BibleForums Christian Message Board
General Category => In General => Topic started by: Sojourner on July 15, 2025, 03:29:58 PM
-
Given the prevalent anti-Israel sentiment among Democrats, and now Mayoral Democrat candidate Zohran Mamdani's defiant cheering on of a global intifada, why are so many Jews still supporting that party? Are there a lot of anti-Zionist Jews? What am I missing?
-
I feel that there are two main causes.
The first is that historically, the political right, whether in the US or Europe, has harbored antisemitism. Things have changed, and so are voting patterns, but these things take time. Party loyalty doesn't go away in an instant.
Secondly, Jewish culture creates motivated people who want to change the world. Religious Jews do that by actualizing Jewish law to create a world in which God can dwell. Secular Jews don't avail themselves to that outlet and so try to "repair the world" via political leftism, which after all does promise (an unrealistic) better world.
Mamdani has a good chance of winning, but I do not believe that he will get many Jewish votes.
-
yeah, creating a world in which God can dwell is far more realistic getting actual police accountability....that's not even a joke.
-
yeah, creating a world in which God can dwell
"Creating a world in which God can dwell" is the motivation for completing God's act of creation. Since we've been at it for 3,000 years now it's obviously not easily achievable, but it remains the mission.
is far more realistic getting actual police accountability....that's not even a joke.
These kinds of comments tend to come from those individuals who know nothing about law enforcement.
-
yeah, creating a world in which God can dwell
"Creating a world in which God can dwell" is the motivation for completing God's act of creation. Since we've been at it for 3,000 years now it's obviously not easily achievable, but it remains the mission.
well, you know, good luck. I guess.... Actually I have no idea what you mean by that, so your mission could very well work against my values and interests, so I won't wish you luck, but I wont begrudge you your right to define and pursue your own mission (or I suppose have it defined for you by your religious beliefs).
is far more realistic getting actual police accountability....that's not even a joke.
These kinds of comments tend to come from those individuals who know nothing about law enforcement.
I tend to think that people that know nothing about law enforcement fall on either side of this position, knowledge I've found is not the primary differential in a great many controversial positions. What I can say is that comments like yours tend to come from individuals that think that there is no accountability problem in law enforcement, or that the problems are negligible, diffuse and or outweighed by the value policing adds to society. But, yeah lets all keep pretending that dismissing each other as uninformed rubes isn't just a kabuki dance we do with each other to avoid taking each other's positions seriously....because if we did, ruh roh.
-
well, you know, good luck. I guess.... Actually I have no idea what you mean by that, so your mission could very well work against my values and interests, so I won't wish you luck, but I wont begrudge you your right to define and pursue your own mission (or I suppose have it defined for you by your religious beliefs).
Your values are probably defined by the bible, whether you know it or not.
But, yeah lets all keep pretending that dismissing each other as uninformed rubes
I am not an uninformed rube, though. I had an entire career in law enforcement.
-
well, you know, good luck. I guess.... Actually I have no idea what you mean by that, so your mission could very well work against my values and interests, so I won't wish you luck, but I wont begrudge you your right to define and pursue your own mission (or I suppose have it defined for you by your religious beliefs).
Your values are probably defined by the bible, whether you know it or not.
Well, be that as it may, I still don't know what "Creating a world in which God can dwell" actually entails according to Fenris.
But, yeah lets all keep pretending that dismissing each other as uninformed rubes
I am not an uninformed rube, though. I had an entire career in law enforcement.
I do not believe you are a rube, I also recall that you were law enforcement. And if I remember correctly, something about being a mathematician or studying math (coincidentally that's why I thought you'd enjoy my analogy about fluxions and Newton back in that other thread, but maybe I had you confused with someone else)?
Regardless, once again, I don't think you are uninformed. I do not believe that our disagreement lies in the fact that one of us severely outclasses the other in the relevant areas of knowledge.
-
Some pertinent polling data from Jewish students at Ivy League schools:
Since the anti Israel encampments went up on Ivy league campuses, the percent of Jewish students who identified as "very liberal" went from 40% to 13%, and "strong Democrats" went from 37% to 14%.
That's what being harassed every day on account of your identity will do to a person.
-
I'd like to see a comparable percentage drop nationally. (It's a possibility as Democrats continue to show their true colors).
-
(https://preview.redd.it/this-will-forever-be-relevant-v0-ki7bh94cgn791.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=d114eb422920e020c6914fa2251fb18fb04f0731)
-
The comic has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The Democrat party has members that are anti-semitic. Because the party as a whole is not speaking out against them or marginalizing them, their viewpoints are becoming mainstream in the party. This should bother not just Jews but Americans as a whole. And yet.
-
That recent Jubilee video makes it look like "the question isn't why would anyone vote Democrat", but "the question is, what in the world is happening to the social fabric of the United States?"
-
That recent Jubilee video makes it look like "the question isn't why would anyone vote Democrat", but "the question is, what in the world is happening to the social fabric of the United States?"
Same thing that the UK is experiencing along with Europe.
Tribalism.
-
"the question is, what in the world is happening to the social fabric of the United States?"
This is a fair question.
With regards to the topic here, antisemitism is the symptom, not the disease. As Rabbi Sacks used to say, a society that has no room for Jews has no room for anybody being different. There's also an older saying about Jews being the canary in the coal mine of civilization; when things get bad for the Jews, they're going to get bad for a lot of other people soon after.
-
The Democrat party has members that are anti-semitic. Because the party as a whole is not speaking out against them or marginalizing them, their viewpoints are becoming mainstream in the party. This should bother not just Jews but Americans as a whole. And yet.
Qui tacet consentire videtur. "He that is silent is understood to consent."
-
The Democrat party has members that are anti-semitic. Because the party as a whole is not speaking out against them or marginalizing them, their viewpoints are becoming mainstream in the party. This should bother not just Jews but Americans as a whole. And yet.
Qui tacet consentire videtur. "He that is silent is understood to consent."
As the young people would say, "silence is consent for violence" or even just, "silence is violence". Sadly, a sentiment that has been stripped of its meaning by means of indiscriminate application.
-
What are some of the antiemetic views that are being mainstreamed in the democratic party?
-
What are some of the antiemetic views that are being mainstreamed in the democratic party?
An "antiemetic" is a drug that prevents nausea and vomiting.
Do you mean antisemitic?
-
What are some of the antiemetic views that are being mainstreamed in the democratic party?
An "antiemetic" is a drug that prevents nausea and vomiting.
Do you mean antisemitic?
No, I meant antiemetic...I wanted someone to tell me about the democrat's proposed legislation to legalize medical marijuana for treating nausea...and like how the views on that is becoming mainstream. haha, yes of course, I spelled it wrong, I meant antisemitic.
-
I meant antisemitic.
Let's talk about the instant case. Mamdani running for NYC mayor.
Mamdani has expressed support for "globalizing the intifada". When interviewed in the media, he was given the opportunity to revoke his support, but declined to do so.
What does this phrase mean, "globalize the intifada"?
What is the intifada?
It was a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians. Between 2000 and 2005, more than 1,000 Israelis were murdered. Israelis on busses. In restaurants. In shopping malls. On the street. For the crime of being a Jew in the middle east.
So when someone talks about "globalizing the intifada", it's a call for violence against Jews anywhere and everywhere that they may be found. And violence against Jews for being Jews is antisemitic.
It's even more worrisome because he's running for mayor of a city with the largest Jewish population outside of Israel.
And he's being supported by the Democrat party.
-
I meant antisemitic.
Let's talk about the instant case. Mamdani running for NYC mayor.
Mamdani has expressed support for "globalizing the intifada". When interviewed in the media, he was given the opportunity to revoke his support, but declined to do so.
What does this phrase mean, "globalize the intifada"?
What is the intifada?
It was a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians. Between 2000 and 2005, more than 1,000 Israelis were murdered. Israelis on busses. In restaurants. In shopping malls. On the street. For the crime of being a Jew in the middle east.
So when someone talks about "globalizing the intifada", it's a call for violence against Jews anywhere and everywhere that they may be found. And violence against Jews for being Jews is antisemitic.
It's even more worrisome because he's running for mayor of a city with the largest Jewish population outside of Israel.
And he's being supported by the Democrat party.
Well, can't say that I completely agree with your characterization of the intifada [especially the first one], but there is no denying that between 2000 and 2005 that Hamas and other terrorist groups killed over a thousand Israelis [overwhelmingly civilians] in terrorist attacks. Mamdani making that statement it in 2025 is baffling to say the least because even if he did mean standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people in aggressive nonviolent resistance it would require a belief that peaceful anti-zionist solidarity is the association in the forefront of people's minds, or that people would be willing to receive and understand his particular intended meaning...which, like why would he believe that, its friggin' 2025? I'm unconvinced of the idea that Mamdani made that statement with the guileless optimism of youth--on some level he knew what he was doing, but I'm also not willing to simply accept that what he meant was that violence should be visited upon the jewfish people wherever they are merely for the fact that they are. Anyway, I highly doubt we can actually have a conversation about that, because its 2025.
Anyway, do you have more examples that you don't mind sharing?
-
Well, can't say that I completely agree with your characterization of the intifada [especially the first one], but there is no denying that between 2000 and 2005 that Hamas and other terrorist groups killed over a thousand Israelis [overwhelmingly civilians] in terrorist attacks.
Mamdani making that statement it in 2025 is baffling to say the least because even if he did mean standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people in aggressive nonviolent resistance it would require a belief that peaceful anti-zionist solidarity is the association in the forefront of people's minds, or that people would be willing to receive and understand his particular intended meaning...which, like why would he believe that, its friggin' 2025? I'm unconvinced of the idea that Mamdani made that statement with the guileless optimism of youth--on some level he knew what he was doing, but I'm also not willing to simply accept that what he meant was that violence should be visited upon the jewfish people wherever they are merely for the fact that they are.
Politician expresses the wish of globalizing terrorist attacks against Jews, but you're not willing to accept that he meant it? That's great, he wasn't talking about violence against you. He was talking about violence against Jews. Does the fact that Jews find his rhetoric frightening mean anything to you? Or is it only when you yourself decide that it's problematic that it becomes antisemitic?
I honestly can't tell if you're here to troll or just be contrarian. But you're not here for having a legitimate discussion.
-
I meant antisemitic.
