@schopenhauer1 Anyway, other than the scientific and technological progression what is Western Civilisation compared to other parts of the world?

Do you think what defines the West is lived and realised mistakes? I ask this as it seems to me the success of any culture (and progression of) is directed by how it reacts to mistakes made.

Anyway, other than the scientific and technological progression what is Western Civilisation compared to other parts of the world? — I like sushi

First off, that itself is huge… it implies testing, changing hypotheses, observation, mathematical modeling, applying to materials, mechanics, energy to make devices and structures etc. it’s bringing centuries of knowledge and research into systematic study and application, replicating it, and making it in grand scales repeatedly in products, medicine, and infrastructure. Anyways, yeah that’s huge.

Many “non-western” areas want those technological perks of western output but not the socio-political aspects that arose with that. You have for example, Islamist forces wanting a 600s CE religious governance with modern (western) technology or AT THE LEAST the war technology that leads to destruction and violence to live out the 600s lifestyle (a contradiction). But that technology didn’t come from a vacuum. It’s tacitly acknowledging the west has something to offer (technology) but not admitting that perhaps it comes out of a bigger framework that is also preferable even if it’s resisted as evil. That is to say it came out of the Renaissance/ Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment principles that coalesced around the 1600-1700s with notions of “rights” and balanced governments, and freedoms of speech and press. That culture and religion and tradition should be a choice not an imposition to these individual freedoms. That democracy isn’t illiberal, that you can’t vote out rights. Voting itself is not a measure of democracy but the structures that prevent government from encroaching on liberties as well as protecting minority political views.

And yes, the west is self critical. It imposed on itself that all men are created equal. This goes against the practice of slavery and discrimination laws. So you have abolition movements, civil rights movements, protests, and sometimes civil wars to ensure the ideals the west invented (discovered?) are held up. It’s why I believe Israel is given the burden of taking more care to save lives even if trying to rid itself of a deadly attack. It’s western in its governance. It’s why when Assad or Hamas, or Iran or the Taliban, or China or Pakistan, or many African countries consistently violate liberal principles (freedoms, rights, crimes against humanity) no one seems to care all that much. They have no western standards they are even living up to, so what’s the point. They are treated as if it’s just a matter of course that they do what they do. It’s ironic that once a country is fully westernized it has the hardest time fighting non-western enemies, as these enemies aren’t hampered by the same qualms. They will use the west’s conscience against itself to ensure maximum chaos and division.

@Merkwurdichliebe perhaps you’d like to add more.

Also don’t get me wrong, the west also invented fascism, nazism, communism (more specifically referring to the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist kind) etc. These have been massively destructive, and are generally violent. I have already mentioned that much of these western style governments that arise in the 19th century are what influenced non western leaders too. Baathist middle eastern regimes come out of fascist principles. “Liberation fronts” seem like communist era rhetoric. Islamist terrorism may have taken its worst methods of violence and governance from these and combined it with their form of strict religious political worldview. So when I say “west” I am really using it as a shorthand for a kind of liberal democracy that went hand-in hand with the ideas of the scientific revolution around the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe and America.

This is why I call this theory "Big-Toe Theory". Once you have your big-toe in the West, the rest should go too. That's because we are the West whether we like it or not. You don't like your "failed state". It doesn't matter. That state is a state because of the West. The fact that there are even nation-states, are western (from colonialism and imperialism era). There is no going back. There is no way out, for good or bad. Mine as well embrace what makes the West work, as you are living in that framework.

There is no going back. There is no way out, for good or bad. Mine as well embrace what makes the West work, as you are living in that framework. — schopenhauer1

Apropos an underlying current that's been in many of the more recent posts I've read regarding the Israel / Palestinian conflict on this tread:

First off, I am extremely in favor of a cessation to all antisemitism worldwide. (To the antisemites out there this would make me a hardcore “Jew lover”.) However, I am also one to sternly believe that a Semite—which, let's face it, is a technically inappropriate and often derogatory slang for “Jew”—is not to be absolved of all wrongs merely on account of so being Semitic.

As such, I am very opposed to the slaughter of innocent Palestinians (btw, don’t know how more innocent a person can get than being a child) by the Israeli state … which indeed is, from at least my pov, nowadays in large part internally supported by Judaic religious fundamentalists rather than Jews who take views such as that of “not in our name”. (such as those who some years back outlawed interracial marriages between Palestinians and Jews, if memory serves me right)

With that general background in mind, apropos the allegiance to Western Civilization by westerners, or something to the like, which this thread in part seems to be about:

Has anyone so far brought up the following issue?

The religious fundamental-extremist drive, yearning, and often undulated lust for the coming of the Messiah asap (the first time the Christ arrives for fundamentalist Jews; the second coming for fundamentalist Christians)—which is supposed by fundamentalist-extremists to only occur once the nation of Israel is fully inhabited by only Judaic people is, to the best of my knowledge, a staple part of the Western Judaeo-Cristian civilization. Some such extremist Christians at least seem to exhibit some degree of blood-lust in this craving; cf. the whole “Armageddon days” that is desired to arrive by some, and as was supposedly prophesied in Revelations (for only then will Christ’s second coming occur, according to this common interpretation of scripture). Some current fundamentalist-extremist Jews seem to not be lagging too far behind in this same lust for blood (from human lesser-animals, apparently).

Christ’s coming for the first time for Jews can be, for fundamentalist-extremist Jews (btw, a group to which, tmk, many Orthodox Jews are sharply antithetical, the latter being very peace-loving and such), interpreted to signify the exaltation of the chosen people and, by certain inferences, thereby the subjugation of all non-chosen-people, i.e. Gentiles—or something to this effect (heck, one can even see the case for the existential disappearance of Gentiles world over for not being “sufficiently close to G-d” as understood by self-labeled “true Jews”). Whereas Christ’s second coming for fundamentalist extremist Christians will basically signify that all non-believers get sent to eternal Hell right away, Jews most typically included.

But, despite this, till then, there is all indication of a strong, unassailable allegiance between fundamental-extremist Christians and fundamental-extremist Jews, for both seek the same given aforementioned goal of fulfilling the prophecy of the Messiah’s coming.

One could bicker among the details of the just expressed (and I wrote them down from best recollections, mistaken as these sometimes are, without going through the trouble of finding references where appropriate, and most certainly with the hew of my own current biases as a human)—but the overall gist to me seems to remain. Oddly, I haven’t heard of this commonly known reality of fundamental-extremist religious belief structure among the Judaeo-Christian civilization/populace often spoken about publicly, such as in media or in houses of worship with publicly accessible sermons. And those brights/atheists in the populace haven’t managed to make the slightest dent in this situation; if anything, only adding fuel to the fire. In democracies, politics is determined by the population’ intentions. How much of the western populace is fundamentalist-extremist is hard, if at all possible, to accurately judge. But there’s plenty of evidence that fundamentalist thought and practice has not diminished, and has likely increased, in the West at large over the decades. If nowhere else, then at least in the USA.

