Maybe you meant IRA and Hamas? — I like sushi

:up:

In which case I would not agree. The IRA were not genocidal. — I like sushi

:100:

It seems that it is culturally entrenched, if one doubles down on a (violent) strategy that has actually helped make the situation worse, not better. — schopenhauer1

:100:

This scenario doesn't seem to fall at all under the first two which would cause a form of psychosis in the intensity and kind of harm taking place.. It's not enslavement/death camp levels of suffering. — schopenhauer1

There's no comparing Gaza to slavery or a Nazi concentration camp. The question of the slave is interesting: There was the case of Nat Turner, an escaped slave who went on a rampage killing white people in the South. I think most would say this is wrong but there remains sympathy for it in some circles. It is understandable on some level how the oppressed class could harbor such hatred for not only their direct oppressors, but everyone of that group. Still wrong, but understandable. The Gaza situation is obviously far removed from that as you mention. I know of no cases where concentration camp survivors went house to house murdering Germans.

If someone IRL told me that they were "pro-Israel but anti-zionist" I would laugh. Zionism is why Israel is a state. It would make more sense to say "I'm a Zionist but opposed to certain Israeli policies." To say that you are "anti-zionist" is to say that you are opposed to Jewish self-determination. A true "anti-zionist" would seek the destruction of Israel/the loss of Jewish self-determination.

Did my discussion with @ssu fundamentally change your view of me? Really? And is there a certain type of pro-Israel Jew that you do respect?

Keep hand-wringing over Zionist "settler-colonialism" over a tiny sliver of land while ignoring or defending a rapidly growing 1400 year old religious colonialist empire 600x Israel's size.

In any case, follow my discussion with @ssu as an example of how productive & polite discussion goes. I wouldn't even call it an argument.

If the IRA and Palestinians were comparable, that would mean the IRA seeks to conquer England and install rigid Catholic rule. It would state in their Constitution their absolute commitment to conquering London.

For the millionth time, Israel doesn't make the laws or grant the rights in Gaza or parts of the West Bank. Saying "Israel needs to give equal rights to the Palestinians" is like saying the US needs to give equal rights to the Mexicans.

Are partisans not a violent resistance group?

A vassal of the Seleucids up until the Maccabees revolted in ~160 BC leading to the creation of an independent Jewish state under the Hasmoneans from around 150 BC - 37 BC. This is the event behind of Hanukkah. From 37 BC the Jews have their "Quislings" -- the Roman-backed Herodians. The Hasmoneans were no Quislings.

We can go back further. Between ~1000 BC - 586 BC Israelite/Jewish independence was realized up until the Babylonian exile. Even given a sober view of the historical record the history of proud Jewish resistance holds. Israelites fought off Philistines and Assyrians among others to secure their independence. I'm happy to call out propagandistic bullshit when it's present, but I can't in this case.

edit: from 63 bc onwards the hasmoneans are roman vassals.

Violent resistance movements tend to use very comparable methods, that usually extend to acts of extreme cruelty and targeting of civilians. — Tzeentch

Anti-Nazi partisan groups largely focused on weaking German military infrastructure, not going on rape & murder sprees of uninvolved German civilians. I am not familiar with anything comparable to 10/7 among groups persecuted by the Nazis. Being oppressed shouldn't automatically turn one into a complete animal free from all moral considerations.

Rome was the hegemon who controlled Judea & Samaria from the 1st century BC onwards. The land was previously ruled by Jewish powers. I don't see why the success or failure of rebellions against Rome should matter regarding the idea of Zionism -- those revolts were an attempt to re-establish independent Jewish rule in the region.

That vision has existed before and after Roman rule. It a Jewish constant. Whether it's Hertzl or bar Kohkba (or others in between), the goal is 1) Remove foreign hegemons from the land and 2) Re-establish Jewish self-rule. The technology differs, the foreign powers differ, but it's the same essential idea. It comes down to control and dominance. If you would like to educate me about why the Roman empire was not a colonizer then I'm all ears. Even if Rome doesn't fit the exact "modern" sense of colonizer, it remained the hegemon -- the undisputed dominant power in the region.

The history of Zionism has nothing to do with decolonisation. — Benkei

Tell that the Jews who fought the Romans in the 1st and 2nd centuries in order to re-establish an independent Jewish kingdom in the land of Israel. Is that not the basic idea of Zionism?

Whether it's hertzl dreaming of decolonizing Israel from the Ottomans or bar Kokhba's followers dreaming of decolonizing Israel from the Romans it's the same basic idea. Hertzl was just a relatively (secular) revival of the idea.

Zionism has long been understood as a decolonization movement. Both the Romans and Muslim powers were colonizers of Israel. Under Roman rule there were revolts to establish a free independent Jewish state (as had existed prior) so Zionism is nothing new.

