Israeli state from the Balfour declaration to the Holocaust and the successful Zionist movement, you do have also a lot to backing to the Palestinian aspirations here. — ssu
Territorial annexations by force aren't tolerated in a World made of sovereign states. This is something quite universal today and the UN is quite consistent in this. Hence we talk about occupied territories and the maps used everywhere else than in Israel are different from the maps used there. This gives an obvious legal argument for the Palestinians. And as I stated above, with the exception of the Golan Heights, claims to West Bank and Gaza are between Israel and the Palestinians. — ssu
That's usually the time Israel does something horrible which is then not picked up in western media because they're too busy gorging themselves on a ridiculous amount of food. — Benkei
When you want hostilities to occur you ignore the warning signs and let your enemies attack you so you may appear Just to the world. (In reply to the PBS documentary). — Vaskane
When you want hostilities to occur you ignore the warning signs and let your enemies attack you so you may appear Just to the world. — Vaskane
I'm addressing an issue that is closer to home to you, actually. — schopenhauer1
???But the thing is, I do think it is a bit odd that countries that were directly involved in the displacement of European Jewry, who were occupied by Germany or became collaborators with them, and who willingly and unwillingly assisted the Nazi cause, would be so callously anti-Israel. — schopenhauer1
Indeed it came. As usual, when a large empire falls and new nations or regions are drawn on a map, it will create turmoil. And in the Middle East, that turmoil has continued from the WW1.Right, well this all came about from European colonialism. — schopenhauer1
Even if Finland could be said to have been a colony of lets say Russia, this does huge injustice to actual colonies as Europeans do treat other Europeans differently as say Asians or Africans.Being that you are a student of history, did you ever wonder if the borders set by European powers are itself a form of colonialism? — schopenhauer1
Uganda? That was thought too. But again, just transporting people somewhere else usually don't solve anything. Best example was Liberia: the American freed slaves made just then an elite, which later didn't have so warm relations with the "original" Africans.The point of Israel was to be one place in the world where you couldn't f*ck with them anymore. — schopenhauer1
There is a campaign away that tries to make critique of the policies of the state of Israel to be anti-semitic hate speech. I think this simply alienates even more people, because naturally and logically it's one thing to be against some policies of a country and another to hate the people. For example, I'm against the aggressive policies of Putin, but I don't hate the Russians. Having met them, they are very nice people, extremely generous and friendly when they have guests. Above all, Russians understand how many problems they have, but they have been ruled and are ruled now with fear. Why would you hate people that are living under a dictatorship? And anyway, I'm against the generalizations to condemn such large groups as people, condemning individuals is another and a more appropriate thing.I do sort of blame European anti-Israeli sentiment in the way that being so forcefully against Israel- and not just in the current Bibi-ism, but throughout its history, seems just more of that same old antisemetic attitudes, just now dressed up and allowable in a different form. — schopenhauer1
I'm not so sure that this was done by intention as Israelis blame Netanyahu for this. If the IDF would have been ready, it could have stopped the attacks, but Hamas simply got the strategic surprise.When you want hostilities to occur you ignore the warning signs and let your enemies attack you so you may appear Just to the world. (In reply to the PBS documentary). — Vaskane
Why on Earth praise the BRICs?Today, in the here and now, America and Israel are guilty of genocide, and the world is not blind. THE BRICS FOREVER, AND THE END OF COLONIALISM. — boagie
Yes, I agree.It's the same thing with 9-11, we had all the intelligence and chose to ignore it. In which we got ourselves a free ticket to exploit the middle east for roughly 2 decades. — Vaskane
And btw the most pro-Palestine people are the Irish. Were the Irish collaborators in the Holocaust? Perhaps it's their memories of the English makes them feel towards the Palestinians more than other Europeans. — ssu
There is a campaign away that tries to make critique of the policies of the state of Israel to be anti-Semitic hate speech. I think this simply alienates even more people, because naturally and logically it's one thing to be against some policies of a country and another to hate the people. For example, I'm against the aggressive policies of Putin, but I don't hate the Russians. Having met them, they are very nice people, extremely generous and friendly when they have guests. Above all, Russians understand how many problems they have, but they have been ruled and are ruled now with fear. Why would you hate people that are living under a dictatorship? And anyway, I'm against the generalizations to condemn such large groups as people, condemning individuals is another and a more appropriate thing. — ssu
Uganda? That was thought too. But again, just transporting people somewhere else usually don't solve anything. Best example was Liberia: the American freed slaves made just then an elite, which later didn't have so warm relations with the "original" Africans. — ssu
I think my country is a good example how the relation with Israel has changed: prior Israel was seen as a similar small nation heroically defending itself from a larger enemy (as Finland had been during the Winter War). I think that changed somewhat when Israel invaded Lebanon, a smaller nation than Israel and especially after the massacres of Shabra and Shatila, that prior image of a small heroic nation changed. Now it was the bully, the stronger dominant nation, not the one that defended itself from a larger power as in 1948 or 1967. Hence the anti-US, anti-Israeli leftist rhetoric started to win the discourse simply based on the facts that the massacres did happen. Yet Finland isn't nowhere near to Ireland in it's views about Israel. And naturally there are those Finnish Christians who think that Israel is the Holy Land and the Jews are a special people. — ssu
"The criminal attack on Gaza won’t solve the atrocious slaughter that Hamas executed." What do you think will?