So—this just mentioned issue of the Messiah’s coming sure seems to me to be a purely Western Civilization thing. Many might even say that the West as we know it required, and still requires, Judaeo-Christian ideology in order to work.

The pinnacle issue all this is intended to ask about: Ought this policy-influencing yearning in our Western culture for the Messiah's coming to not be mentioned, questioned, and disapproved of by us westerners … this on the grounds that it has been a staple aspect of Western Civilization for the past two millennia?

--

Ps. Not only am I very pro all peace-loving and justice-loving Jews of the world, I’m also for all Christians that—in the paraphrased words of Bill Maher in the documentary “Religulous”—are “Christ-within-ers” or some such (to my reckoning: hold the ethical teachings of JC as that which ought to be lived and practiced via works). Well, since I also mentioned atheists, also very much pro all humanitarians as well. All the same, the issue I posted is still of interest to me.

@180 Proof what do you make of the white supremacist movement rearing it's head through these unwitting jokers?

I haven't read much of this thread. Context?

:up: :up:

The presumed supremacy of Western civilisation and the logical next step it should be defended by any means necessary. But you're right. Forget it. Don't waste your time on it.

The presumed supremacy of Western civilisation and the logical next step it should be defended by any means necessary. But you're right. Forget it. Don't waste your time on it. — Benkei

Your reductions of whole threads or argument to a straw man is laughable. In fact, you are falling for exactly the kind of fallacy the OP set out to explain.

If you have an argument, make an argument, just don't say X, Y, Z label trying to start a fight but with no argument.

The pinnacle issue all this is intended to ask about: Ought this policy-influencing yearning in our Western culture for the Messiah's coming to not be mentioned, questioned, and disapproved of by us westerners … this on the grounds that it has been a staple aspect of Western Civilization for the past two millennia? — javra

I mean yes, the reason the Israeli-Palestinian conflict takes so much interest is because like it or not, that is the place where a large chunk of Western Civilization's history is focused via the events portrayed in the Bible/Hebrew Scriptures and the person of Jesus. Christianity took over the Roman Empire's leadership and slowly spread across the populous in various conversions such that the original paganism is little seen except through overlaid practices (like putting Christmas trees in a house.. Germanic practice of honoring Wodin with the Yule log, or even the revelry that is associated with Christ-mas going back to the original Roman rowdy holiday of Saturnalia). If Christianity became the Marcionite version, WITHOUT the "Old Testament" (Hebrew Bible), then perhaps the Christian sect would have simply been another mystery-cult amongst the many that thrived in the Mediterranean at that time. But keeping the Hebrew Scriptures allowed the tradition a place/time/people. This became infused as part-and-parcel of Western Civilization since. So yes, why would an atrocity in Afghanistan or even a nearby neighbor like Syria not be as intensely looked at in American-European media perhaps? It doesn't have that historical tie. But more recently, you cannot deny that Israel being borne out of the Holocaust basically, put a spotlight on it as that was a huge part of Germany's operation. This itself makes the project that much more inextricably tied to the history of the West.

The religious fundamental-extremist drive, yearning, and often undulated lust for the coming of the Messiah asap (the first time the Christ arrives for fundamentalist Jews; the second coming for fundamentalist Christians)—which is supposed by fundamentalist-extremists to only occur once the nation of Israel is fully inhabited by only Judaic people is, to the best of my knowledge, a staple part of the Western Judaeo-Cristian civilization. Some such extremist Christians at least seem to exhibit some degree of blood-lust in this craving; cf. the whole “Armageddon days” that is desired to arrive by some, and as was supposedly prophesied in Revelations (for only then will Christ’s second coming occur, according to this common interpretation of scripture). Some current fundamentalist-extremist Jews seem to not be lagging too far behind in this same lust for blood (from human lesser-animals, apparently).

Christ’s coming for the first time for Jews can be, for fundamentalist-extremist Jews (btw, a group to which, tmk, many Orthodox Jews are sharply antithetical, the latter being very peace-loving and such), interpreted to signify the exaltation of the chosen people and, by certain inferences, thereby the subjugation of all non-chosen-people, i.e. Gentiles—or something to this effect (heck, one can even see the case for the existential disappearance of Gentiles world over for not being “sufficiently close to G-d” as understood by self-labeled “true Jews”). Whereas Christ’s second coming for fundamentalist extremist Christians will basically signify that all non-believers get sent to eternal Hell right away, Jews most typically included. — javra

So I would say it is a bit of a misnomer to say "the Christ arrives for fundamentalist Jews". The idea of the messiah being "The Christ" is a very "Christian" concept (mainly from Paul and his writings). Messiah comes from the Hebrew "moshiach" and was meant to refer to a leader who would bring an end to any occupying civilization and restore the old kingship back to the an heir from the lineage of the House of David. Later versions (starting around the Book of Daniel we'll say), had a more apocalyptic aspect where the dead will rise, and there will be universal peace (lion lies next to the lamb, etc.). Some versions around the time of Jesus had an apocalyptic aspect of the warring of the "elect of Israel" and the rest, etc. (the Dead Sea Scrolls is a good source for this more apocalyptic version of events). Some of that may still be in there, but the beliefs of the mystical aspects are more fluid and open to interpretation. The basic gist is that it is a Jew (literally a Judhite as David was from the tribe of Judah) restoring the kingship of Israel.

The Christ is Paul's notion that the messiah has a metaphysical component. He may be pre-existing (though in Paul's letter that might not be the case), and eventually tied into the notion of a literal Son of God, and that his death acts as a sacrifice abrogates the original covenant such that the Laws of Moses become nullified. This is actually the real split from Judaism, not believing that "Jesus was the Messiah" (though that didn't help too between the very early group after his death, because a dead messiah doesn't seem plausible as restoring the kingship.. If he is dead, he cannot fulfil that).

Anyway, yes there is a strong tie of Evangelical theology with Israel as the belief is that if all Jews go back to Israel Jesus would come back and then send the non-believers to hell and start the whole rapture and the like.

Here is an article: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/truth-many-evangelical-christians-support-israel-rcna121481

So I would say it is a bit of a misnomer to say "the Christ arrives for fundamentalist Jews". The idea of the messiah being "The Christ" is a very "Christian" concept (mainly from Paul and his writings). Messiah comes from the Hebrew "moshiach" and was meant to refer to a leader who would bring an end to any occupying civilization and restore the old kingship back to the an heir from the lineage of the House of David. Later versions (starting around the Book of Daniel we'll say), had a more apocalyptic aspect where the dead will rise, and there will be universal peace (lion lies next to the lamb, etc.). Some versions around the time of Jesus had an apocalyptic aspect of the warring of the "elect of Israel" and the rest, etc. (the Dead Sea Scrolls is a good source for this more apocalyptic version of events). Some of that may still be in there, but the beliefs of the mystical aspects are more fluid and open to interpretation. The basic gist is that it is a Jew (literally a Judhite as David was from the tribe of Judah) restoring the kingship of Israel.