And yes, Mexico is no longer controlled by Spain, Haiti no longer French, etc.

It's interesting to compare. In any case, yes North America was colonized, but it also underwent large-scale decolonization. The idea of decolonizing Muslim lands (e.g. Zionism) is met with mass protests and violence around the world including on college campuses. The West is largely apologetic over its imperialist past, not so with the Muslim world.

Israel is but the tip of a might US dick that penetrates the Middle East from behind. If the penis goes limp can the tip stay in? — boethius

I love how in this metaphor the Islamic middle east is likened to an abused asshole. The greatest & most brutal settler-colonial project in history -- Islamic rule -- is really just a poor helpless orifice used and abused by the US and Israel. But by all means continue as an apologist for brutal authoritarianism and Islamic religious fanaticism. I guess you're one of those "anything to see the West fall" types.

Unfortunately Israel cannot negotiate with those who seek to indiscriminately murder its citizens and take its land in the name of Islam. There already was a cease fire on October 6th of last year.

What do you guys think of the notion of scarcity in cryptocurrency? It is a given that scarcity alone is not value, scarcity is a necessary but insufficient condition of value. — hypericin

At first I agreed with this 100% and this is certainly the traditional view, but then I remembered the sudden rise in dogecoin's value which is the furthest thing from scarce.

Given this, are cryptocurrencies truly scarse? — hypericin

It's not that cryptocurrencies are scarce, but certain cryptocurrencies, like bitcoin, are scarce. The devs determine the supply distribution.

There's no apartheid. Nor do I think you know what a war crime is. Until you learn the facts about the two sides consider yourself ignored. :mask:

The fact that you mentioned the "apartheid" in Gaza means you simply don't understand the facts about this conflict. Nor does it matter that Jews can be oppose Zionism (some do for purely religious reasons). To oppose Zionism is to support a reversion to the old order where Jews were at the mercy of foreign powers and could be stripped of statehood and butchered. No thank you.

Three year olds in a busy urban street? Trust who? Do you just argue to argue? — schopenhauer1

No I just see a logic to certain practices where you don't. Or the parents could just be idiots. Or drug addicts. Not always so easy to pin down the roots of a practice.

EDIT: Seeing children playing in the street or dogs roaming may very well not be culture. A good example of a culture would be the US military. It is also non-theological.

I’m sure a lot of religious practices had no discernible origin and later ideas and stories made it have a backstory — schopenhauer1

Then those ideas and stories are the logic.

Oh you mean "anti-semites" like ... — 180 Proof

I don't agree with all the names on that list, but there were blacks who opposed the civil rights movement & supported racial segregation. Being a member of X group doesn't preclude one from antagonism towards that group or opposing rights for that group due to other reasons.

All Zionism is is support for Jewish self-determination in the land of Israel/Palestine.

I was thinking more like three year olds playing in the street or letting dogs roam neighborhood without being confined to owners property…that’s how it was done in the old country isn’t really a logic. — schopenhauer1

If you're allowing the children to be out late that's a sign of a high-trust society and the practice reflects that.

I wasn’t necessarily thinking religious practice though there could be just no reason for it — schopenhauer1

I can't think of one.

Ok so what if there was no logic, it's literally mimetic in that everyone's ancestors did it from way back when? — schopenhauer1

I don't think I believe in this. Can you cite an example? Even very strange religious practices have a logic to them.

Right, well you made it seem by knowing the logic, the intolerance will go away. But what if knowing the logic makes no difference or even makes it worse? — schopenhauer1

The intolerance won't go away, but it will help us understand it. I do find learning the logic behind it interesting -- it helps us understand things like the depth of the wickedness and where its roots lie. And this leads us to ask: Were the roots themselves wicked or were they twisted by the culture?

I mean where is the dividing line. In some ways, religions can be seen as a philosophy, no? One can even enter a religious community rather than being born into one. — schopenhauer1

Religions contain philosophy. I wouldn't describe them as philosophy.

Sure, okay, a culture that say, perceives its land being stolen believes it has a right to get it back by any means necessary (terrorism).. There is a logic. I understand it. So? — schopenhauer1

I agree that cultures can be wicked. But there is a logic behind it that can be explored.

A culture seems to be something one generally falls into, though one can take it on too. What if one is about virtue-building but isn't following any particular program, just their own.. Is that culture? — schopenhauer1

No, that's you reading and interpreting ideas. Culture is very real and it can really impact a person whether they "agree" to it or not. Culture to a large extent is impressed upon an individual not so with philosophy.

Can one be a "culturist", meaning can one morally be "against" certain cultures, or should people be tolerant of all cultural aspects — schopenhauer1

You can be against certain cultures, but there's certainly a logic to that culture that you need to be aware of. So usually just saying "I'm against X culture" sounds kind of stupid -- it's like the accuser isn't not engaging with the logic behind the cultural practice.