Let's talk about the instant case. Mamdani running for NYC mayor.
Mamdani has expressed support for "globalizing the intifada". When interviewed in the media, he was given the opportunity to revoke his support, but declined to do so.
What does this phrase mean, "globalize the intifada"?
What is the intifada?
It was a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians. Between 2000 and 2005, more than 1,000 Israelis were murdered. Israelis on busses. In restaurants. In shopping malls. On the street. For the crime of being a Jew in the middle east.
So when someone talks about "globalizing the intifada", it's a call for violence against Jews anywhere and everywhere that they may be found. And violence against Jews for being Jews is antisemitic.
It's even more worrisome because he's running for mayor of a city with the largest Jewish population outside of Israel.
And he's being supported by the Democrat party.
He's had many opportunities to walk back the "globalize the intifada" phrase, but declines to do so because he identifies with it. That, and being a hard core socialist makes his nomination a troubling development. Like all socialists, his appeal to voters is the "free" stuff he holds out like a carrot on a stick. Not sure what his chances are, but if he wins, NYC is going to change drastically--especially after he appoints like-minded people to city boards and commissions who will better facilitate his radical agenda. At any rate, I don't look for any honest attempts to quell antisemitism in NYC on his watch.
-
At any rate, I don't look for any honest attempts to quell antisemitism in NYC on his watch.
Why would he quell antisemitism? He's the one dispensing it!
-
Politician expresses the wish of globalizing terrorist attacks against Jews, but you're not willing to accept that he meant it? That's great, he wasn't talking about violence against you. He was talking about violence against Jews. Does the fact that Jews find his rhetoric frightening mean anything to you? Or is it only when you yourself decide that it's problematic that it becomes antisemitic?
I honestly can't tell if you're here to troll or just be contrarian. But you're not here for having a legitimate discussion.
Well, as I said I disagree with your characterization of intifada. Firstly because you restricted your definition to the second one, and only then to the homicidal terrorist activities of the second one. Secondly you've boiled down the grievances of the intifadas to "the crime of being a Jew in the middle east.".
Now to give you the benefit of the doubt, it would be insane to talk about the second intifada in any way where the headline wasn't the violence, the terrorist attacks and the military response. My problem is with the fact that you only talked about the second one while ignoring the first one which is to put it mildly a major antecedent of the second one and one could argue that the violent response by the Israeli's was a radicalizing moment for many of the violent actors in the second. It is imo important contextualizing information if you are actually interested in defining intifada.
Additionally outside of the undeniable organized militarized terrorist attacks by terrorist in the second one, there were mass protests, tax strikes, labor strikes, and boycotts. Confining the activities to just terrorism again removes pertinent context from what the intifadas were.
The second issue is I think even more egregious because "the crime of being a Jew in the middle east." does not accurately describe the grievances of the Palestinian people in either intifada. It was among other things, the Israeli military occupation, Settlement expansion, political disenfranchisement, disenfranchisement from land and property rights, economic inequality and so on.
So when you say that "Globalize the intifada" definitely means "globalizing terrorist attacks against Jews", it is because you define intifada as a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east....I say that you have artificially defined the only meaning you are willing to accept into it.
-
So when you say that "Globalize the intifada" definitely means "globalizing terrorist attacks against Jews", it is because you define intifada as a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east....I say that you have artificially defined the only meaning you are willing to accept into it.
I'm defining it the way Jews understand it: as a call for violence against Jews. Because that's what it was.
Oscar: Someone calling for a "final solution to the Jewish problem" isn't necessarily advocating violence against Jews. They might just be looking for a final solution.
Words mean things. When Mamdani calls for globalizing the intifada, Jews know what he means. And Jew haters know what he means, too. It's useful idiots like you that go "well akshully..." and make excuses for him.
You're not serious person.
Go away.
-
At any rate, I don't look for any honest attempts to quell antisemitism in NYC on his watch.
Why would he quell antisemitism? He's the one dispensing it!
That's my point. Antisemitism would flourish with him in the Mayor's office.
-
In the estimation of many Gentiles (and even some liberal Jews), antisemitism is overblown. But recent figures reveal that attacks against Jews are on the rise--including in NYC. And in a recent survey, 24 percent of respondents said they believed the attacks were “understandable," given the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. So, non-Israeli Jews in the US minding their own business are fair game for antisemitic attackers. As with pro-Palestinian activists in Universities, Jews everywhere are culpable because they're Jewish. I suspect that type of mindset laid the foundation for what developed into the Holocaust.
-
In the estimation of many Gentiles (and even some liberal Jews), antisemitism is overblown. But recent figures reveal that attacks against Jews are on the rise--including in NYC.
Especially in NYC. And it's all from the far left.
So, non-Israeli Jews in the US minding their own business are fair game for antisemitic attackers.
Yes, precisely. The people saying "globalize the intifada" aren't calling for attacks against Israelis. They're calling for attacks against Jews. It's not Israel's existence as a state that bothers them. It's Israel's existence as a Jewish state.
As with pro-Palestinian activists in Universities, Jews everywhere are culpable because they're Jewish. I suspect that type of mindset laid the foundation for what developed into the Holocaust.
And every other instance of bigotry and violence against Jews.
What's happening to America?
-
I'm defining it the way Jews understand it: as a call for violence against Jews. Because that's what it was.
Well, I cannot speak for the Jewish people's understanding of the intifadas, but I can say that the there are records of the events that constituted the intifadas as well as the issues that motivated them and "a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east" is insufficient to describe it. If you are going to stand by that definition and attribute it to all Jewish people, then I can't stop you, but you are factually incorrect on several points that I clearly and plainly addressed.
Oscar: Someone calling for a "final solution to the Jewish problem" isn't necessarily advocating violence against Jews. They might just be looking for a final solution.
You're not serious person.
Go away.
If Mamdani had actually said that, he'd have a significantly weaker basis to argue that what he actually meant was aggressive nonviolent solidarity with the plight of the Palestinian people. I'll accept the mantle of unserious, if you admit to flatly distorting the plain truth about what the intifadas are because you refuse to acknowledge that many of the grievances of the Palestinian people are both valid and were major motivating factors behind the intifadas because if you do then you don't get to cast this as a great struggle of good against evil instead of the tragic and often reprehensible but predictable reaction to the systematic oppression and disenfranchisement of a people.
-
Well, I cannot speak for the Jewish people's understanding of the intifadas,
Then you also can't speak for the concern that Jewish people have when they hear the phrase "globalize the intifada".
But of course, you are.
What you're actually say is "Jews shouldn't be worried be worried when they hear the phrase 'globalize the intifada' because it might mean something perfectly harmless."
But as I said, Jews know what it means. And Jew haters know what it means. And useful idiots such as yourself are here to offer soothing words, as if we don't know what's being called for here.
If Mamdani had actually said that,
If he actually said that, you'd be here helpfully explaining how it isn't a call for violence either. Because that's who you are.
if you admit to flatly distorting the plain truth about what the intifadas are
Intifadas are a call for the murder of Jews.
because you refuse to acknowledge that many of the grievances of the Palestinian people are both valid and were major motivating factors behind the intifadas because if you do then you don't get to cast this as a great struggle of good against evil instead of the tragic and often reprehensible but predictable reaction to the systematic oppression and disenfranchisement of a people.
The Palestinians were offered a state many times. And they refused each time. Because they don't want a state. They want to annihilate the Jews. But you don't care about that either. You're here to make excuses for them.
-
Then you also can't speak for the concern that Jewish people have when they hear the phrase "globalize the intifada".
But of course, you are.
What you're actually say is "Jews shouldn't be worried be worried when they hear the phrase 'globalize the intifada' because it might mean something perfectly harmless."
But as I said, Jews know what it means. And Jew haters know what it means. And useful idiots such as yourself are here to offer soothing words, as if we don't know what's being called for here.
I never told you how you or the greater Jewish people should feel about it. I told you that I don't think it necessarily means what you assert that it does. honestly it displays the signs and symptoms of a dog whistle to me too, but that's the thing about a good dog whistle. Additionally I told you that the definition that you provided for intifada is factually and demonstrably incorrect.
If he actually said that, you'd be here helpfully explaining how it isn't a call for violence either. Because that's who you are.
I doubt it, but apparently you know precisely what all Jews believe and what I'd do in this scenario that hasn't happened.
Intifadas are a call for the murder of Jews.
No, they are not, that is factually incorrect, you are simply lying.
The Palestinians were offered a state many times. And they refused each time. Because they don't want a state. They want to annihilate the Jews. But you don't care about that either. You're here to make excuses for them.
Classic oversimplification with a little bit of sweeping generalization and demonization sprinkled on top. Right, excuse, because acknowledging the systematic oppression and disenfranchisement of a people is excuse making? because taking accountability for your part in a conflict means that you excuse the other party for any reaction they had to your actions right? I'm not surprised that you conflate those two things, its probably why you think the police are accountable and BLM was a psy-op or something.
-
That recent Jubilee video makes it look like "the question isn't why would anyone vote Democrat", but "the question is, what in the world is happening to the social fabric of the United States?"
If you can make group A hate group B it's easier to make group B hate group A, and then you've got two more groups of people fighting each other and not noticing you're plundering both of them.
-
I never told you how you or the greater Jewish people should feel about it. I told you that I don't think it necessarily means what you assert that it does.
You still don't get it, do you?
The statement is alarming to Jews.
The fact that you can explain it away is irrelevant. And insulting. "Antisemitism doesn't exist, it's only in your head! Madani loves Jews!" But you'll keep doing it anyway, because you're a useful idiot. And that's what useful idiots do.
No, they are not, that is factually incorrect, you are simply lying.
So now you've gone from "intifada can mean many things, including possibly violence" to "intifada never means violence". Funny how words mean whatever you need them to mean.
Classic oversimplification with a little bit of sweeping generalization and demonization sprinkled on top.
Nope, simply the facts. But it doesn't surprise me that now you're going to bat for people who do more than just talk about violence, they actually carry out murder. But then, you are a useful idiot.
-
You still don't get it, do you?
The statement is alarming to Jews.
The fact that you can explain it away is irrelevant. And insulting. "Antisemitism doesn't exist, it's only in your head! Madani loves Jews!" But you'll keep doing it anyway, because you're a useful idiot. And that's what useful idiots do.