The Christ is Paul's notion that the messiah has a metaphysical component. He may be pre-existing (though in Paul's letter that might not be the case), and eventually tied into the notion of a literal Son of God, and that his death acts as a sacrifice abrogates the original covenant such that the Laws of Moses become nullified. This is actually the real split from Judaism, not believing that "Jesus was the Messiah" (though that didn't help too between the very early group after his death, because a dead messiah doesn't seem plausible as restoring the kingship.. If he is dead, he cannot fulfil that). — schopenhauer1

Hm. From what I know, “Christ” or, more accurately, “Khristos” is the Ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew word for Messiah, ”מָשִׁיחַ”, both having the same exact meaning of “the anointed one”. For both religions basically meaning the chosen one who will lead his people into salvation of one type or another. Let’s not forget that all “Christians” were in fact Jewish and pagan (if Gnosticism-like beliefs held by former polytheists get so labeled) before the first Council of Nicaea with its newly found doctrine of the Trinity. But yes, today “Christ” distinctly connotes Christian religion whereas Messiah tends to connote Judeic religion. Thanks for the correction in that regard.

Anyway, yes there is a strong tie of Evangelical theology with Israel as the belief is that if all Jews go back to Israel Jesus would come back and then send the non-believers to hell and start the whole rapture and the like. — schopenhauer1

Right. This state of affairs has always made me doubtful of the sincerity of a two state solution as sponsored by the USA and Israel. I used to hope for the best in this respect—thinking that this would best facilitate relative peace given regional politics—but constantly saw all signs indicating that this “two state solution” proposal was nothing but a facade for stopping any opposition to the forceful disappearance of all Palestinians from the former state of Palestine … this to facilitate the coming of the Messiah/Christ at nearly any cost. And today’s activities in these two countries in no way contradicts this in fact being so. I know it’s a very touchy topic, but there you have it. To non-extremists—be they Jews, Christians, Muslims, pagans, Buddhists, atheists, or what have you—were this to in fact be so, it can well be looked upon as an unwholly alliance between two otherwise antagonistic extremist factions … which as alliance is set on destroying what we have of global harmony so that they might have their personal salvation in the here and now.

My questioning, though, was more in regard to what constitutes this “Western Civilization” of ours that should not be derided by us westerners. Many fundamentalists will maintain that it is the very fundamentalist interpretation of scripture—including that of the Messiah’s/Christ’s coming—around which Western Civilization pivots. And I can see this argument: from “in God we trust” written on money to bibles in trials and more (although, to me, were Cleopatra to have succeeded in her endeavors, and were ancient Egypt to have united with ancient Rome, it would still be Western Civilization—albeit one likely not pivoted around anything Judeo-Cristian).

But then, are you saying that us non-extremists are wrong for wanting this aspect of current Western Culture, which longs for some violent apocalypse to occur, to no longer be of any influence in politics (or in society at large for that matter)?

-----

ps. Personally dislike this use of “apocalypse” to address supernatural doings, like the reawakening of the dead of which you make mention. It initially strictly meant a revealing—literally, an un-covering of what is (which makes far more sense in a gnostic-like interpretation of the world). Bummer, that’s all.

pps. Grew up around more than a few non-extremist Jews, many of which are still good friends of the family if not personal friends. That said, in high school had one Orthodox Jewish friend who latter on became extremist. He for example once informed me that Palestinians were “sub-human” … the same rhetoric used by Germans toward Jews before the Holocaust … and he claimed to have quite a following online, this a few years back. Gained a rather bad impression from this now no longer friend in respect to extremists.

Hm. From what I know, “Christ” or, more accurately, “Khristos” is the Ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew word for Messiah, ”מָשִׁיחַ”, both having the same exact meaning of “the anointed one”. For both religions basically meaning the chosen one who will lead his people into salvation of one type or another. Let’s not forget that all “Christians” were in fact Jewish and pagan (if Gnosticism-like beliefs held by former polytheists get so labeled) before the first Council of Nicaea with its newly found doctrine of the Trinity. But yes, today “Christ” distinctly connotes Christian religion whereas Messiah tends to connote Judeic religion. Thanks for the correction in that regard. — javra

Technically correct. I was referring to the post-Pauline use of Christ Jesus, in which “the Christ” certainly changed the metaphysical idea of the simple translation of its original “anointed one”. It gets the connotation and baggage of “sacrificial Son of God” rather than simply a “restoration of the King, a once again anointed one”.

Also I distinguish between the original Jewish movement headed by his brother James where the original messiah concept was most likely viewed and what it became after Paul with his concept of the Christ. As for gnostics, some were certainly Jews. That is a mysterious origin story that would take longer to explore.

Right. This state of affairs has always made me doubtful of the sincerity of a two state solution as sponsored by the USA and Israel. I used to hope for the best in this respect—thinking that this would best facilitate relative peace given regional politics—but constantly saw all signs indicating that this “two state solution” proposal was nothing but a facade for stopping any opposition to the forceful disappearance of all Palestinians from the former state of Palestine … this to facilitate the coming of the Messiah/Christ at nearly any cost. And today’s activities in these two countries in no way contradicts this in fact being so. I know it’s a very touchy topic, but there you have it. To non-extremists—be they Jews, Christians, Muslims, pagans, Buddhists, atheists, or what have you—were this to in fact be so, it can well be looked upon as an unwholly alliance between two otherwise antagonistic extremist factions … which as alliance is set on destroying what we have of global harmony so that they might have their personal salvation in the here and now. — javra

I don’t know if it’s that simple. Now you are reducing this conflict more than probably the case. There’s all sorts of reasons Israel is an ally strategically with the US. However, you are discounting the fact that there were various times offered and rejected of a peace plan towards the Palestinians- this was before and even after Netanyahu and likud's dominance. The peace in the region is more for the two sides than anyone else but yes, Israel has to have some moderates again who will look for moderates and there has to be Palestinians who are moderates who can moderate their extremists. It’s not a matter of shaking a hand and calling it good. It takes taking action against extremists who want to ruin that.

My questioning, though, was more in regard to what constitutes this “Western Civilization” of ours that should not be derided by us westerners. Many fundamentalists will maintain that it is the very fundamentalist interpretation of scripture—including that of the Messiah’s/Christ’s coming—around which Western Civilization pivots. And I can see this argument: from “in God we trust” written on money to bibles in trials and more (although, to me, were Cleopatra to have succeeded in her endeavors, and were ancient Egypt to have united with ancient Rome, it would still be Western Civilization—albeit one likely not pivoted around anything Judeo-Cristian).