— tim wood
Maybe a time machine that leads back to 1967 ... or 1948. — 180 Proof
Well, even if I've met several intelligence officers, I think this is a more of a case of how these organizations operate. The individual intelligence officer is smart, usually quite informed and if true intelligence man, quite a talker who can relate to anybody.But have you ever been part of an intelligence community? You know I learned from my own intelligence officers just how fucked up and unethical the USA truly is. — Vaskane
Again I agree with this. That's what actually all the foreign policy "blobs" in the World are.You presented a face, I presented a face, and certainly still there are others it maintains. — Vaskane
And the most obvious reason for antisemitism isn't usually talked about: it is Matthew 27:24–25, from the Bible:Antisemitism wasn't created wholesale from Hitler. It goes back over a millennium, and took on industrial psychopathic proportions rather than hodgepodge pogroms or lower-level decrees of expulsion and the like. — schopenhauer1
So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying "I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves." And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!"
Still, if the aspiration is to live in their own land, hardly anyone has anything against that. What simply creates the anger is the Apartheid system, is that Israel is seen as a Western country and democracies shouldn't have apartheid systems and yes, that it is so close to US (where it's basically a domestic policy issue) get anti-American sentiment linked to this. This can be seen how much fewer calls there are for the Kurds to have their own state, even if they too have been a target of genocide, like with the Anfal campaign by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.So I was just saying it looks bad to finding no sympathy with a people, that were expelled amidst your own lands, to then want to deny them even in their aspirations for their own land in what at least, historically and ancestrally, is recognized as their origin... yes, even acknowledging the Palestinian rights as well. — schopenhauer1
Who is morally right to own land is to me a stupid question as countries themselves are social constructs in the end. It's actually something that warmongers and imperialists ponder about and get the 'moral reasons' for 'liberation' or conquest. Those who seek moral justification for their sovereignty over a territory are usually the bad guys.Before the slaves were sent against their will, those people deserve a state, but the returning slaves to the continent of their origin, don't get an opportunity to form a state? Because they were too long separated? Again, that is just YOUR idea of how a state should be so self-determined. Why is THAT the one that is "morally justified", and not the idea that ex-slaves can form a state as well? — schopenhauer1
Well, were the fears of the white Afrikaners justified or not when they abolish the Apartheid system in South Africa?Yes, as you become more powerful, you become more criticized on how you use that power. Hamas justifies Likud's heavy-handedness, I get it. However, in counterfactual history, Hamas wasn't going to act differently. — schopenhauer1
the Armenian genocide refers to the physical annihilation of Armenian Christian people living in the Ottoman Empire from spring 1915 through autumn 1916. There were approximately 1.5 million Armenians living in the multiethnic Ottoman Empire in 1915. At least 664,000 and possibly as many as 1.2 million died during the genocide, either in massacres and individual killings, or from systematic ill treatment, exposure, and starvation.
The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.