Be alarmed Fenris, that is your right as a human being. I'm certainly not stopping you.
Since when is me having an opinion about the antisemitic value of a statement a politician made, the equivalent to making a grand declaration that antisemitism doesn't exist? I'm not willing to die on any hills claiming that he isn't antisemetic much less that he loves the Jews on the basis of a single statement he made that could be an antisemitic dog whistle or tone-deaf lefty sloganism....especially when your argument consists of a definition of intifada that intentionally excludes relevant factual and contextual information. I think it all stems from the fact that you cannot wrap your mind around the idea that I can reject the conceit that Israel is the good guy or the hero, without accepting that Palestine or Hamas and any number of terrorist organizations are the real heroes. Can you genuinely even imagine what is left for me to think? I actually believe that you think there are no other valid beliefs I can hold.
.So now you've gone from "intifada can mean many things, including possibly violence" to "intifada never means violence". Funny how words mean whatever you need them to mean.
You're being dishonest. I'm rejecting your characterization of intifada as "a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east". So are you going to play games or are you going to defend your actual description which I assert is factually incorrect and deceptive, and in my previous post I clearly laid out precisely why I disagree with your deceptive definition?
Nope, simply the facts. But it doesn't surprise me that now you're going to bat for people who do more than just talk about violence, they actually carry out murder. But then, you are a useful idiot.
So all of the Palestinians simply "want to annihilate the Jews" for being Jews and want you all dead for no reason other than your mere existence? No doubt some Palestinians do and make no qualms about hiding it. But your statement is a lie if some non-zero fraction of the Palestinian population hates the long standing systematic oppression and disenfranchisement of their people perpetuated by the Israeli government and some non-zero fraction of the Israeli people. Yeah I'll step up to the plate to reject the claim that the Palestinian people are violent murderers that want to eradicate the Jews. Hell not even all Antisemites want to eradicate the Jews, some would be perfectly fine if you all were just packed into your little country in the middle east. So, you want to back off that broad brush and hyperbole or are those the only terms you can think in?
-
Be alarmed Fenris, that is your right as a human being. I'm certainly not stopping you.
Oh gee, thank you so much.
Since when is me having an opinion about the antisemitic value of a statement a politician made,
And see, here's the thing. It doesn't matter what you make of such a statement. You're not the subject of the statement. Jews are. It would be like someone threatening to kill their spouse, and you saying, "I don't see a problem here". Of course not, genius. You're not the spouse.
I think it all stems from the fact that you cannot wrap your mind around the idea that I can reject the conceit that Israel is the good guy or the hero
This has nothing to do with Israel. Or anything that Israel says or does. It's about Jews in America being threatened by an American politician.
I'm rejecting your characterization of intifada as "a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east".
That's what it was. Jews know it. Jew haters know it. It's you who's being oblivious. Or maybe not, maybe you're being malicious. At this point I'm not so sure anymore.
So all of the Palestinians simply "want to annihilate the Jews" for being Jews and want you all dead for no reason other than your mere existence?
.
.
But your statement is a lie if non-zero fraction of the Palestinian population hates the long standing systematic oppression
It doesn't mean every single Palestinian. Not every German was a Nazi. But the German state was an enemy to the free world.
Having that knowledge-
A majority of Palestinians support Hamas. They did before the barbaric attacks on 10/7 and they still do now. If you read the Hamas charter, you'd know two things: It calls for the destruction of Israel via Jihad; and it calls for the murder of every Jew in the world.
So yes, the Palestinians as a society desire genocide. You either don't know or don't care.
But your statement is a lie if some non-zero fraction of the Palestinian population hates the long standing systematic oppression and disenfranchisement of their people perpetuated by the Israeli government and some non-zero fraction of the Israeli people
The Palestinian were offered a state many times, in 1936, in 1947, in 1949, in 1967, in in 1993, in 2000, in 2008. And they rejected is every time. I don't see why this is Israel's fault or Israel's problem to solve.
. Yeah I'll step up to the plate to reject the claim that the Palestinian people are violent murderers that want to eradicate the Jews.
Great. Thanks for the clarity, you just sided with a bunch of insane religious fundamentalist 7th century barbarians. Now we all know who you are.
-
Since when is me having an opinion about the antisemitic value of a statement a politician made,
And see, here's the thing. It doesn't matter what you make of such a statement. You're not the subject of the statement. Jews are. It would be like someone threatening to kill their spouse, and you saying, "I don't see a problem here". Of course not, genius. You're not the spouse.
This is an entirely different assertion. You accused me of saying that antisemitism didn't exist because I disagree with you about Mamdani's statement. You also said that I asserted that he loves Jews on the same basis. Now your assertion is that I have to agree with your take on it, or I guess at least not have my own opinion on it because Mamdani's statement is relevant to the Jewish people? These are entirely different assertions Fenris. If you are accusing me of not being close enough to the Jewish plight, or Jewish culture therefore I might have a blind spot in this area I can actually accept that, because that could be true. If that was where you started as opposed to asserting that i'm making claims about antisemitism not existing or that Mamdani loves the Jews then we'd be having a different conversation. So, is it safe to assume that you've walked back your previous accusations or are you sticking to your guns?
I think it all stems from the fact that you cannot wrap your mind around the idea that I can reject the conceit that Israel is the good guy or the hero
This has nothing to do with Israel. Or anything that Israel says or does. It's about Jews in America being threatened by an American politician.
Well, I think it does. The intifadas are very relevant to Israel because again as I previously asserted the motivating grievances were Israel's oppression and disenfranchisement of the Palestinian people. I do not see a way to understand a statement like "globalize the intifada" without understanding the relationship between Palestine and Israel. Even your definition, the one you proposed, asserts that intifada is "a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east". You even specify the 'middle east'. How could anyone come to understand that statement without those considerations?
That being said, this isn't our first conversation about Israel or Jewish people, and I'm talking more about our body of work as a whole. The way you consistently read me on these topic indicates to me that you are very black and white on this issues. The fact that I'm not similarly black and white leads you to read my disagreement as "Antisemitism doesn't exist, it's only in your head! Madani loves Jews!".
I'm rejecting your characterization of intifada as "a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east".
That's what it was. Jews know it. Jew haters know it. It's you who's being oblivious. Or maybe not, maybe you're being malicious. At this point I'm not so sure anymore.
You say I'm being oblivious, but I've consistently agreed that there was terrorism in the intifadas, as well as antisemitism, but not just that. So I ask, did the intifadas also consist of Palestinian mass protests, tax strikes, labor strikes, and boycotts? Were the intifadas also motivated by Israeli military occupation, Settlement expansion, political disenfranchisement, disenfranchisement from land and property rights, economic inequality and so on?
What you appear to me to be doing is framing intifadas as just terrorism motivated by an irrational hate of the Jewish people based on the fact of their Jewishness. This is racism , this is antisemitism as I understand it, hate based on the mere ethnicity. I'm not denying hate or even antisemitism as an aspect of the intifadas, but there was another significant motive that was undergirded by the actual oppression and disenfranchisement of the Palestinian people by the Israeli government and some portion of the populace. The value or ethics or morality of hate as a reaction to oppression is not what I'm arguing, but I am arguing that this is not "the crime of being a Jew in the middle east". Likewise I'm not arguing that there wasn't terrorism and violence that left over 1000 Israeli civilians dead, but I am arguing that there were also mass protests, tax strikes, labor strikes, and boycotts. Are you being oblivious to these additional factors that provide a more accurate view of what the intifadas were?
So all of the Palestinians simply "want to annihilate the Jews" for being Jews and want you all dead for no reason other than your mere existence?
.
.
But your statement is a lie if non-zero fraction of the Palestinian population hates the long standing systematic oppression
It doesn't mean every single Palestinian. Not every German was a Nazi. But the German state was an enemy to the free world.
Having that knowledge-
A majority of Palestinians support Hamas. They did before the barbaric attacks on 10/7 and they still do now. If you read the Hamas charter, you'd know two things: It calls for the destruction of Israel via Jihad; and it calls for the murder of every Jew in the world.
So yes, the Palestinians as a society desire genocide. You either don't know or don't care.
Most is not all, are we now pretending not to know what a generalization is? I accused you of generalizing, because you were. I don't feel like stepping on this landmine right now, so I'll save this for subsequent debate.
But your statement is a lie if some non-zero fraction of the Palestinian population hates the long standing systematic oppression and disenfranchisement of their people perpetuated by the Israeli government and some non-zero fraction of the Israeli people
The Palestinian were offered a state many times, in 1936, in 1947, in 1949, in 1967, in in 1993, in 2000, in 2008. And they rejected is every time. I don't see why this is Israel's fault or Israel's problem to solve.
This statement is indicative of your consistent positioning of Israel as the good guy who has tried everything to be fair and just in the face of unreasonable, unjustified and irrationally evil opposition. I should also say that again it is clear from your statement “I don't see why this is Israel's fault or Israel's problem to solve.” That you are unable to understand the concept of more than one party being accountable and culpable. If it isn't only the ‘fault’ of the Palestinians, then you seem to default to the idea that it must only be the ‘fault’ of Israel or the Jewish people.
I glossed over it when you previously said something similar about the offers because honestly I didn't feel like putting the effort in, but I suppose, needs must.
1936, Taking it all the way back to British colonialism, I'm a little surprised honestly. I think it is safe to presume that you are referring to the Peel plan. Characterizing this as simply a time that the Palestinians rejected an offer of statehood is disingenuously shallow, especially considering that the Zionists rejected it too. It was an offer under British colonialism that neither party actually agreed to. At best I could give you that at this time there was no state of Israel, and the Palestinians did not want to agree to the creation of one, nor were they obligated to.
1947, was the UN partition plan [I assume]. It would be fair to say that the Palestinians rejected this plan because they did not think it was fair. It should also be noted that a state of Israel did not exist at this time. The Palestinians thought the proposed division was proportionally inequitable and unfairly favored the Israelis. You can disagree with their assessment, but they weren’t obligated to think it was fair. The Jews did like the plan it seems. This disagreement pretty directly lead to a civil war between the Jews and Arabs in the area, which dislocated [often through violence] 85% of the Arabs in the lands that Israel was offered in the plan by the UN, plus over half of the UN offered land that was proposed for the Arab state--then they declared the state of Israel. Characterizing this period as just an offer that the Palestinian people rejected is missing lots of important context. I'd say particularly that they didn't like the plan before [back when it was the Peel plan], so it’s hardly a new offer, and when they did disagree–the Israelis acquired the lands through violent means and declared a state anyway. Again, we can quibble about how okay this was or wasn't, but characterizing it as just another time the Israelis made a really nice offer to the Palestinian people is inaccurate, and that's generous.