But then, are you saying that us non-extremists are wrong for wanting this aspect of current Western Culture, which longs for some violent apocalypse to occur, to no longer be of any influence in politics (or in society at large for that matter)? — javra

No, I specifically defined what I meant by 17-18th Enlightenment movement. So you can split it into two phenomena:

Nation-State came from Colonization from the West
1) Western Civilization colonized the rest of the world from the 16th-20th centuries. They drew up often arbitrary territories, and introduced all kind of political notions like, "This territory is now a "nation-state" amongst many others in our conception of the world"
1a) After WW2, with even more rapid "decolonization" occurred" and under the Atlantic Charter, it was conceived that these former colonies that they controlled for many years, are now "free" to be "self-determined".
1b) But wait a minute!! Why are they now "free to be self-determined"? What is this "entity" being "freed" to be "self-determined". Well lo and behold, it is the "nation-state", allowed to be its "own version" of the nation-state that the WEST CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE. It's a big ruse. It's all fake. Decolonization is not going to a state of affairs PRIOR TO COLONIZATION. It is just the allowed outcome of POST-COLONIZATION.
1c) That being the case ALL OF IT is Western in THAT sense (not every sense of course).

Ideas of Enlightenment
The basic idea is if the nation-state is going to be considered a "thing" (like what really is Palestine, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Iraq, etc?), then mine as well take on the Enlightenment ideas of "universal rights" and liberal democracies (meaning not just voting, but protection for the groups not in power, separation of powers, freedoms guaranteed of speech and press, freedom to worship). And I also explained that just as with Britain retaining its heritage (it still has an Anglican head of Church for example and a monarchy), traditions can still be kept in these nation-states that keep the character, pride, and history as part of their nation-state. The problem of course is that Britain has actually "been" a nation-state since Medieval times. Same as France, etc. But one can maybe model it after newer nation-states, but WITHOUT the romantic nationalism that befell them (Germany and Italy are two egregious examples of nation-states from smaller kingdoms/city-states that quickly radicalized to fascism).

ps. Personally dislike this use of “apocalypse” to address supernatural doings, like the reawakening of the dead of which you make mention. It initially strictly meant a revealing—literally, an un-covering of what is (which makes far more sense in a gnostic-like interpretation of the world). Bummer, that’s all. — javra

Well, "apocalypse" means a sort of "revealing or revelation" and can mean some sort of esoteric secrets like the beginning of the world, the end of the world, heavenly realms, heavenly hosts, etc. In other words, its very esoteric. One can say the apocalyptic literature is a genre that starts with the Book of Daniel (written in the 200s BCE but takes place in 539 BCE) and continues. Themes of the End of Times are very much a part of this type of literature, though not strictly. The idea of a general resurrection of the dead can be seen in Ezekiel and Daniel. There were a bunch of "apocalypses" that did not make it into the TaNaK though including the Books of Enoch, and Apocalypse of X (Moses, Adam, Moses, etc.). There's also pseudopigripha like the Book of Maccabees,etc. that were also influential but didn't make it in the Tanak coming too late were more referenced for historical purposes.

I don’t know if it’s that simple. Now you are reducing this conflict more than probably the case. — schopenhauer1

Why so? For instance, what other interests do you find occurring in Western Civilization post Enlightenment which justify what Palestinians term the Nakba?

No, I specifically defined what I meant by 17-18th Enlightenment movement. — schopenhauer1

Ok. I then take your reply to indicate that criticism of Western civilization at large by westerners is not something that is to be proscribed? The proscription simply applying to the potential denunciation of the ideal of "universal rights for all people" and the like?

Well, "apocalypse" means a sort of "revealing or revelation" and can mean some sort of esoteric secrets like the beginning of the world, the end of the world, heavenly realms, heavenly hosts, etc. In other words, its very esoteric. — schopenhauer1

Right. And so understood from a non-Abrahamic perspective (here written as an umbrella generalization and not looking at what more often than not are deemed heretical variants--with aspects such as the Kabbalah as exceptions), an apocalypse is always a strictly personal experience regarding the nature of reality - i.e., mysticism 101 (of which Gnosticism is one variant) - rather than about the living dead rising up from their graves or some such.

Why so? For instance, what other interests do you find occurring in Western Civilization post Enlightenment which justify what Palestinians term the Nakba? — javra

The Holocaust, historical reasons, and antisemitism in general in the West. But the religious reasons no doubt play a role, but it doesn't have to be in the messianic sense you describe. One of the things that make it somewhat unique is that it is reestablishing a Jewish polity in a region. But it's not that unique really in terms of a religion also being a sort of "nation" as well. The Assyrians for example, are an example of this. They are sort of an ethno-religion. Samaritans might be even more apt as an "ethno-religion", one tied to the land (e.g. Mt. Gerizim). There are other ethno-religions too. That being said, IRONICALLY, it is also the Enlightenment which models this idea, mainly starting with the French Revolution. "To the Jews as individuals, all rights. To the Jews as a nation, no rights." was what came out of the National Assembly convention in 1789. And that made a kind of sense in Europe to an extent that assimilation and universality was the guiding principle of the day. However, this did not internally diminish the Jewish belief of being an ethno-religion, and sort of misconstrued the Jewish approach to itself. The cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, and Safed were very important centers throughout the history. At various times (post-Roman occupation, Biblical times, and Jesus circa 100s-600s CE) there were Jewish centers in mainly the Galilee (Sepphoris, Tiberias, Yavne, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmudic_academies_in_Syria_Palaestina) Certainly, some Jews almost fully integrated into French and European societies as was the case into the 20th century. But the Dreyfus Affair started questioning whether assimilation in European nation-states was ever fully possible. The ongoing pogroms in Eastern Europe, and the Holocaust provided more evidence of this.

So the Nakba came about from internal conflicts that were ongoing right before the UN 1947 declaration, and after that turned into a regional war. And indeed it is about land rights, and whether to acknowledge a Jewish state. Israel can always say it's about security and the right to even exist (if right of return was admitted, would that mean Israel would just be dissolved? Would there be more internal pogroms and conflicts but in a smaller land-space now?). But let's discuss this in your next paragraph because I'm leading to something...

Ok. I then take your reply to indicate that criticism of Western civilization at large by westerners is not something that is to be proscribed? The proscription simply applying to the potential denunciation of the ideal of "universal rights for all people" and the like? — javra

More-or-less, yes. That is to say, the way history unfolded, the reality is these "nation-states" are fully European in origin, not a sort of political entity indigenous to X (regions in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, etc.). So excuse my language, but WTF would one be talking about when discussing "self-determination" when it is already confined to YOUR (yes YOU Western person who claims to be pro-underdog) who has thus defined it to be self-determined in YOUR Westphalian/Atlantic Charter/Post-Colonialist way?