You're my favorite troll. :lol:

I would think that number of arrests is generally indicative of criminality unless you want to maintain that the police just hate palestine and are arresting the protestors for no reason. One can engage in criminality without violence, such as when highways are blocked and traffic is held up for hours.

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact that pro-Israeli sides have committed violence in the US as well and the majority (97%) of all protests on both sides have been peaceful. — Benkei

How about the many times that they stopped traffic here in the US? Is that considered peaceful? In the US we saw a wave of violence across college campuses as pro-Palestine protestors took over university buildings and vandalized them. No parallels from the Israel crew. Thousands of arrests on the Palestine side, very few on the Israel side.

One is opposition against a political idea, the other is just plain hatred. — Benkei

Yes, a hatred that is bent on the destruction of the world's only Jewish state and a reversion to the old order. I don't see how this is hard to understand. If someone were to oppose the notion of an Irish state we would call them anti-Irish.

Also the fact people confuse Jews with Israel is on the heads of many of your brothers and sisters insisting for decades any criticism of Israel was "anti-semitism" or that "anti-zionism" = "anti-semitism". The guilt over WWII has been wielded as an instrument and setting up Israel as the "Jewish homeland" really makes things confusing for most people. — Benkei

Anti-zionism is effectively anti-semitism. To oppose zionism is to oppose Jewish self-determination which, if realized, would render Jews, once again, completely reliant on foreign nations for security and strip them of their autonomy.... the exact situation in which the holocaust occurred. It's not about guilting you; it's about ensuring that it doesn't happen again. Zionism has already been realized. To oppose Jewish self-determination when it has already been realized is pernicious.

Regarding criminality we can all do our own research and make up our minds. Here in the states the issue of which side is more criminal isn't close. There have been many, many arrests on the pro-palestine side and very few on the pro-israel side. They block highways, destroy shops, violate noise ordinances, occasionally commit assaults... but you're free to believe as you like.

If it's the occupation of Jerusalem they're mad about, they can stay mad. Israel has offered them half in several peace deals and it's been rejected. To want it all, as the Hamas charter demands, is pure greed.

We can support the poor, innocent Palestinian all we want and that starts with getting rid of Hamas and de-radicalizing the population. Not teaching them to hate. Once violence and hatred wane, Israel can ease up in turn.

Israel doesn't even make the laws in Gaza, but why should that inconvenient fact matter to you? It's ideology that matters to you and you side with weak. And as long as you side with the weak you're righteous and laudable.

Never let facts get between you and your support for the weak.

In a way the two can be seen as related as since 10/7 we've seen a huge uptick in anti semitism which just goes to show you the world doesn't recognize a clear boundary between Israel and the world's Jews. Pro-Palestine protests also tend to be more prone to criminality than pro-Israel ones which explains the more heavy-handed treatment.

I'm seeing an awful lot of finger pointing from you and zero condemnation of a dangerous phenomenon that undermines the impartiality of the police force and threatens the safety of the Jewish community in the Netherlands.

I do not keep tabs on everything the Dutch police do.

They are opposed to doing rotas but not to going on duty. — javi2541997

It's about the same level of validity as a police officer who refuses to be placed on a rota for protecting e.g. a black space or a native american space. The officer is immediately suspect.

If some portion of your police force is morally opposed to providing protection to Jewish spaces there is something very very rotten in that security apparatus. Put them on a list somewhere. Something like this shouldn't be up for discussion.

Read this today but absolute insanity from a supposedly first world, civilized nation.

Dutch police are allowing their officers to opt out of providing security to Jewish spaces.

Apparently it's now valid/a legitimate concern if an officer has "moral objections" to providing security for Jewish spaces. :vomit:

One can now apparently be a "conscientious objector" re: providing security for Jewish spaces.

You say a lot so I need to take it piece by piece rather than all at once.

But there's more.. Then there is the gaslighting aspect whereby it isn't god that is making you suffer. YOU are making you suffer by not following God's commands. God has a plan, and divine command. You must follow this plan or suffer the consequences. This is just a sophisticated version of the whole "God lacks, therefore he wants this game of free willed people to see how good he is". This is problematic as it goes way back to point 1 here: — schopenhauer1

Among the first ways we know God is that we fear him. God is terrifying. Reality is terrifying. So cross your Ts and dot your Is. It's not "gas lighting" and until you understand this point this discussion is futile. If you act in certain ways your suffering may very well be essentially "on you." We must first accept that this world has rules and if you violate these you hurt yourself.

This really goes back to Adam and Eve but we see it over and over again. Certain things are permitted, others are not, and quite frequently doing that which is unpermitted carries consequences.

Going back to Adam and Eve - life/nature/reality can be enjoyed, but there is always at least one rule which one must abide by.