1949, classifying this as an offer of statehood is a flat out lie as it was a military ceasefire after that civil war that I just talked about turned into a larger Arab Israeli war, and there was no meaningful Palestinian input as the negotiations took place between the newly declared Israel and Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Again, I'm not arguing what is or isn't okay to fight about, or the morality or ethics of acquiring territory through war, I'm specifically challenging the idea that this was some kind of good faith offer that the Palestinians rejected unreasonably.
1967, Another ceasefire, this one after the 6 day war, and again classifying this as an offer of a Palestinian state is deluded…in what way was this an offer of statehood to the Palestinian people? What exactly are you asserting was offered, and to whom? This one doesn't even make sense, Fenris.
1993, presumably you mean the Oslo accords. Bet you can guess what I'm gonna say…the Oslo accords being characterized as an offer is inaccurate, although not anywhere near as off base as 1967. They were negotiations, and established at least a roadmap to some kind of peaceful resolution, and I think it was more or less in good faith. However simply characterizing this as a thing that the Palestinians unilaterally rejected is nonsense. The reasons this fell apart can reasonably be attributed to, yes Hamas terror attacks [seems they never liked Oslo] and at least some public Palestinian rejection of the idea. But also Israeli extremist terror attacks, most prominently that time they killed Oslo proponent and prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, and the continued settlement by Israelis. There is more to the story, but the fact is this was never an ‘offer’, it was a negotiation and it certainly had its opponents both in Palestine and Israel.
2000, it is an absolute nightmare trying to figure out exactly what was and wasn’t offered and what was or wasn’t rejected At the Camp David Summit, to the point where I kinda just want to give you this one and never think about it again, but I won't. The best I can say is that I actually don’t know, and by all appearances whatever the truth is about exactly what happened here, it doesn't seem to be the case that Palestine merely rejected a good offer by Israel and that's that. If you want to die on this hill, go right ahead, because I can't with this one, besides it isn't important to my overall rejection of your claim.
2008, I guess what you are referring to in particular is Olmert's so-called ‘secret proposal’, and honestly I think Olmert is a legit hero for this one. Like I suppose there could be quibbling about the legitimate chances this deal had of actually being implemented given Olmert's position at the time [about to resign due to corruption charges with Likud poised to win the election}. But classifying this as Abbas walking away from a very appealing deal [especially with all things considered] isn't crazy, I mean I'd love to see the timeline where he did sign it.
So does all this mean that I conclude that it's all Israel’s fault just because it's not all Palestine's fault? Of course not, it's a long complicated history that does not lend itself to any sort of pat determination that one group is to blame for everything that happened and the other is fresh driven snow, that is not how human endeavors overwhelmingly are. I took the time and wrote all of this out because I reject your assertions that “The Palestinian were offered a state many times, in 1936, in 1947, in 1949, in 1967, in in 1993, in 2000, in 2008. And they rejected is every time.”. Your characterization is misleading and often factually at odds with recorded history.
. Yeah I'll step up to the plate to reject the claim that the Palestinian people are violent murderers that want to eradicate the Jews.
Great. Thanks for the clarity, you just sided with a bunch of insane religious fundamentalist 7th century barbarians. Now we all know who you are.
It makes sense to you to characterize Palestinians as "a bunch of insane religious fundamentalist 7th century barbarians"? If I said something similarly denigrating and sweeping about the Jewish people you would rightly accuse me of Antisemitism. Yes, I have shown you who I am, and I'm unashamed of it...You've shown clearly who you are too with this sweeping bigoted garbage.
-
I tried to edit this into my previous post, but it exceeded the maximum post length. I am somehow both proud and deeply ashamed.
So all of the Palestinians simply "want to annihilate the Jews" for being Jews and want you all dead for no reason other than your mere existence?
.
.
But your statement is a lie if non-zero fraction of the Palestinian population hates the long standing systematic oppression
It doesn't mean every single Palestinian. Not every German was a Nazi. But the German state was an enemy to the free world.
Having that knowledge-
A majority of Palestinians support Hamas. They did before the barbaric attacks on 10/7 and they still do now. If you read the Hamas charter, you'd know two things: It calls for the destruction of Israel via Jihad; and it calls for the murder of every Jew in the world.
So yes, the Palestinians as a society desire genocide. You either don't know or don't care.
I hate to leave a landmine untriggered, so, I've come back to this now that I have time to do my best to navigate your very loaded comments that require a ton more work to parse and respond to than it took you to say.
I should leave it unsaid, but once again Fenris you are proving yourself to abhor nuance. You can’t seem to help yourself anymore than I can help myself from pointing it out [perhaps that's why I can’t seem to quit you, or you me]. Anyway, let’s take this point by point.
A majority of Palestinians support Hamas. They did before the barbaric attacks on 10/7 and they still do now.
Hamas won the last Parliamentary election by a margin of 44.45% to 41.43% of the popular vote. And by all reasonable accounts this was a fair election, in 2006, nearly 20 years ago. You are free to dispute this, but this all happened in the context of the ruling party in the West Bank [Fatah] being mired in internal corruption and criticism for failure to negotiate meaningful gains under Oslo. You may take those facts as a mandate by the Palestinian people for terrorism, but it is not unreasonable to view it as a narrowly won protest vote against Fatah. So, using a nearly two-decade-old razor thin margin as proof of current popular support is, um, less than ideal imo.
Maybe you are referring to the polls? And it's true that polls by the PCPSR from mid‑2024 and early 2025 show ~ 60% of Palestinians favor Hamas over Fatah if elections were held [which again, they haven’t been since 2006]. Which is a specific question, which is important. Further, if you zoom in to how the ‘support’ breaks down, the west bank within that period was around 60% and Gaza 'support' is in the high 30’s to 40’s.That is quite a swing, and interestingly that was significantly up from overall ~20% 'support' before the October 7th terrorist attacks. According to Dr. Khalil Shikaki the director of the PCPSR, Hamas has never had majority 'support' in Gaza since they began polling back in 1993.
I know you might accuse me of rhapsodizing or worse, but like, what do we really mean by ‘support’ in the context of polls anyway? Generally it means something like ‘voting preference’, and/or ‘overall approval’ though PCPSR often asks about approval of specific actions taken [like support for the actions of Oct 7th, which peaked at 70%, which is really gross I must say].
I think it's worth noting that insofar as your average Palestinian has a choice [again, no actual elections, just polls] it is between PA -a government that is viewed as corrupt, authoritarian, unaccountable and doesn't actually get anything done - and Hamas a corrupt, authoritarian, unaccountable ‘government’, that does actually do something…something horrible, but something. It is not mere speculation to say that at least some Palestinians, living under oppressively conditions, see Hamas not necessarily as moral actors, but as a group actually actively resisting Israeli oppression. Is that an excuse for preferring to hypothetically vote for Hamas over PA? I wouldn’t say so, but it is context.
So, Like, I'm unaware of any polls that ask “Do you want to eradicate all of the Jews everywhere because you hate the Jews for being Jews—please check Yes–or–No”‘. Yes I know it’s absurd, unscientific and wildly unethical to put that on a poll, but it does illuminate an issue with over-extrapolating from polling data [or voting data for that matter]. If it isn't reasonable, ethical or scientific to ask such a question in a poll, I'd suggest that outside of maybe some very specific circumstances, poll design and conclusions; it isn’t reasonable, ethical or scientific to extrapolate a similarly specific conclusion from polling data. And that isn’t for nothing Fenris, if you intend to support the conceit that antisemitic genocide isn't just an aspect of what compels some of the Palestinian people, but the only meaningful motivating factor, then you can’t extrapolate it from polling data [or voting data for that matter]. It is crucial to the claim of antisemitism, racism or bigotry more generally–to make some reasonable determination that the hate is motivated by race or ethnicity, or some other non-fungible aspect of a person. For instance, I know you don’t like me, but the only reason I can rest at night with that knowledge is because I know that you don’t like me because I have a bad personality, and not because I'm black…I simply could not rest if I knew you hated me for the color of my skin as opposed to the content of my character.
So, what do the poll numbers tell us precisely? I’d argue that they don’t tell us precisely nothing, but they don't tell us anything precisely either. I’ve never been a fan of the blanket statements that “statistics lie”, or that “polls are useless”, but I do believe that both of these things can be used as the substance of claims that are too heavy for them to support. At the very most we can say ’support’ for Hamas is not monolithic, all encompassing, temporally consistent or consistently the majority. So I suppose depending on when and who and how you ask, and what you are willing to stake that claim on, you aren’t necessarily wrong on this particular part of your claim. However I would assert that the heavier the claims you build on top of this foundation, the weaker it becomes.
"If you read the Hamas charter, you'd know two things: It calls for the destruction of Israel via Jihad; and it calls for the murder of every Jew in the world."
I have read the Hamas charter{s}, twice now, most recently for this very post. Have you read both versions? I did. Hamas published a new one in 2017, which is still deeply hostile to Israel, but it does distinguish between Jews and Zionists, and no longer includes the 1988 charter language [taken from the hadith] that is usually cited as being about murdering Jews worldwide. I’m careful about how I say that because… I honestly found it to be a little opaque like most bible stuff that I read [I suppose I'm no better at spiritually discerning the word of Muhammad than I am at discerning the word of Abraham or Jesus], but I take it for granted that it means what the general consensus says it does–that is that it was about hunting down every single Jew and murdering them.
Is removing that language a sign that Hamas is moderating? Maybe. Maybe not. It could be a trick, a trap or a trifle, but pretending that Hamas’s 1988 charter is the one and only guiding text or the most recent is inaccurate…and I daresay misleading. I’m not saying that you should invite Hamas over for Purim brisket, but if your justification for claiming that the Palestinians want to kill every single Jew is based on ‘support’ for an organization whose charter language you're referencing was removed in 2017, then what is your justification for preferring the older language over the new? And even if you do prefer it, how do you justify the implication that the Palestinian people do as well?