But you see, there is NO GETTING OUT of the system either. You cannot turn back post-colonialism to so pre-colonization time. So what is one to do? And that is where I say that if the country already exists, it has some of the technology at least, and infrastructures, etc. you mine as well try to incorporate the liberal democratic principles that also went along with those Western things. Japan may be an example of a country that successfully did this. We can parse out why them and not others, and why that can't work in other areas, but I am giving more of an offhand possibility rather than a model, if that makes sense. I am not saying X country is like the circumstances of 19th century Japan, for example. Interesting enough, just like newly formed "Germany" and "Italy", it too went from possible parliamentary democracy to straight up fascist-style regime, decimating its neighbors. But the realities on the ground much of the time is a strongman takes power, keeps power, and gives it to his family, and that is the politics. The end. Oddly enough, this may be preferable to the illiberal democracy of voting in religious extremists which curtail many rights so it's then run by a holy man or council of holy men. Yet here they are in a "nation-state", dealing with the world as a "nation" (given to them by the West), using "Western" technology, but not taking on some of the values that may make the nation good for its citizens. It might just be "good" in some universal sense to have freedom of speech, religious expression, freedom to assemble, freedom to peaceably disagree with the government, freedom to form political parties and have free and fair elections.

Right. And so understood from a non-Abrahamic perspective (here written as an umbrella generalization and not looking at what more often than not are deemed heretical variants--with aspects such as the Kabbalah as exceptions), an apocalypse is always a strictly personal experience regarding the nature of reality - i.e., mysticism 101 (of which Gnosticism is one variant) - rather than about the living dead rising up from their graves or some such. — javra

Yeah, I can agree with that. I guess I was using "apocalyptic" as both its idea as esoteric vision, and some of the content of what that vision is (often how the end of the world is to look like). So I think we can both be right on that, but if we look at how it is used in different ways. I think providing context helps to pinpoint how it is then being used.

Why so? For instance, what other interests do you find occurring in Western Civilization post Enlightenment which justify what Palestinians term the Nakba? — javra

The Holocaust, historical reasons, and antisemitism in general in the West. — schopenhauer1

I don't yet understand how the Holocaust and the history of antisemitism justify the Nakba. To make myself better understood, it so far seems to be affirming that because the Nazis (and many others) considered Jews as "sub-human", Jews in Israel have had the right to consider Palestinians as "sub-human" in relation to their own worth. But I so far doubt this is what you're intending to say.

"To the Jews as individuals, all rights. To the Jews as a nation, no rights." was what came out of the National Assembly convention in 1789. — schopenhauer1

OK, but back then Jews as a people did not have their own nation. (Having heard, lets say, plenty of bias against both, this is the one thing that Jews and Gypsies have traditionally held in common as otherwise two very different peoples: they were nomadic peoples.)

Another very touch topic, but is a Jew defined as Jewish - this throughout history - by an ethnicity (something that, for example, can thereby be traced with mitochondrial DNA nowadays), by the specific religion of Judaism, by a nationality, or necessarily by all three simultaneously? I've heard of or encountered plenty of Jews that are either not religious or else hold onto different religious convictions (this, particularly, in the modern neopagan community; e.g. Starhawk), but Jews they nevertheless are. As to a Jew being necessarily defined by a nationality, namely that of ancient Israel (as in “Israelite”), this is to me strongly connected to religious convictions themselves. Which in part gets to the quote you've provided (given its proper historical context) and, in part, gets to many a non-Zionist Jew who do not identify with any nationality other than that nation in which they have grown up in (this not being that of modern Israel).

So the Nakba came about from internal conflicts that were ongoing right before the UN 1947 declaration, and after that turned into a regional war. And indeed it is about land rights, and whether to acknowledge a Jewish state. — schopenhauer1

Yet, that the establishment of a Jewish state after WWII happened to be within not-so-long-ago Palestine, this rather than somewhere else in the world that was not already populated in an established way, to me, at least, directly coheres into the very messianic prophesy I initially brought up.

More-or-less, yes. That is to say, the way history unfolded, the reality is these "nation-states" are fully European in origin, not a sort of political entity indigenous to X (regions in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, etc.). So excuse my language, but WTF would one be talking about when discussing "self-determination" when it is already confined to YOUR (yes YOU Western person who claims to be pro-underdog) who has thus defined it to be self-determined in YOUR Westphalian/Atlantic Charter/Post-Colonialist way?

But you see, there is NO GETTING OUT of the system either. You cannot turn back post-colonialism to so pre-colonization time. So what is one to do? — schopenhauer1

Speaking for myself, I don't favor underdogs on account of their simply so being. And true, there is no going back. Something that Native American Indians (First Nations) know all too well, for example. The issue isn't about how do we go back to the way things once were but how do we move forward from here on out.

But to be blunt: My little mind foresees a lot more hatred of Jews, hatred of the USA, and hatred of the West at large if this conflict can only be resolved via the extermination of the Palestinians from their current land ... or else gets turned into the largest concentration camp the world has yet to witness. This increased inter-cultural hatred is not something that I want. But the world at large is watching. And every Palestinian child that escapes death and will grow into an adult will likely not hold kind thoughts regarding the three populaces just mentioned - to which I pertain. This as just one little - but maybe all the same significant - example of what will await in our future. This apropos a ceasefire that stands relatively little chance of occurring anytime soon – as in, right now.

So, at to "what to do", from where I stand, those who are more quote-unquote "civilized" should be the first to stop the killing of innocent people - on the streets, in shelters, in hospitals, etc. - and this for their/our own future interest in both the short-term and the long-term.

I don't yet understand how the Holocaust and the history of antisemitism justify the Nakba. To make myself better understood, it so far seems to be affirming that because the Nazis (and many others) considered Jews as "sub-human", Jews in Israel have had the right to consider Palestinians as "sub-human" in relation to their own worth. But I so far doubt this is what you're intending to say. — javra

Jesus Christ man, I did not say or imply that, just the formation of Israel. I knew you were going to bad faith argue by technically saying the "Nakba" which went hand-in-hand with the 1947 UN Resolution and the formation of Israel. So you are forcing the two together by phrasing it like that. It's a loaded question and I don't appreciate it. It's bad faith arguing such that I have to justify the "Nakba" when I am really just justifying "Israel" as a nation-state. No, one doesn't mean the other, but one went down in history with the other.

Gypsies — javra

Do Gypsies have a tradition that always points to a homeland that they mention daily in prayers, in traditions, etc? If so, perhaps they should get a nation-state. If not, perhaps not. Each group can have different circumstances. From what I know, it's exactly the traditions of not having a homeland that has been the root of much of Roma practice. But I may be corrected. Certainly recent historical and genetic evidence indicates that they came from Northern India/Pakistan area and spread out from there after a battle.

Another very touch topic, but is a Jew defined as Jewish - this throughout history - by an ethnicity (something that, for example, can thereby be traced with mitochondrial DNA nowadays), by the specific religion of Judaism, by a nationality, or necessarily by all three simultaneously? I've heard of or encountered plenty of Jews that are either not religious or else hold onto different religious convictions (this, particularly, in the modern neopagan community; e.g. Starhawk), but Jews they nevertheless are. As to a Jew being necessarily defined by a nationality, namely that of ancient Israel (as in “Israelite”), this is to me strongly connected to religious convictions themselves. Which in part gets to the quote you've provided (given its proper historical context) and, in part, gets to many a non-Zionist Jew who do not identify with any nationality other than that nation in which they have grown up in (this not being that of modern Israel). — javra

I would argue, by-and-large "Jews" define themselves more as an ethno-religion, and it is exactly Enlightenment movements (especially Reform Judaism) that made it less about the ethno and more about the religion to match their Christian peers.