Not at all; just my anti-settler-colonizer/anti-zionism that I share withAnd to be sure, as I react to your post, it - you -would seem to say that maybe better if the Arabs had won in '67 or '48. Is that antisemitism that's showing? — tim wood
and Israeli conscientious objectors like Tal Mitnick. Clearly, it's apologists for zionist mass murder like you, tim wood, who are among the actual antisemites (contra Israeli and Palestinian children) in this historical context. :shade:(e.g.) R. Luxemburg, S. Freud, A. Einstein, E. Fromm, P. Levi, Marek Edelman, I. Asimov, H. Arendt, I.F. Stone, N. Chomsky, H. Siegman, M. Lerner, R. Falk, T. Judt ... — 180 Proof
I genuinely think that this is the most sickening, obnoxious part of the New Testament. That none of the other Gospels say anything like this, doesn't make it less important. The idea of the Jews as being Christkillers and having that 'Blood curse' is very important in Christian anti-semitism. It explains just why after the Pope instigated the Crusades, the first to be attacked were the local Jews, as there weren't so many Muslims around that time in Central Europe. Yes, the Blood curse was repudiated later by the Catholic Church and others, but that doesn't stop someone like Mel Gibson putting the crowd to chant in Aramaic the Bible verses from Mathew in his Passion of the Christ film in 2004. — ssu
The authors of the New Testament have a point of view. They need Jesus to look sui generis. You can see this "othering" of Jesus (both as in othering from his Jewish origins to othering as even a human being) by the way he is portrayed in Mark (it starts at what people actually knew about him.. his preaching years in the Galilee and being baptized and being associated with the more well-known Jewish charismatic leader at the time, John the Baptist). It then moves to Matthew which focuses on more of his mashalim (parables) and revealing more of his understanding approach to halacha (Jewish law interpretation). However, I am willing to admit, as I said, that the this is also pure propaganda by the author who knew a thing or two about Pharisee-law and placed it in the character of Jesus. But that would be dangerous, as it now re-focuses Jesus in a more Jewish context of debating the minutia of Jewish law. But then, this actually endorses the "embarrassment theory", as it would be embarrassing to have Jesus embroiled in common 1st century debates on the minutia of Jewish law. He should be busy being Othered as a Son of God who is the Logos and beyond all that stuff. Well, Matthew cuts it both ways, see, in this mythological account, he is given a Roman-style birth story, where he is the "son of a virgin" a concept foreign to Jewish Second Temple Period theological notions of messiah (or God for that matter), but very common in the pagan Greco-Roman-Near Eastern world. Luke gives us an elaborated version of this with angels and such, further putting Jesus as certainly divine, at the least something of angelic origin, leading a way for a Son of God. By John, we start getting full blown Platonic notions of the "Logos", and clearly influence from Diasporan Platonic notions (pace Philo of Alexandria). This Logos in John is still its own thing because it isn't just the Logos, an organizing principle and telos, but the "Logos made flesh", which combines Platonic AND mystery-cult aspects of a god that "dies for the (sins of?) humanity" (pace Mithra).
So this is to all to say, you have to peal back those mythological layers, to get to the "historical" figure. If you buy into Jesus "condemning the Jews", you have now bought into the Othering of Jesus from his Jewishness so that he can now become safe for non-Jews to have him as their own, so they can worship him without having to worry about that more "national/ethnic" aspect of him. Since this is a thread on antisemitism, you can see how this Othering of Jesus contributes to this, by removing the Jewishness from Jesus, as well as the humanness from being someone embroiled in the Jewish religio-political debates of his time, to being some otherworldly Christ who died for the sins of humanity. He is not Jewish, but universal and then the Othering is complete. — schopenhauer1
Still, if the aspiration is to live in their own land, hardly anyone has anything against that. What simply creates the anger is the Apartheid system, is that Israel is seen as a Western country and democracies shouldn't have apartheid systems and yes, that it is so close to US (where it's basically a domestic policy issue) get anti-American sentiment linked to this. This can be seen how much fewer calls there are for the Kurds to have their own state, even if they too have been a target of genocide, like with the Anfal campaign by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. — ssu
Who is morally right to own land is to me a stupid question as countries themselves are social constructs in the end. It's actually something that warmongers and imperialists ponder about and get the 'moral reasons' for 'liberation' or conquest. Those who seek moral justification for their sovereignty over a territory are usually the bad guys.
The morally good situation is where neighboring states are quite happy with their borders and those borders are open. — ssu
But that would mean that a Palestine would have to have it's own capable armed forces, which Israel doesn't allow. Or then there ought to be dramatically more integration on the Arab side, like the League of the Arab states being more like the EU or something similar. Then you could have Egyptian, Saudi and Iraq forces patrolling the Palestinian borders. Well, the GCC is closest to an Arab military treaty organization, and it's members nearly went to war with one members, so that doesn't look good.
And this is why, yes again, I come back to the present Israeli administration, which has done everything possible to make the Palestinian Authority as weak as possible, because their objective is to annex Judea and Samaria and to get away with it. And that's why I am very pessimistic about the future here. — ssu
Did you know that the Masons, Rotary, and Lions Club are part of the Jewish conspiracy? Hamas' charter says (among other things) — BC
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.