"So yes, the Palestinians as a society desire genocide."
And, the prestige.
I feel like I've pretty thoroughly laid out why I believe the previous premises were flawed. So, as you may have guessed, I don’t put much stock in your conclusion. I don’t think I'm being hyperbolic here, I genuinely believe that some folks [present company under suspicion] use this as justification for the means. Once you say a people “desire genocide,” anything becomes fair game, doesn’t it? Blockades, bombings, starvation, mass displacement—why not? They’re monsters, after all.
The most lamentable part of all of this is that with very minor reconfigurations, this whole pattern, the contours and shape of this argument…seems like something people would use to justify the persecution and murder of Jews, because it literally has, it is. Yes, I have the temerity to compare the Jews to the Palestinians, not because there is some 1 to 1 equivalence of actions, ideologies or behaviors, but because the tortured reasoning, selective search, interpretation and recall, the faulty premises and flawed conclusions are a repeated pattern in justifying everything from from ethnic cleansing to slavery to antisemitism...and so on.
You either don't know or don't care.
I don’t agree with the veracity of the statements you've chosen to make. I gave you my reasoning as clearly, and in as detailed a manner as I could muster right now. You are justifiably angry, hurt and afraid, I've always gotten that much. But you are not justified in using that anger, hurt and fear to torture the truth into bigotry. It won’t help anyone… least of all you.
-
When you permit murdering terrorists to control your land, I don't give a flying Leaping Lanny Poffo what your polls or elections demonstrate. And yes, I know that there are tens of thousands of people claiming to be Christian in Palestine.
Actions talk, and bullshit walks.
Gaza is a cesspool of murderous barbarism. If the residents of Gaza do not support Hamas, then it is far past time that they put their lives on the line to stop the murderous bastards and to drive them into the Mediterranean or into the arms of Allah, as they wish.
I weary of psychobabble and apologists for terroristic, murderous, barabaric assholes. I don't like Hamas either.
My brother spent three years in Tel Aviv at the highest levels of the US State and Defense Department apparatus in Israel. He briefed every day with IDF and Mossad and spent way too many days and nights in the field with them. He still, over a year later back here in the states, wakes up in the middle of the night with PTSD and nightmares from what he actually experientially knows.
Anyone that attempts to create some false moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas is either evil, a fool, or both.
-
When you permit murdering terrorists to control your land, I don't give a flying Leaping Lanny Poffo what your polls or elections demonstrate. And yes, I know that there are tens of thousands of people claiming to be Christian in Palestine.
Actions talk, and bullshit walks.
Gaza is a cesspool of murderous barbarism. If the residents of Gaza do not support Hamas, then it is far past time that they put their lives on the line to stop the murderous bastards and to drive them into the Mediterranean or into the arms of Allah, as they wish.
I weary of psychobabble and apologists for terroristic, murderous, barabaric assholes. I don't like Hamas either.
My brother spent three years in Tel Aviv at the highest levels of the US State and Defense Department apparatus in Israel. He briefed every day with IDF and Mossad and spent way too many days and nights in the field with them. He still, over a year later back here in the states, wakes up in the middle of the night with PTSD and nightmares from what he actually experientially knows.
Anyone that attempts to create some false moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas is either evil, a fool, or both.
Phew, lucky nobody is doing that huh? Else you might have an evil fool in your midst.
-
Fortunately, I have a lot of experience with evil fools.
-
Fortunately, I have a lot of experience with evil fools.
As they say, wherever you go, there you are.
-
Fortunately, I have a lot of experience with evil fools.
As they say, wherever you go, there you are.
How clever and erudite.
I’m rubber
You’re glue
Bounce off me and stick to you.
-
Fortunately, I have a lot of experience with evil fools.
As they say, wherever you go, there you are.
How clever and erudite.
I’m rubber
You’re glue
Bounce off me and stick to you.
Hey, you started it.
-
This is an entirely different assertion.
Every other minority group in the world is allowed to assert when they feel that they are being discriminated against. You make an exception for Jews. "It's only antisemitism if I, a non Jew, determines that it is."
You're not a serious person.
Well, I think it does.
I don't care what you think. Jewish voters don't need your permission to feel threatened.
That being said, this isn't our first conversation about Israel or Jewish people, and I'm talking more about our body of work as a whole. The way you consistently read me on these topic indicates to me that you are very black and white on this issues.
Yes, I take it seriously when the public safety of Jews is being threatened. If only you took is as seriously. But hey, it isn't your ox being gored, eh?
You say I'm being oblivious, but I've consistently agreed that there was terrorism in the intifadas, as well as antisemitism, but not just that.
Why would there need to be anything else? Murder of civilians isn't enough for you? You're behaving like the pseudo historians who say "Sure Hitler murdered millions of Jews. But he also made the trains run on time! There was more to the situation than meets the eye. It was nuanced! Nuanced, I tell ya!!"
Most is not all
There were anti Nazi Germans, too. But we treated the state as though it was an enemy, which it was. Or are we going back to "Nuanced! Nuanced, I tell ya!!"
This statement is indicative of your consistent positioning of Israel as the good guy who has tried everything to be fair and just
Because they have.
That you are unable to understand the concept of more than one party being accountable and culpable.
I understand the concept. When one side wants to commit genocide, it's hard to see the "nuance" though. Eh?
1936, Taking it all the way back to British colonialism, I'm a little surprised honestly. I think it is safe to presume that you are referring to the Peel plan. Characterizing this as simply a time that the Palestinians rejected an offer of statehood is disingenuously shallow, especially considering that the Zionists rejected it too.
The Peel plan is the best one to illustrate that it's not about Israel's borders, it's Israel's existence that the Palestinians are opposed to.
The Arabs refused this map:
(https://cdn.britannica.com/67/141467-050-EA19BFB6/Partition-plan-Peel-Commission-report-1937.jpg)
Because they wouldn't tolerate a Jewish state, no matter how small. Nothing else needs be said.
It makes sense to you to characterize Palestinians as "a bunch of insane religious fundamentalist 7th century barbarians"?
That's what they're behaving like, yes. Or are we back to "Nuanced!!"?
You've shown clearly who you are too with this sweeping bigoted garbage.
It's kind of amazing. Even in Nazi Germany, there were gentiles who risked their lives to hide Jews. Not one Gaza resident has helped hide a Jew or heled a Jew escape. Not even when offered a substantial bounty on every Jewish hostage. But I'm bigoted for pointing this out. I guess I should work on my "Nuanced!!"
-
I should leave it unsaid, but once again Fenris you are proving yourself to abhor nuance.
Yes, I do.
A Holocaust survivor was once asked if he learned anything from the experience. He said yes, most certainly. When someone says that they intend to kill you, you should believe them.
Hamas won the last Parliamentary election by a margin of 44.45% to 41.43% of the popular vote. And by all reasonable accounts this was a fair election, in 2006, nearly 20 years ago. You are free to dispute this, but this all happened in the context of the ruling party in the West Bank [Fatah] being mired in internal corruption and criticism for failure to negotiate meaningful gains under Oslo. You may take those facts as a mandate by the Palestinian people for terrorism, but it is not unreasonable to view it as a narrowly won protest vote against Fatah. So, using a nearly two-decade-old razor thin margin as proof of current popular support is, um, less than ideal imo.
As RK has said, if they object to Hamas rule and want a better future for themselves, now would be a good time to show it.
As I have said, Gaza residents won't help Jewish hostages escape or hide, not even when offered vast sums of money.
So, Like, I'm unaware of any polls that ask “Do you want to eradicate all of the Jews everywhere because you hate the Jews for being Jews—please check Yes–or–No”‘. Yes I know it’s absurd, unscientific and wildly unethical to put that on a poll,
Right, I mean it would be like saying "Do you support Nazi Germany" in a poll. You don't have to add "and they're a bunch of genocidal lunatics" to make the poll accurate. Hamas whole raison detre is to annihilate Israel via Jihad and murder Jews anywhere they are found. To pretend that Gazan's don't know this is either naive or malicious.
I have read the Hamas charter{s}, twice now, most recently for this very post. Have you read both versions? I did. Hamas published a new one in 2017, which is still deeply hostile to Israel, but it does distinguish between Jews and Zionists, and no longer includes the 1988 charter language
Hamas has stated that the "new" charter does not invalidate anything in the "old" charter.
It's consumption for useful idiots.
Is removing that language a sign that Hamas is moderating?
If you said this before 10/7, I would accuse you of being naive.
Saying it after?
Once you say a people “desire genocide,” anything becomes fair game, doesn’t it? Blockades, bombings, starvation, mass displacement—why not? They’re monsters, after all.
Those are things that go on in every war fought since the dawn of human history. Every war creates misery and suffering. Unfortunately, Hamas started this war on 10/7, and now Hamas must be eradicated.
The most lamentable part of all of this is that with very minor reconfigurations, this whole pattern, the contours and shape of this argument…seems like something people would use to justify the persecution and murder of Jews, because it literally has, it is.
And, there we have it. C'mon, say what you want to say. That Israel is behaving like the Nazis. Which to me is the ultimate joke: Gentiles treated Jews badly, but it's the Jews who were supposed to have learned some moral lesson.
If any side in this war is behaving like the Nazis, it's Hamas. With their genocidal charter to murder Jews, which they published publicly and proudly. The Nazis tried to hide what they did from the world, but not Hamas. No siree Bob. They want everyone to know.
-
For instance, I know you don’t like me, but the only reason I can rest at night with that knowledge is because I know that you don’t like me because I have a bad personality, and not because I'm black…I simply could not rest if I knew you hated me for the color of my skin as opposed to the content of my character.
This deserves its own response.
I neither like nor dislike you. I don't know enough about you to formulate such opinions.
I had no knowledge of the color of your skin until you brought it up, and I simply don't care. "Are you not like the Ethiopians to Me, O children of Israel?" (Amos 9:7)
I think you're wrong, terribly wrong, on Jews, on Israel, and on the situation in the middle east. I don't know if that's because you are ignorant, or naive, or maybe just ambivalent about Jews. Many people are.
And I'm not trying to get you to change your mind, because that would be a waste of my time. But your points should not go unchallenged, because they are wrong, and some third party following this discussion might perhaps be illuminated.