Yet, that the establishment of a Jewish state after WWII happened to be within not-so-long-ago Palestine, this rather than somewhere else in the world that was not already populated in an established way, to me, at least, directly coheres into the very messianic prophesy I initially brought up. — javra

Not-so-long-ago Palestine wasn't a thing. It was a province of "Palestine" (not a nation-state) under the aegis of the Ottoman Empire. There were no nation-states in the Middle East really prior to Picos-Sykes. So I think this is a cudgel we are both going to put our flag down at. You are going to argue this is semantics, but I am going to argue this is actually not. If Israel shouldn't exist, either should Palestine, Iraq, Syria, or anything else drawn up in Europe for that matter, and perhaps they should have just given it back to the Ottomans if we really want to start parsing historical "should of would of could ofs". But apparently in these debates, the die has to be loaded for whatever favor you want to have rather than what occurred which was the colonization of the Middle East into European style nation-states.

Speaking for myself, I don't favor underdogs on account of their simply so being. — javra

Nice. That seems to be the sentiment around these parts.

And true, there is no going back. Something that Native American Indians (First Nations) know all too well, for example. The issue isn't about how do we go back to the way things once were but how do we move forward from here on out. — javra

Yep.

But to be blunt: My little mind foresees a lot more hatred of Jews, hatred of the USA, and hatred of the West at large if this conflict can only be resolved via the extermination of the Palestinians from their current land ... or else gets turned into the largest concentration camp the world has yet to witness. This increased inter-cultural hatred is not something that I want. But the world at large is watching. And every Palestinian child that escapes death and will grow into an adult will likely not hold kind thoughts regarding the three populaces just mentioned - to which I pertain. This as just one little - but maybe all the same significant - example of what will await in our future. This apropos a ceasefire that stands relatively little chance of occurring anytime soon – as in, right now. — javra

You may be right. I have no idea what the Israeli government plans to do with Gaza, the West Bank. But I also have no idea what the Palestinians are gonna do. Here is the thing though, clearly based on October 7th, Gaza run by Hamas also wasn't working out, so we have shit past, shit present, and maybe shit future. Maybe not though.

So, at to "what to do", from where I stand, those who are more quote-unquote "civilized" should be the first to stop the killing of innocent people - on the streets, in shelters, in hospitals, etc. - and this for their/our own future interest in both the short-term and the long-term. — javra

And indeed, that is really the real questions. What does a nation in wartime do? How does one "get rid of" an enemy? You can't get rid of an idea, but you can get rid of the known perpetrators. But then, what do you do when you conquer the region utterly? Hopefully Netanyahu gets kicked out. Hopefully some sort of coalition can be formed and put Abbas or some "moderate" in power. I think it was someone else on this forum that said that if this is like Europe's past wars (everything from the Thirty Years War all the way up to WW2) then there is a lot of death to make a sort of "peaceful ennui" that currently Western Europe enjoyed. Unfortunately, if we just take something like WW2, it took a tremendous amount of civilian deaths for the current world order we have today. I rather it be Gandhis talking it out peacefully with Gandhis. Not the civilian deaths. Apparently no one chooses this option and it is indeed disheartening.

The fact you feel my post addressed you, says it all. I already pointed out your idiocy in an earlier post; which was hubris. You also get half of history wrong because it's like you read exactly one book in high school or something.

The fact you feel my post addressed you, says it all. I already pointed out your idiocy in an earlier post; which was hubris. You also get half of history wrong because it's like you read exactly one book in high school or something. — Benkei

All ad hom. Nothing of substance. Bad faith arguing and poisoning the well. Clearly you have no substance to add. I can call you all sorts of names based on your arguments that would simply label for rhetorical effect, but I have refrained, in order to argue substance. You should try that some day.

Jesus Christ man, I did not say or imply that, just the formation of Israel. I knew you were going to bad faith argue by technically saying the "Nakba" which went hand-in-hand with the 1947 UN Resolution and the formation of Israel. — schopenhauer1

I asked for clarification in what of the Holocaust and of historical antisemitism justified the Nakba (as per Wikipedia, aka, “the violent displacement and dispossession of Palestinians, and the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations” … which is a lot easier to express by use of one term). It wasn't a "bad faith argument". I also don't personally know you, and so I made it clear that I assume in good faith that what I expressed is not your view.

Your reply in no way addresses the issue.

To be clearer in where I presently stand, I can definitely see how the messianic traditions in both Christian and Judaic cultures would justify the establishment of a Judaic nation in the region from an overall Western pov. But I, again, so far fail to understand how the Holocaust and antisemitism in general does. Again, for example, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 could have established plans for a future official Judaic homeland in an area that wasn't already populated with an established peoples - thereby not requiring a Nakba or anything close to it for a Judaic state to occur.

Do Gypsies have a tradition that always points to a homeland that they mention daily in prayers, in traditions, etc? — schopenhauer1

Definitely not. Please let me know how this relates to what I previously stated regarding the Jewish people historically being nomadic for the greater portion of the past two millennia on account of not having a homeland (and of how a fair sum of antisemitism relates to this).

I would argue, by-and-large "Jews" define themselves more as an ethno-religion, and it is exactly Enlightenment movements (especially Reform Judaism) that made it less about the ethno and more about the religion to match their Christian peers. — schopenhauer1

Hm. Though I'm appreciative of the reply, this take on Reform Judaism conflicts with both my limited experiences and with what Wikipedia states:

Reform Judaism, also known as Liberal Judaism or Progressive Judaism, is a major Jewish denomination that emphasizes the evolving nature of Judaism, the superiority of its ethical aspects to its ceremonial ones, and belief in a continuous search for truth and knowledge, which is closely intertwined with human reason and not limited to the theophany at Mount Sinai. A highly liberal strand of Judaism, it is characterized by lessened stress on ritual and personal observance, regarding halakha (Jewish law) as non-binding and the individual Jew as autonomous, and great openness to external influences and progressive values. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism

Not-so-long-ago Palestine wasn't a thing. It was a province of "Palestine" (not a nation-state) under the aegis of the Ottoman Empire. — schopenhauer1

My bad. I should have said "Mandatory Palestine". Which was not "under the aegis of the Ottoman Empire" for nearly 30 years, this after the Lawrence of Arabia days during WWI. A complex historical issue, true. But that the Arabs were betrayed by the West, specifically by the United Kingdom and France, in not being granted autonomy after helping in driving away the Ottoman Empire as they were promised is a staple aspect of this history.

And indeed, that is really the real questions. What does a nation in wartime do? How does one "get rid of" an enemy? — schopenhauer1

Well, to run through the some of the options that come to mind:

a) One can completely kill off "the enemy", in full (man, woman, and child) when the enemy is a populace, so that the enemy no longer is. Which to me is reminiscent of what the Holocaust attempted to do. I.e., this would be a deplorable thing to try to do for various reasons.

b) One can completely subjugate and segregate the "the enemy" to ones despotic interests. This, however, tends toward perpetual revolt toward and animosity for those who subjugate.

c) One can find common ground with "the enemy". As one very simplified example: the enemy is pissed because they don't have water to drink; you then give them water in exchange for something you want (hostages for example); then there is a commonly understood situation wherein "the enemy" gets to drink water when needing it and you don't have hostages taken from your group. When either side breaches this commonly promised situation, then you can again stop their water supplies and they can again take hostages violently. Or something along these lines.

In addition, according to The Art of War, there's also this: the best way to win a war/conflict is the get what you want from "your enemy" before any war/conflict commences, this so that no war/conflict occurs. But it's a little too late for that.

I'm personally strongly in favor of option "c".

I asked for clarification in what of the Holocaust and of historical antisemitism justified the Nakba (as per Wikipedia, aka, “the violent displacement and dispossession of Palestinians, and the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations” … which is a lot easier to express by use of one term). It wasn't a "bad faith argument". I also don't personally know you, and so I made it clear that I assume in good faith that what I expressed is not your view. — javra

It's bad faith because it's bad history. The "Nakba" went along with the infighting and 1948 war, so you cannot pry those apart, so it is an impossible way of asking the question without saying there should be no Israel either because it happened at the founding events. In other words, would I rather the Palestinians also accepted the 1947 resolution and that the infighting that happened prior to that and that the continuation into a full scale war between Israel and the Arab nations of the region had not occurred? Yes, absolutely. But that's not how that happened so again, it is an weasely way of framing that question because the history went hand in hand with an Israel as reality and the Nakba.

I'll answer the rest later.. I haven't looked at it sufficiently yet....

This thread has increasingly come to be about the Israeli-Hamas war. It's such a tedious and exhaustingly pointless subject, I find it gets rather boring to go over the same arguments that have been floating around for decades...over and over with no end in sight. :yawn:

The generational rift that explains Democrats’ angst over Israel

“You can be pro-Israelis and anti-Netanyahu. You can be pro-Palestinians and anti-Hamas,” he said. “The false binary that we’re presented with in the media and in this polling is really damaging.”

It's such a complex issue, it's almost hubris to take a final position on it. However this article does tie back into the topic here, and it brings the contradiction of the left back to the forefront.

The Israeli-Hamas war is an interesting case study of a Western culture (at least Western adjacent) colliding with a decidedly non-Western culture. It brings up many interesting issues such as how the West should relate to those cultures which have antagonistic dispositions toward Western values. To what extent is the West expected to extend its standards towards those non-Western societies that will reciprocate nothing? And if the West is willing to refuse its standards to non-Western societies, is it possible to justify such a betrayal of values?

Another issue, the one relevant to this thread is how the woke-Left, the self appointed champion of social justice, can support a group that abhors Western values like social justice. As of yet, those on the Left (who support groups like Hamas) have not once attempted to justify why a group that openly denies its people fundamental rights and liberties deserves any power over anything. They just get angry like lunatics and scream lame insults like "You also get half of history wrong because it's like you read exactly one book in high school or something." They never proffer anything of substance or value. Whatever the case, it is certain that the woke-Leftist would never tolerate a party like Hamas in his/her own society, this is where the contradiction becomes hypocrisy.

This contrasts with the rare Leftist support for Israel. Israeli citizens enjoy many of the same rights and liberties as those in Western Europe and America. In this position, we may need to occasionally justify the betrayal of our Western values, however, ideally in the end, these Western values will triumph through non-Western means, and be extended to traditionally oppressed people of non-Western societies. Someday, we may have a world where there is no necessity for utilizing non-Western means, but until then, we may find it necessary from time to time.

@schopenhauer1

And if the West is willing to refuse its standards to non-Western societies, is it possible to justify such a betrayal of values? — Merkwurdichliebe

Another standard is climate change policy. The only group that the Left condemns for their climate change policy are Right-wing conservatives in Western societies. Where is the cry over those non-Western industrial societies that pay little-to-no attention to the Green agenda? How does the Left justify applying its standard to one but not the other? It doesn't.

so again, it is an weasely way of framing that question because the history went hand in hand with an Israel as reality and the Nakba.

I'll answer the rest later.. I haven't looked at it sufficiently yet.... — schopenhauer1

Your answer does not answer the question. But why even discuss with someone who's "weaselly" to begin with.

I've been more than forthright all along. Have a good one.

Hm. Though I'm appreciative of the reply, this take on Reform Judaism conflicts with both my limited experiences and with what Wikipedia states:

Reform Judaism, also known as Liberal Judaism or Progressive Judaism, is a major Jewish denomination that emphasizes the evolving nature of Judaism, the superiority of its ethical aspects to its ceremonial ones, and belief in a continuous search for truth and knowledge, which is closely intertwined with human reason and not limited to the theophany at Mount Sinai. A highly liberal strand of Judaism, it is characterized by lessened stress on ritual and personal observance, regarding halakha (Jewish law) as non-binding and the individual Jew as autonomous, and great openness to external influences and progressive values.
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism — javra

Yeah this didn't explain much as to how it "conflicts" with your limited experiences. But to that extent, even most reform Jews see Judaism as an ethno-religion. If anything I was understating this sense of identity. See here if you need a reference I guess:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious_group#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20ethnoreligious%20communities%20define,as%20religious%20%E2%80%93%20of%20its%20own.

In this sense, they are a group that had a history of being from a homeland and have always oriented themselves towards practices, traditions, stories, and physical artifacts that go back to that land. In fact, because of Christianity, it might be one of the most well-preserved historical identities in the Western tradition (certainly before anyone had a sense of being "German", "Finnish", "Dutch" "Syrian", "Iraqi" and "English" even). So in that sense, they are rooted in more than just "religious beliefs" like perhaps someone who purely professed Islamic or Buddhist or Christian belief. This doesn't mean conversion wasn't a thing. It just means converting to Judaism was more about adopting a cultro-history (a sort of "civilization"). One might liken it to intermarrying into a Native American tribe and taking on various religious and cultural traditions. They become as if they were simply an adopted Native American tribal member, and treated no differently. They have taken the steps to be a part of that tribe's cultural identity and traditions, which are intertwined with religious traditions, ceremonies, and beliefs. In that sense, you can have a strong backbone component of tradition and identity whilst even having various biological infusions from various groups who intermarry into the group.

c) One can find common ground with "the enemy". As one very simplified example: the enemy is pissed because they don't have water to drink; you then give them water in exchange for something you want (hostages for example); then there is a commonly understood situation wherein "the enemy" gets to drink water when needing it and you don't have hostages taken from your group. When either side breaches this commonly promised situation, then you can again stop their water supplies and they can again take hostages violently. Or something along these lines.