-
For instance, I know you don’t like me, but the only reason I can rest at night with that knowledge is because I know that you don’t like me because I have a bad personality, and not because I'm black…I simply could not rest if I knew you hated me for the color of my skin as opposed to the content of my character.
This deserves its own response.
I neither like nor dislike you. I don't know enough about you to formulate such opinions.
I had no knowledge of the color of your skin until you brought it up, and I simply don't care. "Are you not like the Ethiopians to Me, O children of Israel?" (Amos 9:7)
I think you're wrong, terribly wrong, on Jews, on Israel, and on the situation in the middle east. I don't know if that's because you are ignorant, or naive, or maybe just ambivalent about Jews. Many people are.
And I'm not trying to get you to change your mind, because that would be a waste of my time. But your points should not go unchallenged, because they are wrong, and some third party following this discussion might perhaps be illuminated.
hm, could have sworn you said you didn't like me, but I'll take your word for it. Anyway I'm glad you did this. Also i'm certain I've mentioned being black on several occasions....nobody ever seems to remember.
Anyway My positions don't come from naivety or ignorance or ambivalence (I mean, maybe some of them--we all have blind spots) they come from looking at the word around me, and what I don't see is a world where any country or religion or group or individual can neatly fit into the category of either good or evil (even in the colloquial sense). When people talk in absolutes I'm immediately suspicious because I don't see a world full of absolutes, certainties and sharp distinctions...it is quite literally unbelievable to me that anyone. In that sense you could say that i'm thoroughly 3rd gen postmodern.
Honestly its hard to tell exactly what you think I think about the Jews. I certainly don't think that the Palestinians are evil and that seems to imply something to you about my view of Jewish people as a whole. Outside of not really believing in the concepts of good and evil in the biblical sense--I've disagreed with with you when you generalize those concepts like evil and good. I don't believe that Israel is all good, or all evil or enough of either to deem it either. The Israeli government and some of its citizens have done some pretty messed up junk and contributed to the current conditions. That doesn't mean that Israel is evil or that they are 'getting what they deserve'. It means that just like any other country the preponderance of actions taken have lead to some wonderful things, and some terrible things. You seem to take my refusal to credit Israel with good guy status as an affront, or worse as antisemitism or even worse as tacit approval of the terrorization and murder of its citizens.
I'm perfectly fine with you challenging my positions. I think its important to challenge your assertions for the same reasons you challenge mine. On that point, I think you could be more thorough in your rebuttals....for the hypothetical third party if no-one else.
-
Also i'm certain I've mentioned being black on several occasions....nobody ever seems to remember.
Because nobody cares about race here.
Anyway My positions don't come from naivety or ignorance or ambivalence
They certainly appear to.
(I mean, maybe some of them--we all have blind spots) they come from looking at the word around me, and what I don't see is a world where any country or religion or group or individual can neatly fit into the category of either good or evil (even in the colloquial sense). When people talk in absolutes I'm immediately suspicious because I don't see a world full of absolutes,
Nazi Germany: Absolutely bad? Or "nuance"?
Osama Bin Laden: Absolutely bad? Or "nuance"?
Slavery:Absolutely bad? Or "nuance"?
Hamas terrorists: Absolutely bad? Or "nuance"?
I don't believe that Israel is all good
Nobody said that Israel is "all good". No country is. Was the US "all good" during world war 2? Did it matter? They had to defeat Nazi Germany. Sometimes there isn't nuance.
You seem to take my refusal to credit Israel with good guy status as an affront, or worse as antisemitism or even worse as tacit approval of the terrorization and murder of its citizens.
Because you seem incapable of distinguishing between Israel, an imperfect but still liberal style western democracy, and Hamas, a bunch of religious fundamentalist genocidal lunatics.
This isn't difficult.
-
This is an entirely different assertion.
Every other minority group in the world is allowed to assert when they feel that they are being discriminated against. You make an exception for Jews. "It's only antisemitism if I, a non Jew, determines that it is."
You're not a serious person.
If you haven't been asserting just that this entire time, then what have you been doing? No one has stopped you from claiming that you believe Mamdani's statement was antisemitic, and the only other person consistently commenting in this thread [Rabbiknife] has basically been hype-maning you this whole time. Additionally the only time in this thread anyone was told to shut up and leave, it came from you to me.
What it seems you are implying is that no other minority groups get challenged, pushback, accusations of exaggerating & overreacting, flat out denials or disagree with at all except the Jewish people. Hell Fenris, half the American Christians on this board will assert that they are being persecuted, and that that persecution is being denied and swept under the rug or even applauded—and they aren't even remotely a minority.
I'm not about to get into a persecution Olympics competition with you, but the mere fact that you curled your fingers to type such a ridiculous thing is evidence that you haven't been paying attention to the world...like ever. If you can find someone who is pointing to a real or perceived injustice regarding their minority group you can find 4 more people with hot takes on why they are race baiting, or virtue signaling, or sjw-ing, living that victim mentality, or playing the _____ card, or being woke, or are actually the oppressors, or are doing reverse racism…and so on and so on. Like literally throw a dart board at any minority group and I'll find you more ugly criticism, ridicule and minimization of their concerns, fears and troubles than you’ll ever want to see.
If you want to argue that Jews get more than their fair share then, fine I have no desire to bother with refuting that assertion (antisemitism has always been far more widespread than the population of actual Jews) , but suggesting they are the only people in the whole wide world who have to deal with this is incorrect, and frankly bizarre,
Well, I think it does.
I don't care what you think. Jewish voters don't need your permission to feel threatened.
Again, in what universe is me thinking a thing tantamount to denying you permission to think something else? Bro, you are falling apart at the seams.
That being said, this isn't our first conversation about Israel or Jewish people, and I'm talking more about our body of work as a whole. The way you consistently read me on these topic indicates to me that you are very black and white on this issues.
Yes, I take it seriously when the public safety of Jews is being threatened. If only you took is as seriously. But hey, it isn't your ox being gored, eh?
Look, I’m willing to be convinced, but your grasp of basic facts about what things are, when stuff happened, what exactly happened and to whom, has been woefully inadequate—and none of that would matter if it wasn't the justification for why you are factually correct and i’m factually incorrect. If you were simply telling me how you feel without insisting that how I feel is an attack on your right or ability to feel how you feel then I would feel differently. But you are telling me that my opinion is doing you and all Jewish people harm on some level, and you are justifying this with a slew of inaccurate and misleaded information.
You say I'm being oblivious, but I've consistently agreed that there was terrorism in the intifadas, as well as antisemitism, but not just that.
Why would there need to be anything else? Murder of civilians isn't enough for you? You're behaving like the pseudo historians who say "Sure Hitler murdered millions of Jews. But he also made the trains run on time! There was more to the situation than meets the eye. It was nuanced! Nuanced, I tell ya!!"
Need has nothing to do with it, there is what actually occurred. You are narrowing what intifadas were just so you can support your point that intifada is "a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east". If intifada means anything above beyond or outside of that artificially truncated description then the factual basis of your argument is rendered inert. And I don't even know why you keep trying to back this up with twisted facts and misleading historical points when all you've really been saying this whole time is that you're angry and afraid. I mean hell Fenris, me too.
Most is not all
There were anti Nazi Germans, too. But we treated the state as though it was an enemy, which it was. Or are we going back to "Nuanced! Nuanced, I tell ya!!"
And saying every German was a Nazi would have still been an overgeneralization whether or not it was strategically useful to firebomb cities full of civilians. We’ve had this debate before, I don’t have to pretend that every German that was killed was a bad guy or even a Nazi sympathizer in order to understand and appreciate the wartime utility in killing them. However to me this context is the crux of the argument against genocide, otherwise why not murder every last german or japanese citizen. If it is meaningless to consider who is or isn’t an irredeemable monster, then turn the whole region into glass or, idk, pillars of salt or whatever.
This statement is indicative of your consistent positioning of Israel as the good guy who has tried everything to be fair and just
Because they have.
I don’t believe this about any group of humans, I don’t even believe this about my own dear sweet grandma.
That you are unable to understand the concept of more than one party being accountable and culpable.
I understand the concept. When one side wants to commit genocide, it's hard to see the "nuance" though. Eh?
Clearly.
1936, Taking it all the way back to British colonialism, I'm a little surprised honestly. I think it is safe to presume that you are referring to the Peel plan. Characterizing this as simply a time that the Palestinians rejected an offer of statehood is disingenuously shallow, especially considering that the Zionists rejected it too.
The Peel plan is the best one to illustrate that it's not about Israel's borders, it's Israel's existence that the Palestinians are opposed to.
The Arabs refused this map:
—-MAP REDACTED—-
Because they wouldn't tolerate a Jewish state, no matter how small. Nothing else needs be said.
So I guess you are just dropping the other 6 dates with no acknowledgement whatsoever—like I didn’t point by point disassemble your claim that “The Palestinian were offered a state many times, in 1936, in 1947, in 1949, in 1967, in in 1993, in 2000, in 2008. And they rejected it every time. I don't see why this is Israel's fault or Israel's problem to solve. “.
So outside of the fact that the Zionists rejected it too, or I should say did not agree to the plan, Lets disassemble this slightly new point. One of the main Palestinian gripes wasn't about how large a portion that Israel got, but yes in fact that Israel got anything at all. Not for nothing they believed whether erroneously or not that the British empire which was the colonizing power at the time (1915-ish) had promised them a Palestinian state whereby Israel was not a part of this original calculus at all. From the Palestinian perspective the idea of a Jewish state was reneging on the original British promise of Palestine–Moreover they didn't like being beholden to British arbitration of what would happen with the region in the first place.
But regarding the split, you showed a map, which I suppose is meant to appeal to my intuition of fairness because it looks like the Arabs get most of the land and Israel gets a small but fair portion. I mean ~70% was to go to the Arabs. An interesting point about that map is that the Israeli portion is green, and coincidentally the Israeli portion contains something like 80% of the fertile land in the region at the time. The Palestinians thought that this was an inequitable split. So not only did they feel that the British broke their promise of the land of Palestine in order to give these late coming Zionists their own country, the British planned to give them 80% of the arable land in the deal.
Now you can argue that the Palestinians should have been cool with this despite their misgivings and perceived betrayal and lack of self determination anyway in order to help the Jews, but as you said of Israel: I don't see why this is Palestine's fault or Palestine's problem to solve.
I believe that you are heavily insinuating that the Palestinians rejected this plan for antisemitic reasons, that they simply could not tolerate a Jewish state merely because it would be populated by Jews whom they hate. But even if they did (and you would have to show me some evidence of that beyond just asserting it), then its was like the 4th or 5th thing on the list. You’ve failed to even make a reasonable attempt at supporting your original point that “The Palestinian were offered a state many times, in 1936, in 1947, in 1949, in 1967, in 1993, in 2000, in 2008. And they rejected it every time. “--and you've utterly failed to support your new point with anything other than feelings about how a map looks without even acknowledging the main historically recorded issues that Palestinians actually had with the plan...and then you sort of vaguely assert antisemitism without any additional supporting evidence.
It makes sense to you to characterize Palestinians as "a bunch of insane religious fundamentalist 7th century barbarians"?
That's what they're behaving like, yes. Or are we back to "Nuanced!!"?
I never left the nuance anywhere to have to come back to it. It is safe to assume that nuance is an important aspect of pretty much anything I think.
You've shown clearly who you are too with this sweeping bigoted garbage.
It's kind of amazing. Even in Nazi Germany, there were gentiles who risked their lives to hide Jews. Not one Gaza resident has helped hide a Jew or helped a Jew escape. Not even when offered a substantial bounty on every Jewish hostage. But I'm bigoted for pointing this out. I guess I should work on my "Nuanced!!"
I mean, yeah, I think it would help you to approach this topic with more nuance. You say it like it's a dirty word, or like it will make you weaker or less capable of seeing the danger clearly, and I don't think it will. If anything I think it will help you to see more and varied dangers and help you avoid some.
Edit:
Even in Nazi Germany, there were gentiles who risked their lives to hide Jews. Not one Gaza resident has helped hide a Jew or helped a Jew escape. Not even when offered a substantial bounty on every Jewish hostage. But I'm bigoted for pointing this out.
I have to wonder how you know this? Or more precisely how you know that no Gazan has attempted such a thing unsuccessfully? Moreover Nazi Germany and Palestine are dissimilar in some fundamental ways, mainly that Nazi Germany while authoritarian was a functioning state with a functioning economy that had not been under blockade for the last 15 years or so. In Nazi Germany many people were in the socioeconomic position to Help Jews, even then, records indicate they rarely did.... and it was even rarer still for impoverished people (like the Palestinians often are) to help hide Jews.
Which brings me to the biggest difference, In the Nazi situation they were hiding Jews...hiding. And especially in the cases of poor or working class helpers these were overwhelmingly Jews that they knew, their neighbors, friends, lovers and other people they had some relationships with. I'm not pointing that out to say there is anything wrong with that, but to say that hiding your literal next door neighbor's children in your barn is a wholly different proposition from rescuing a hostage from a violent terrorist paramilitary group. Hostage rescue even for Mossad is a tough ask even though they frequent have have excellent intelligence, excellent planning, excellent training, excellent armament and excellent logistical support. It would be like if instead of August Landmesser attempting to flee Hamburg with his Jewish fiancée, he had successfully orchestrated a plan to break some unrelated Jewish woman out of Neuengamme.... A personal act of resistance born of love and proximity. Still dangerous, but emotionally and logistically grounded VS A full-blown armed extraction mission against a heavily guarded facility run by an authoritarian regime with brutal, surveillance and instant execution.
You're bigoted because your views are bigoted, but this isn't just a case of you being a bigot--You're claiming to know that no one has done a thing, even unsuccessfully, when you have no real way of actually knowing this. And you are equating hiding Jews in Germany to rescuing hostages from a brutal armed militia.
You're employing all this pretzel logic for what? To maintain that not only is military action justified, but that the enemy consists of hateful cowards that aren't even as noble as ignominious Nazis? Personally I think we broad brush or straight up lie about our enemies like this because even in this day and age of precision weapons and Geneva conventions, war is still brutal and often cruel. If they aren't monsters, we'd feel bad about killing them, and intentionally or unintentionally, directly or indirectly harming or killing civilians. I think we should be honest and we should live with the fact that we are probably going to do things in war that we should definitely feel bad about. This acknowledgment imo is one of the many useful self-checks and balances against cruelty, war crimes and genocide. Let it feel bad.
-
(I mean, maybe some of them--we all have blind spots) they come from looking at the word around me, and what I don't see is a world where any country or religion or group or individual can neatly fit into the category of either good or evil (even in the colloquial sense). When people talk in absolutes I'm immediately suspicious because I don't see a world full of absolutes,
Nazi Germany: Absolutely bad? Or "nuance"?
Osama Bin Laden: Absolutely bad? Or "nuance"?
Slavery:Absolutely bad? Or "nuance"?
Hamas terrorists: Absolutely bad? Or "nuance"?
WTH is absolute bad? I do not know what that means bro. Then "or nuance"? I'm starting to think that word does not mean what you think it means. Nuanced and bad are not antonyms. Something can be bad, unhealthy, destructive, cruel, dangerous or any number of negative things while also containing nuance or while also containing good or leading to something good.
But here, so you can be shocked at how crazy I am: Yes there is nuance to everything on your list. Moreover I could say something good about everything on that list except maybe Osama bin laden, cuz I don't really know that much about him as a person...but I guess he could grow a hell of a beard,idk.
So now that I've said that it certainly doesn't mean that I think we should bring any of those things back due to any nominal good or nuance therein. The Nazi's did some really cool science (and plenty of cruel murderous unhinged psuedoscience too), but you don't need to bring back Nazi ideology to build innovative airplanes or rockets.
You gave me this challenge, I think because, you may think that if I recognize something like the fact that the beautiful unique black American culture was in part forged by the brutal and inhumane fires of slavery, then I cannot truly repudiate the practice of slavery. Or that I'm in danger of rationalizing slavery?
I don't believe that Israel is all good
Nobody said that Israel is "all good". No country is. Was the US "all good" during world war 2? Did it matter? They had to defeat Nazi Germany. Sometimes there isn't nuance.
Actually, you're right I should have been more specific. I don't think Israel is the good guy who has done everything to be fair and just in the entire history of its dealings with the Palestinian people.
So if there is nuance to Nazi Germany then you are somehow prevented from defeating the Nazis? walk me through that logic please.
You seem to take my refusal to credit Israel with good guy status as an affront, or worse as antisemitism or even worse as tacit approval of the terrorization and murder of its citizens.
Because you seem incapable of distinguishing between Israel, an imperfect but still liberal style western democracy, and Hamas, a bunch of religious fundamentalist genocidal lunatics.
This isn't difficult.
I distinguish between them perfectly fine. What would I be doing differently if I distinguished between them correctly?
-
You're bigoted because your views are bigoted
Says the guy who can find "nuance" even in Nazi Germany.
Buh bye.
-
And see, here's the thing. It doesn't matter what you make of such a statement. You're not the subject of the statement. Jews are. It would be like someone threatening to kill their spouse, and you saying, "I don't see a problem here". Of course not, genius. You're not the spouse.
Imagine being a woman and recoiling inwardly at the thought of voting for a rapist with a history of sexual assault against women (and apparently children depending on who you believe as we have seen in the case of Schrödinger's Epstein files which exist but also not and are here, there, and everywhere, but also nowhere ... including the AG's desk but also not really).
Imagine also being an American Constitutionalist and therefore ending up voting for the same individual in 2020, for the sake of "we must have checks and balances and not one party in power of all things because that's superbad as human history has repeatedly proven".
It's never simple, but as grown-ups we must do hard, always.
If you're beholden to any party as an American voter, rather than being beholden to the Constitution, I'm not sure what to say about that.
I'm certainly not going to vote for nor against anyone on the basis of rhetoric, because political candidates use many wordy words in order to "win" some election.
I'm going to vote on the basis of the Constitution of my country that I am a citizen of, as is my civic duty, because without upholding our Constitution, we are all lawless and there IS no United States of America. We have a bedrock. And that bedrock is clear as day.
So, based on that -- where does this leave the NYC mayoral race and its candidates?
-
So, based on that -- where does this leave the NYC mayoral race and its candidates?
Hey Dani.
All the candidates in that race are terrible for one reason or another.
But Mamdani is the worst by far. Full blown socialist, anti cop and anti law and order, pro terrorist, anti semitic, and he's 33 years old and having grown up in the lap of luxury, he's never had a real job.
Basically anybody but him. But he's likely to win because it's NYC and he's the Democrat nominee.
-
You're bigoted because your views are bigoted
Says the guy who can find "nuance" even in Nazi Germany.
Buh bye.
Again, I don't think you know what the word nuance means , else you wouldn't have posed the question of "absolute bad or nuance" in the first place. You posed a meaningless question and I tried to give a nuanced answer , fully suspecting that this is how you would react. I suppose it was a fine rhetorical maneuver.
Regardless, if you want to end it here then I still maintain that you have failed to meaningfully support your claims such as "intifada is a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east" and "“The Palestinian were offered a state many times, in 1936, in 1947, in 1949, in 1967, in in 1993, in 2000, in 2008. And they rejected it every time. “. or that the Palestinian people are "a bunch of insane religious fundamentalist 7th century barbarians" or that "Israel is the good guy who has tried everything to be fair and just". You would need to support those ideas outside of my stances on nuance or the reality of good and evil in the world/
Funally, whether or not my take on Nazi's or Slavery or Osama Bin Laden or Hamas are misguided or more nuanced than any of them deserve, at least some of the views you've expressed here are still bigoted sweeping generalizations and demonization and any misguided. My views do not suddenly grant your views legitimacy, credence or make them any less bigoted...that isn't how that works.
-
So, based on that -- where does this leave the NYC mayoral race and its candidates?
Hey Dani.
All the candidates in that race are terrible for one reason or another.
But Mamdani is the worst by far. Full blown socialist, anti cop and anti law and order, pro terrorist, anti semitic, and he's 33 years old and having grown up in the lap of luxury, he's never had a real job.
Basically anybody but him. But he's likely to win because it's NYC and he's the Democrat nominee.
Hi friend!
I grew up in a semi-socialist country (former West Germany) and don't quite understand the American mentality against socialism that's been successfully implemented in so many European countries for a long time now.
I personally think the "EHRMAGERD SOCIALIST!!!!" irrational fear is mostly driven by hyper-capitalist Wall Street because they control so much of our government and don't want anyone stepping on their obscene profits.