In addition, according to The Art of War, there's also this: the best way to win a war/conflict is the get what you want from "your enemy" before any war/conflict commences, this so that no war/conflict occurs. But it's a little too late for that.

I'm personally strongly in favor of option "c". — javra

So I think to that extent, most reasonable people want to live without violence. But I think your cause and effect is off. Who is causing what for whom? Israel doesn't like Hamas, Hamas is/was in control of Gaza. Israel doesn't like Hamas because Hamas wants to see Israel vanquished. It has not only stated as such, but shown it. So Israel put an embargo on Hamas, because they don't like that Hamas wants to vanquish them. Did they show their violence before they became head of political arm in Gaza? Yes, they blew up hundreds of people in waves of attacks in the 90s and 2000s and their stated goal was to not accept the two-state solution and Oslo, and to wipe the Jews out of the region (from the river to the sea...). So, yeah, it's a reasonable move to blockade them.

Then Hamas funneled billions of dollars to their leadership but mainly to military operations like missiles and building tunnels and weapons rather than making Gaza into some thriving resort city. Okay... And then Hamas didn't let other elections take place since... Okay...

Now, you can completely blame Israel for this (that seems to be the trend in this forum). But that doesn't seem to add up. So the response from Hamas, to its own poor leadership in Gaza was to rape, behead, and mutilate Israeli civilians. And then Israel responds... So who is the enemy of whom here? It seems Hamas is he enemy of any person who simply wants to live a life where one thrives in a modern economy and have peace with its neighbors.. So, again, what does Israel do with such a hostile group?

My hope is that Hamas just leaves and says, "Okay, we have caused enough chaos in the world. Goodbye everyone...". And then Gazans realize that if life is preferable to death, that this violence cannot continue and that moderates and non-violence should prevail. Israel should facilitate this transformation in any way possible. I don't know what that looks like. How did the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki think of Americans? Certainly that was far more people who died, but Japan had healed, even with scars, as horrible as that was.

The extra layer here is that "Palestine" (what presumably might be) is a direct neighbor and historically (over 100 years now) hated enemy of Israel, so it would be more like Japan and China after Japan's "rape of Nanking" and both will now think the other is Japan here...

Hamas funneled billions of dollars to their leadership but mainly to military operations like missiles and building tunnels and weapons rather than making Gaza into some thriving resort city. Okay... And then Hamas didn't let other elections take place since... Okay...

Now, you can completely blame Israel for this (that seems to be the trend in this forum). But that doesn't seem to add up. So the response from Hamas, to its own poor leadership in Gaza was to rape, behead, and mutilate Israeli civilians. And then Israel responds... So who is the enemy of whom here? It seems Hamas is he enemy of any person who simply wants to live a life where one thrives in a modern economy and have peace with its neighbors. — schopenhauer1

Perfectly stated. I personally think that there are many antisemites on tpf (including some of the mods), and I've directly called out a few and received "nothing" but their silent antisemitic cowardice. They are total pussies.

What do we see here? These woke-leftists are NOT actually concerned about the geopolitical question of a Palestinian State living in harmony with an Israeli Nation; after all: "from the river to the sea!!!!" Wooo wooooooo!!!!

Nope...Woke-leftists ARE condenming Jews as classic oppressors, while supporting Hamas. Ironically , they support an oppressive regime that has an indisputable record of inflicting immeasurable oppressive tyrrany on its own people. There is not a single Leftist that would tolerate anything that Hamas has to offer. Yet they support them unconditionally against a Jewish state which only exists as a last refuge for a people that has been endlessly oppressed everywhere since the historical exile from their motherland.

Yes, the woke leftist has claimed to defend the oppressed by upholding the principles of Western liberalism, but the Israel-Hamas Wars has forced them to show their true colors. They could have condemned the Holocaustal acts of Hamas and supported Israel as a new hope for Palestinian people to achieve true sovereignty over themselves in an adjacent land, but they chose to throw their hat in with one of the most horrible oppressors of all time: Hamas. There is no excuse for such a blunder...it is a Freudian Tell. They are deconstructionists, not progressives... it is evident that they would rather see the destruction of Israel, than the creation of a free and prosperous Palestinian State next-door.

@schopenhauer1 - I read this article a few weeks back and forgot to tell you. I think you might enjoy it. "What Happened to the ACLU?" by Helen Andrews. The journal itself (First Things) has fallen on hard times content-wise, but I thought this was a good piece.

Well, I can agree and disagree with this very conservative account of things. I agree that organizations promoting free speech must be impartial, but we have to be careful what that means. In the US, the Supreme Court defines speech. They have defined things such as hate speech and "inciting speech", speech that causes a "clear and present danger". And those are there for a reason.

Generally speaking, it makes sense to be wary of groups that try to establish religious speech through government (as many conservatives seem to want), as well as groups that if their policies came to fruition would limit the rights of others (Nazis, religious nationalists, supremacy groups, you name it). So, what do you do when you are protecting their right to speech, but their right to speech is advocating for the abolishment of everyone else's freedoms of speech or otherwise?

That being said, the article is right in the fact that this can happen on the left as well as on the right. The left can and does muzzle rightwing ideas, calling for their being cancelled, disbarred, fired, or pilloried. It silences the other side with a de facto point of view, much like, as Helen Andrews points out, the Communists used to do in the Eastern Bloc. This is certainly seen in academia where guest speakers are heckled and not allowed to speak. The administration often doesn't punish these students and some might promote it. They don't allow for decorum and respect for the rights of guests to make their case. They don't wait to the end for the question and answer session. They often make it so hard to get a guest speaker they have to cancel their even coming onto campus. There are "trigger warnings" and such for supposedly college-level students! If college campuses cannot be a place for full-throated diversity of opinions, then there is something certainly wrong. Surely, they can give roughly equal time to all sorts of points of views to expose students to the realm of ideas. It should also teach people to tolerate differences of opinion respectfully.



And then with Trump saying that he is going to go after the "vermin" leftists, etc. and settle personal scores.. Does that mean he is threatening to limit speech against him or his views as somehow seditious speech? Which is ironic as it could be argued that during the January 6th riot, it was he who was inciting seditious speech against the government's functioning in a very literal way. So, there you have it. Weird stuff all around.

Added a video.

By the way, Bill Maher has another good one out relating to freedom of religion.

Seems that in this thread Western Culture is made to have it's birthplace in the Holy Land.

I think Western Culture dates back further into history to Greek and Roman civilization. Hence it's not wonder philosophers view Greco-Roman heritage important. Christianity evolved to an already existing Western culture and adapted to it. Hence the Greco-Roman heritage is quite important, even if it's extremely popular to emphasize the 'Judeo-Christian' heritage... especially when talking about a certain nation in the Middle East.

Seems that in this thread Western Culture is made to have it's birthplace in the Holy Land. — ssu

Well if you watch those videos, contra this notion, if anything it’s trying to get people to think LESS like that and more about the heritage of philosophy started by the Greeks and the long historical influence of them in the values of the Enlightenment thinking.