And if they can't make "socialist" stick they automatically then jump the fence to "radical Communist/Marxist" -- whatever that means because there is definitely a Communist Party in the United States, but the Democratic Party isn't it.
I'm neither Republican nor Democrat and I'm just watching the rhetoric blow up all over the place, and to me it's just ... drama for political points.
-
Hi friend!
Welcome!
I grew up in a semi-socialist country (former West Germany) and don't quite understand the American mentality against socialism that's been successfully implemented in so many European countries for a long time now.
European countries are not socialist. They are capitalist countries with high tax rates who don't spend anything on national defense. And the high levels of government taxing and spending have killed economic growth: Since 2008, the EU's economy has grown 13% while the US economy has grown 87%. Their GDPs used to be similar, but the US GDP is now almost double the EU.
I personally think the "EHRMAGERD SOCIALIST!!!!" irrational fear is mostly driven by hyper-capitalist Wall Street because they control so much of our government and don't want anyone stepping on their obscene profits.
What's wrong with profits? People should be allowed to make as much money as they can.
And if they can't make "socialist" stick they automatically then jump the fence to "radical Communist/Marxist" -- whatever that means because there is definitely a Communist Party in the United States, but the Democratic Party isn't it.
Not yet anyway ;D
I'm neither Republican nor Democrat and I'm just watching the rhetoric blow up all over the place, and to me it's just ... drama for political points.
Mamdani is a bad person. And he's bad for NYC.
-
Bumping this up.
The Jihadi socialist Mamdani will by NYC's next mayor.
He won barely 50% of the vote, so he's governing over a very divided city. Nonetheless, he will try to enact all of his agenda anyway.
It also means that he was very beatable. Unfortunately Cuomo and Sliwa were not the ones to do it.
He got around 30% of the Jewish vote. The neighborhoods where Orthodox Jews live rejected him and strongly supported Cuomo, who got around 60% of the Jewish vote.
-
Like sheep voting for the wolf.
-
Like sheep voting for the wolf.
I've said it before. Secular Jews in America have the Jewish soul that wants to change the world. Without religion, it attaches itself to whatever is trendy.
-
I've said it before. Secular Jews in America have the Jewish soul that wants to change the world. Without religion, it attaches itself to whatever is trendy.
I just don't get 30 percent of the Jewish vote going to a guy who embraces a global intifada mentality. Then again, as you alluded to, most who voted for him are misguided secular thinkers. It's just unfortunate that right-minded folks who didn't vote for him will have to deal with the repercussions of his radical agenda.
-
One amusing thought. Should America become inhospitable for Jews, the six million Jews in America will join the seven million Jews already in Israel. And Israel won't be just a regional power anymore.
-
One amusing thought. Should America become inhospitable for Jews, the six million Jews in America will join the seven million Jews already in Israel. And Israel won't be just a regional power anymore.
Maybe our friends in Mossad can send him a new mayoral pager…
-
One amusing thought. Should America become inhospitable for Jews, the six million Jews in America will join the seven million Jews already in Israel. And Israel won't be just a regional power anymore.
Maybe our friends in Mossad can send him a new mayoral pager…
OK, I don't often literally LOL but did at this
-
The first is that historically, the political right, whether in the US or Europe, has harbored antisemitism. Things have changed, and so are voting patterns, but these things take time. Party loyalty doesn't go away in an instant.
This is a great time to revisit this topic.
Jews tend to vote Democrat because of the historical antisemitism on the political right. And an example of this right now, today, is taking place with our vice president, JD Vance.
Some backstory.
I am a registered Republican. I have always been a registered Republican. I have never voted for a Democrat for president. Having seen government power in action, firsthand, I am a strong believer in limited government.
What is my problem with JD Vance? He flirts with the antisemitic right and his statements show that he is not a friend to Jews. And it is not major statements. It's the 100 little things that he's said that show who he is.
I first noticed it when the president held a press conference to announce that he ordered a bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. Vance had a such a sour face. He looked so upset and so annoyed, almost as if it was his nuclear sites that were bombed.
He does not take antisemitism seriously. Just a couple of days ago, on the heels of the mass murder of Jews at a Chanukah celebration in Australia, he said that we need to get the illegal immigration in this country under control to manage antisemitism here. This is laughable. In Europe and Australia, most of the immigrants come from North Africa and the Middle East. That's their problem. In this country most of the immigrants come from Central and South America. This causes many problems, but antisemitism is not one of them. That crowd is if anything philosemitic. But sure, JD, bundle together a mass shooting of Jews to push your own policy preferences.
When someone asked him at a press conference by some loon if Israel controls the US government, his response was "Israel does not control this president". I see. So Israel controlled other presidents? This is an old antisemitic trope and he should have shut the questioner down, instead of using it to uptalk the administration.
He condones antisemitic figures on the right like Tucker Carlson and in fact employs Tucker's son. When asked if he thought that antisemitism was becoming worse on the political right, he rejected it out of hand. He called that question "slanderous". (That question he was willing to shut down. Weird, eh?)
This is all really a shame, because the political left is rejecting Jews. So now Jews in this country are politically homeless. I know I am.
-
Like a pervasive sociopolitical cancer, Antisemitism crosses many demographic lines and taints the thinking of individuals on the right and the left. That said, I think a majority of Protestant, conservative Christians--invariably Republicans--are almost always supportive of Israel and of Jews in general. (Unfortunately they're not as vocal or actively involved as the frenzied Jew-haters). If it's any consolation, the growing wave of anti-Israel and antisemitic sentiment fulfills prophecy, and is a reminder that we're navigating the timeline of events that culminate in the messianic age. Remember that God promises His people a glorious destination, not a smooth journey.
-
Like a pervasive sociopolitical cancer, Antisemitism crosses many demographic lines and taints the thinking of individuals on the right and the left.
This is true. Pertinent to this conversation, Vance is personification of the right wing caricature that drives Jews to vote left.
That said, I think a majority of Protestant, conservative Christians--invariably Republicans--are almost always supportive of Israel and of Jews in general.
I agree 100%.
If it's any consolation, the growing wave of anti-Israel and antisemitic sentiment fulfills prophecy, and is a reminder that we're navigating the timeline of events that culminate in the messianic age. Remember that God promises His people a glorious destination, not a smooth journey.
I agree with this statement too. It's just that... I don't know, I'm disappointed with people sometimes. My son likes to say that we know how the story ends, the only thing we can do is decide what role to play in all this. Why must so many people choose to play such a bad role?
-
That sounds much like a conversation Sam and Frodo had on the way to Mount Doom…
-
Even as we see the worst of humanity being perpetrated, it's heartening to know there are those willing to take action against it, to the point of putting their own lives in jeopardy. Syrian-Australian Muslim shop owner Ahmed al Ahmed, at the scene just enjoying a day at the beach, risked his life when he tackled one of the gunmen and wrestled the shotgun away from him. Ahmed suffered serious injuries as a result of his heroism after being fired upon by the second gunman. He's seen donations pour in totaling over 2.3 million Australian dollars (1.5 million US) to help him financially. It's great to see a glimmer of humanity's best shine during a time of its worst. Ahmed dispensed with ideological differences and did the right thing, clearly saving lives, and preventing an even worse scenario. I guess it's reassuring to be reminded that there's good to be found amidst the bad, even where you least expect it.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bondi-beach-australia-shooting-hero-ahmed-al-ahmed-donations-recovery/?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
-
Syrian-Australian Muslim shop owner Ahmed al Ahmed, at the scene just enjoying a day at the beach, risked his life when he tackled one of the gunmen and wrestled the shotgun away from him.
I agree, God bless this man for the amazing courage that he showed. But for every Ahmed al Ahmed, there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Naveed Akrams, willing to murder Jews because of the conscious choice to hate. And there are billions willing to applaud his actions, or even at best behold them in silence.
Jews believe that God made a covenant at Sinai to have the Jewish people be a moral pilot project for the world. No more blundering around in the darkness. God laid out, in very specific terms, what moral behavior He expects from humanity. And after 3300 years, after all the discrimination and bigotry, all the violence, all the expulsions and pogroms, all the attempts and successes in carrying out mass murder, I think it's appropriate to be disappointed, and to ask the world, "In all seriousness, is this really the best that you can do?"
Sigmund Freud had all sorts of detailed analysis, his attempts to understand the smallest nuances of human behavior. Yet he was able to sum up antisemitism in a single paragraph:
"As far as anti-Semitism is concerned, I don't really want to go searching for explanations for it; I have a very strong tendency to surrender to my emotions on this matter, and I find that I have received confirmation for my totally unscientific belief that humanity is for the most part quite a pathetic and miserable rabble"
I'm not looking for silver linings anymore.
-
That sounds much like a conversation Sam and Frodo had on the way to Mount Doom…
Except that this isn't fiction. The stakes are real.
-
Syrian-Australian Muslim shop owner Ahmed al Ahmed, at the scene just enjoying a day at the beach, risked his life when he tackled one of the gunmen and wrestled the shotgun away from him.
I agree, God bless this man for the amazing courage that he showed. But for every Ahmed al Ahmed, there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Naveed Akrams, willing to murder Jews because of the conscious choice to hate. And there are billions willing to applaud his actions, or even at best behold them in silence.
Jews believe that God made a covenant at Sinai to have the Jewish people be a moral pilot project for the world. No more blundering around in the darkness. God laid out, in very specific terms, what moral behavior He expects from humanity. And after 3300 years, after all the discrimination and bigotry, all the violence, all the expulsions and pogroms, all the attempts and successes in carrying out mass murder, I think it's appropriate to be disappointed, and to ask the world, "In all seriousness, is this really the best that you can do?"
Sigmund Freud had all sorts of detailed analysis, his attempts to understand the smallest nuances of human behavior. Yet he was able to sum up antisemitism in a single paragraph:
"As far as anti-Semitism is concerned, I don't really want to go searching for explanations for it; I have a very strong tendency to surrender to my emotions on this matter, and I find that I have received confirmation for my totally unscientific belief that humanity is for the most part quite a pathetic and miserable rabble"
I'm not looking for silver linings anymore.
I completely understand, and empathize. The bottom line is, God confers free will upon everyone to use for good or bad--but will one day judge all accordingly.